IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v162y2005i2p450-467.html

Two axiomatic approaches to decision making using possibility theory

Author

Listed:
  • Giang, Phan H.
  • Shenoy, Prakash P.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Giang, Phan H. & Shenoy, Prakash P., 2005. "Two axiomatic approaches to decision making using possibility theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(2), pages 450-467, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:162:y:2005:i:2:p:450-467
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(03)00673-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarin, Rakesh K & Wakker, Peter, 1992. "A Simple Axiomatization of Nonadditive Expected Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(6), pages 1255-1272, November.
    2. Peter C. Fishburn, 1974. "Exceptional Paper--Lexicographic Orders, Utilities and Decision Rules: A Survey," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(11), pages 1442-1471, July.
    3. Dubois, Didier & Prade, Henri & Sabbadin, Regis, 2001. "Decision-theoretic foundations of qualitative possibility theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 459-478, February.
    4. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guezguez, Wided & Ben Amor, Nahla & Mellouli, Khaled, 2009. "Qualitative possibilistic influence diagrams based on qualitative possibilistic utilities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(1), pages 223-238, May.
    2. Andrew J. Keith & Darryl K. Ahner, 2021. "A survey of decision making and optimization under uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 300(2), pages 319-353, May.
    3. Manuele Leonelli & Jim Q. Smith, 2017. "Directed Expected Utility Networks," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 108-125, June.
    4. Guo, Peijun, 2019. "Focus theory of choice and its application to resolving the St. Petersburg, Allais, and Ellsberg paradoxes and other anomalies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1034-1043.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jürgen Eichberger & Simon Grant & David Kelsey, 2012. "When is ambiguity–attitude constant?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 239-263, December.
    2. Zimper, Alexander, 2012. "Asset pricing in a Lucas fruit-tree economy with the best and worst in mind," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 610-628.
    3. Ehud Lehrer, 2009. "A new integral for capacities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 39(1), pages 157-176, April.
    4. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Re-examining the law of iterated expectations for Choquet decision makers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 669-677, October.
    5. Adam Dominiak & Wendelin Schnedler, 2011. "Attitudes toward uncertainty and randomization: an experimental study," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 289-312, October.
    6. Klaus Nehring, 2006. "Decision-Making in the Context of Imprecise Probabilistic Beliefs," Economics Working Papers 0034, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    7. Yoram Halevy & Vincent Feltkamp, 2005. "A Bayesian Approach to Uncertainty Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(2), pages 449-466.
    8. Jean-Pascal Gayant, 1998. "Arguments graphiques simples pour comprendre la spécification du modèle d’espérance non additive d’utilité et l’intégrale de Choquet," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 74(2), pages 183-195.
    9. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7323 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Ramon Casadesus-Masanell & Peter Klibanoff & Emre Ozdenoren, 1998. "Maximum Expected Utility over Savage Acts with a Set of Priors," Discussion Papers 1218, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    11. Marinacci, Massimo, 2000. "Ambiguous Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 191-219, May.
    12. Izhakian, Yehuda, 2020. "A theoretical foundation of ambiguity measurement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    13. Casadesus-Masanell, Ramon & Klibanoff, Peter & Ozdenoren, Emre, 2000. "Maxmin Expected Utility over Savage Acts with a Set of Priors," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 35-65, May.
    14. repec:rza:wpaper:240 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Dominiak, Adam & Lee, Min Suk, 2017. "Coherent Dempster–Shafer equilibrium and ambiguous signals," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 42-54.
    16. Michel Grabisch & Benjamin Monet & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2023. "Subjective expected utility through stochastic independence," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 76(3), pages 723-757, October.
    17. Leon Vinokur, 2009. "Environmental Policy under Ambiguity," Working Papers 638, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    18. Ronald Stauber, 2019. "A strategic product for belief functions," ANU Working Papers in Economics and Econometrics 2019-668, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics.
    19. Chakravarty, Surajeet & Kelsey, David, 2015. "Sharing ambiguous risks," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 1-8.
    20. J L Ford & David Kelsey & W Pang, 2005. "Ambiguity in Financial Markets: Herding and Contrarian Behaviour," Discussion Papers 05-11, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    21. Philippe, Fabrice, 2000. "Cumulative prospect theory and imprecise risk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 237-263, November.
    22. Guido Fioretti, 2004. "Evidence Theory: A Mathematical Framework For Unpredictable Hypotheses," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 345-366, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:162:y:2005:i:2:p:450-467. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.