Benchmarking real-valued acts
AbstractA benchmarking procedure ranks real-valued acts by the probability that they outperform a benchmark B; that is, an act f is evaluated by means of the functional V(f) = P(f > B). Expected utility is a special case of benchmarking procedure, where the acts and the benchmark are stochastically independent. This paper provides axiomatic characterizations of preference relations that are representable as benchmarking procedures. The key axiom is the sure-thing principle. When the state space is infinite, different continuity assumptions translate into different properties of the probability P.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by EconWPA in its series Microeconomics with number 0502001.
Length: 22 pages
Date of creation: 02 Feb 2005
Date of revision:
Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 22
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://184.108.40.206
sure-thing principle; state-dependent expected utility; measure representation approach; target-based reasoning;
Other versions of this item:
- D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2005-04-16 (All new papers)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Hong, Chew Soo & Wakker, Peter, 1996. "The Comonotonic Sure-Thing Principle," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 5-27, January.
- LiCalzi, Marco, 1998. "Variations on the measure representation approach," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 255-269, April.
- Robert Bordley & Marco LiCalzi, 2000. "Decision analysis using targets instead of utility functions," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 53-74.
- Chateauneuf, Alain, 1999. "Comonotonicity axioms and rank-dependent expected utility theory for arbitrary consequences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 21-45, August.
- Wakker, Peter, 1993. " Counterexamples to Segal's Measure Representation Theorem," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 91-98, January.
- Segal, Uzi, 1993.
" The Measure Representation: A Correction,"
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,
Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 99-107, January.
- Erio Castagnoli & Marco LiCalzi, 2005. "Expected utility without utility," Game Theory and Information 0508004, EconWPA.
- Gerard Debreu, 1959. "Topological Methods in Cardinal Utility Theory," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 76, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Brian, HILL, 2007.
"An additively separable representation in the Savage framework,"
Les Cahiers de Recherche
882, HEC Paris.
- Hill, Brian, 2010. "An additively separable representation in the Savage framework," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 2044-2054, September.
- Enrico G. De Giorgi & David B. Brown & Melvyn Sim, 2010. "Dual representation of choice and aspirational preferences," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2010 2010-07, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.