IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Case-based belief formation under ambiguity

  • Eichberger, Jürgen
  • Guerdjikova, Ani

In this paper, we consider a decision maker who tries to learn the distribution of outcomes from previously observed cases. For each observed database of cases the decision maker predicts a set of priors expressing his beliefs about the underlying probability distribution. We impose a version of the concatenation axiom introduced in Billot et al. (2005) which ensures that the sets of priors can be represented as a weighted sum of the observed frequencies of cases. The weights are the uniquely determined similarities between the observed cases and the case under investigation. The predicted probabilities, however, may vary with the number of observations. This generalization of Billot et al. (2005) allows one to model learning processes.

If 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.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V88-50M1RP9-1/2/3e360655a03c00c6a2c8ec141cd90cee
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 under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Mathematical Social Sciences.

Volume (Year): 60 (2010)
Issue (Month): 3 (November)
Pages: 161-177

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:60:y:2010:i:3:p:161-177
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505565

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.:

as in new window
  1. Gajdos, T. & Hayashi, T. & Tallon, J.-M. & Vergnaud, J.-C., 2008. "Attitude toward imprecise information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 27-65, May.
  2. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521003117 is not listed on IDEAS
  3. Antoine Billot & Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler & Dov Samet, 2004. "Probabilities as Similarity-Weighted Frequencies," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1492, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
  4. Larry G. Epstein & Martin Schneider, 2007. "Learning Under Ambiguity," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(4), pages 1275-1303.
  5. Itzhak Gilboa & Offer Lieberman & David Schmeidler, 2004. "Empirical Similarity," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000684, UCLA Department of Economics.
  6. David Schmeidler, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7662, David K. Levine.
  7. Manski, Charles F., 2000. "Identification problems and decisions under ambiguity: Empirical analysis of treatment response and normative analysis of treatment choice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 415-442, April.
  8. Daniel Ellsberg, 2000. "Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7605, David K. Levine.
  9. Sujoy Mukerji & Peter Klibanoff, 2002. "A Smooth Model of Decision,Making Under Ambiguity," Economics Series Working Papers 113, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
  10. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521517324 is not listed on IDEAS
  11. Truman F. Bewley, 1986. "Knightian Decision Theory: Part 1," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 807, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
  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. Ghirardato, Paolo & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2004. "Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 133-173, October.
  14. David Schmeidler, 2000. "Utility in Case-Based Decision Theory," Working Papers 00-06, Ohio State University, Department of Economics.
  15. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521741231 is not listed on IDEAS
  16. Eichberger, Jürgen & Guerdjikova, Ani, 2008. "Case-Based Expected Utility: Preferences over Actions and Data," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 08-32, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
  17. David S. Ahn, 2008. "Ambiguity Without a State Space," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(1), pages 3-28.
  18. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521802345 is not listed on IDEAS
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:60:y:2010:i:3:p:161-177. 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 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.