IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v57y2006i2p236-253.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benchmarking real-valued acts

Author

Listed:
  • Castagnoli, Erio
  • LiCalzi, Marco

Abstract

A 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.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Castagnoli, Erio & LiCalzi, Marco, 2006. "Benchmarking real-valued acts," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 236-253, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:57:y:2006:i:2:p:236-253
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899-8256(05)00126-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Segal, Uzi, 1993. "The Measure Representation: A Correction," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 99-107, January.
    2. Wakker, Peter, 1993. "Counterexamples to Segal's Measure Representation Theorem," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 91-98, January.
    3. Robert Bordley & Marco LiCalzi, 2000. "Decision analysis using targets instead of utility functions," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 23(1), pages 53-74.
    4. W. M. Gorman, 1968. "The Structure of Utility Functions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 35(4), pages 367-390.
    5. Gerard Debreu, 1959. "Topological Methods in Cardinal Utility Theory," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 76, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    6. Veronika Köbberling & Peter P. Wakker, 2003. "Preference Foundations for Nonexpected Utility: A Generalized and Simplified Technique," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 395-423, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Hong, Chew Soo & Wakker, Peter, 1996. "The Comonotonic Sure-Thing Principle," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 5-27, January.
    9. LiCalzi, Marco, 1998. "Variations on the measure representation approach," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 255-269, April.
    10. Peter P. Wakker & Horst Zank, 1999. "State Dependent Expected Utility for Savage's State Space," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 8-34, February.
    11. Erio Castagnoli & Marco LiCalzi, 2005. "Expected utility without utility," Game Theory and Information 0508004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    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. Athanasoglou, Stergios & Bosetti, Valentina & Drouet, Laurent, 2017. "A Simple Framework for Climate-Change Policy under Model Uncertainty," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 254043, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    2. Stanca, Lorenzo, 2020. "A simplified approach to subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 151-160.
    3. Hill, Brian, 2010. "An additively separable representation in the Savage framework," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 2044-2054, September.
    4. Michel Denuit & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2010. "Bivariate Stochastic Dominance and Substitute Risk-(In)dependent Utilities," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 302-312, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Edoardo Berton & Alessandro Doldi & Marco Maggis, 2024. "On conditioning and consistency for nonlinear functionals," Papers 2401.09054, arXiv.org, revised May 2024.
    7. Marco Maggis & Andrea Maran, 2018. "Stochastic Dynamic Utilities and Inter-Temporal Preferences," Papers 1803.05244, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2020.
    8. Alfio Giarlotta & Angelo Petralia, 2024. "Simon’s bounded rationality," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 47(1), pages 327-346, June.
    9. David B. Brown & Enrico De Giorgi & Melvyn Sim, 2012. "Aspirational Preferences and Their Representation by Risk Measures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(11), pages 2095-2113, November.

    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. LiCalzi, Marco, 1998. "Variations on the measure representation approach," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 255-269, April.
    2. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    3. Dean, Mark & Ortoleva, Pietro, 2017. "Allais, Ellsberg, and preferences for hedging," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), January.
    4. Katarzyna M. Werner & Horst Zank, 2019. "A revealed reference point for prospect theory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 67(4), pages 731-773, June.
    5. H Zank, 2004. "Deriving Rank-Dependent Expected Utility Through Probabilistic Consistency," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0409, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    6. Thibault Gajdos & John Weymark, 2005. "Multidimensional generalized Gini indices," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 26(3), pages 471-496, October.
    7. Hill, Brian, 2010. "An additively separable representation in the Savage framework," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 2044-2054, September.
    8. Lorenzo Bastianello & Marco LiCalzi, 2015. "Target-based solutions for Nash bargaining," Working Papers 5, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    9. LiCalzi, Marco & Sorato, Annamaria, 2006. "The Pearson system of utility functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 560-573, July.
    10. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    11. Segal, Uzi & Sobel, Joel, 2002. "Min, Max, and Sum," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 126-150, September.
    12. Katarzyna Werner & Horst Zank, 2012. "Foundations for Prospect Theory Through Probability Midpoint Consistency," Economics Discussion Paper Series 1210, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    13. Rodríguez-Míguez, Eva & Herrero, Carmen & Pinto-Prades, José Luis, 2004. "Using a point system in the management of waiting lists: the case of cataracts," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 585-594, August.
    14. Marek Hudik, 0. "Equilibrium as compatibility of plans," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    15. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 2002. "A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1253-1271, July.
    16. Grant, Simon & Kajii, Atsushi, 1998. "AUSI expected utility: An anticipated utility theory of relative disappointment aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 277-290, November.
    17. Lucy Gongtao Chen & Daniel Zhuoyu Long & Melvyn Sim, 2015. "On Dynamic Decision Making to Meet Consumption Targets," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1117-1130, October.
    18. Wenqing Chen & Melvyn Sim, 2009. "Goal-Driven Optimization," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(2), pages 342-357, April.
    19. Robert Bordley & Marco Licalzi & Luisa Tibiletti, 2017. "A Target-Based Foundation for the “Hard-Easy Effect” Bias," Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, in: Mehmet Huseyin Bilgin & Hakan Danis & Ender Demir & Ugur Can (ed.), Country Experiences in Economic Development, Management and Entrepreneurship, pages 659-671, Springer.
    20. Michel Denuit & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2010. "Bivariate Stochastic Dominance and Substitute Risk-(In)dependent Utilities," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 302-312, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:gamebe:v:57:y:2006:i:2:p:236-253. 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/inca/622836 .

    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.