Foundations of neo-Bayesian statistics
We study an axiomatic model of preferences, which contains as special cases Subjective Expected Utility, Choquet Expected Utility, Maxmin and Maxmax Expected Utility and many other models. First, we give a complete characterization of the class of functionals representing these preferences. Then, we show that any such functional can be represented as a Choquet integral where is the canonical mapping from the space of bounded [Sigma]-measurable functions into the space of weak*-continuous affine functions on a weak*-compact, convex set of probability measures on [Sigma]. Conversely, any preference relation defined by means of such functionals satisfies the axioms of the model we study. Different properties of the capacity give rise to different models. Our result shows that the idea of Choquet integration is general enough to embrace all the models mentioned above. In doing so, it widens the range of applicability of well-known procedures in robust statistics theory such as the Neyman-Pearson lemma for capacities [P.J. Huber, V. Strassen, Minimax tests and the Neyman-Pearson lemma for capacities, Ann. Statist. 1 (1973) 251-263], Bayes' theorem for capacities [J.B. Kadane, L. Wasserman, Bayes' theorem for Choquet capacities, Ann. Statist. 18 (1990) 1328-1339] or of results like the Law of Large numbers for capacities [F. Maccheroni, M. Marinacci, A strong law of large numbers for capacities, Ann. Probab. 33 (2005) 1171-1178].
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Paolo Ghirardato & Massimo Marinacci, 2000.
"Risk, Ambiguity, and the Separation of Utility and Beliefs,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7616, David K. Levine.
- Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2000. "Risk, Ambigity and the Separation of Utility and Beliefs," Working Papers 1085, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Paolo Ghirardato & Massimo Marinacci, 2000. "Risk, Ambiguity and the Separation of Utility and Beliefs," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1143, Econometric Society.
- Massimo Marinacci & Paolo Ghirardato, 2001. "Risk, ambiguity, and the separation of utility and beliefs," ICER Working Papers - Applied Mathematics Series 21-2001, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
- F J Anscombe & R J Aumann, 2000. "A Definition of Subjective Probability," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7591, David K. Levine.
- David Schmeidler, 1989.
"Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7662, David K. Levine.
- Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-87, May.
- Ghirardato, Paolo & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2004. "Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 133-173, October.
- Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
- Massimo Marinacci, 2002. "Learning from ambiguous urns," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 143-151, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:144:y:2009:i:5:p:2146-2173. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.