IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v60y2010i2p119-122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On comparison of non-Bayesian experts

Author

Listed:
  • Teper, Roee

Abstract

An expert, trying to assess the true distribution over the states of nature, is associated with a preference relation over utility bundles. He prefers f to g if he believes that, according to the true distribution, the expected utility of f is greater than that of g. Expert I is said to be more knowledgeable than expert II (Lefort, 2009) if, between the two experts, it is always beneficial to follow his advice. It is shown that if experts' maxmin preferences are induced by information consistent with the true distribution, then in most cases an expert having more information is not more knowledgeable.

Suggested Citation

  • Teper, Roee, 2010. "On comparison of non-Bayesian experts," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 119-122, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:60:y:2010:i:2:p:119-122
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165-4896(10)00050-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lehrer, Ehud, 1998. "Comparison of experts," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 207-214, September.
    2. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    3. Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2009. "Guessing the beliefs," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(12), pages 846-853, December.
    4. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    5. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7322 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Philippe Artzner & Freddy Delbaen & Jean‐Marc Eber & David Heath, 1999. "Coherent Measures of Risk," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 203-228, July.
    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. Aurélien Baillon & Laure Cabantous & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Aggregating imprecise or conflicting beliefs: An experimental investigation using modern ambiguity theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 115-147, April.

    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. Grant, Simon & Polak, Ben, 2013. "Mean-dispersion preferences and constant absolute uncertainty aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1361-1398.
    2. Knispel, Thomas & Laeven, Roger J.A. & Svindland, Gregor, 2016. "Robust optimal risk sharing and risk premia in expanding pools," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 182-195.
    3. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2021. "A measure of ambiguity (Knightian uncertainty)," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 153-171, September.
    4. Moti Michaeli, 2014. "Riskiness for sets of gambles," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(3), pages 515-547, August.
    5. Luciano de Castro & Antonio F. Galvao & Gabriel Montes-Rojas & Jose Olmo, 2022. "Portfolio selection in quantile decision models," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 133-181, June.
    6. Azrieli, Yaron & Teper, Roee, 2011. "Uncertainty aversion and equilibrium existence in games with incomplete information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 310-317.
    7. Chambers, Robert G. & Grant, Simon & Polak, Ben & Quiggin, John, 2014. "A two-parameter model of dispersion aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 611-641.
    8. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    9. Ji, Ronglin & Shi, Xuejun & Wang, Shijie & Zhou, Jinming, 2019. "Dynamic risk measures for processes via backward stochastic differential equations," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 43-50.
    10. Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo & Montrucchio, Luigi, 2012. "Probabilistic sophistication, second order stochastic dominance and uncertainty aversion," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 271-283.
    11. ,, 2014. "Second order beliefs models of choice under imprecise risk: non-additive second order beliefs vs. nonlinear second order utility," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(3), September.
    12. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    13. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    14. Jingyi Xue, 2020. "Preferences with changing ambiguity aversion," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 69(1), pages 1-60, February.
    15. Schumacher Johannes M., 2018. "Distortion risk measures, ROC curves, and distortion divergence," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 35(1-2), pages 35-50, January.
    16. Qian Lin & Frank Riedel, 2021. "Optimal consumption and portfolio choice with ambiguous interest rates and volatility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(3), pages 1189-1202, April.
    17. Daniele Pennesi, 2013. "Endogenous Status Quo," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 314, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    18. Marciano Siniscalchi, 2009. "Vector Expected Utility and Attitudes Toward Variation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 801-855, May.
    19. Robert Nau, 2001. "De Finetti was Right: Probability Does Not Exist," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 89-124, December.
    20. 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.

    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:matsoc:v:60:y:2010:i:2:p:119-122. 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/505565 .

    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.