IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v51y2001i2p367-386.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conditioning Capacities and Choquet Integrals: The Role of Comonotony

Author

Listed:
  • Alain Chateauneuf
  • Robert Kast
  • André Lapied

Abstract

Choquet integrals and capacities play a crucial role in modern decision theory. Comonotony is a central concept for these theories because the main property of a Choquet integral is its additivity for comonotone functions. We consider a Choquet integral representation of preferences showing uncertainty aversion (pessimism) and propose axioms on time consistency which yield a candidate for conditional Choquet integrals. An other axiom characterizes the role of comonotony in the use of information. We obtain two conditioning rules for capacities which amount to the well-known Bayes' and Dempster–Schafer's updating rules. We are allowed to interpret both of them as a lack of confidence in information in a dynamic extension of pessimism. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Suggested Citation

  • Alain Chateauneuf & Robert Kast & André Lapied, 2001. "Conditioning Capacities and Choquet Integrals: The Role of Comonotony," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 367-386, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:51:y:2001:i:2:p:367-386
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1015567329595
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1015567329595
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1015567329595?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    2. Gilboa Itzhak & Schmeidler David, 1993. "Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 33-49, February.
    3. Cohen, M. & Gilboa, I. & Jaffray, J.Y. & Schmeidler, D., 2000. "An experimental study of updating ambiguous beliefs," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 123-133, June.
    4. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    5. Kast, R. & Lapied, A., 1997. "A Decision Theoretic Approach to Bid-Ask Spreads," G.R.E.Q.A.M. 97a17, Universite Aix-Marseille III.
    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. André Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2011. "Dynamically consistent CEU preferences," Working Papers halshs-00856193, HAL.
    2. Brice Mayag & Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2009. "A characterization of the 2-additive Choquet integral through cardinal information," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00445132, HAL.
    3. André Lapied & Thomas Rongiconi, 2013. "Ambiguity as a Source of Temptation: Modeling Unstable Beliefs," Working Papers halshs-00797631, HAL.
    4. Robert Kast & André Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2012. "Updating Choquet capacities: a general framework," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(2), pages 1495-1503.
    5. André Lapied & Pascal Tocquebeuf, 2007. "Consistent Dynamice Choice And Non-Expected Utility Preferences," Working Papers halshs-00353880, HAL.
    6. Robert Kast & André Lapied, 2010. "Valuing future cash flows with non separable discount factors and non additive subjective measures: conditional Choquet capacities on time and on uncertainty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 27-53, July.
    7. Robert Kast & André Lapied, 2007. "Dynamically Consistent Conditional Choquet Capacities," ICER Working Papers - Applied Mathematics Series 20-2007, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    8. Tarik Driouchi & Lenos Trigeorgis & Raymond H. Y. So, 2018. "Option implied ambiguity and its information content: Evidence from the subprime crisis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 262(2), pages 463-491, March.
    9. André Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2013. "A note on “Re-examining the law of iterated expectations for Choquet decision makers”," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 439-445, March.
    10. Brice Mayag & Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2011. "A representation of preferences by the Choquet integral with respect to a 2-additive capacity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 297-324, September.
    11. Robert Kast & André Lapied & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2008. "Updating Choquet Integrals , Consequentialism and Dynamic Consistency," ICER Working Papers - Applied Mathematics Series 04-2008, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    12. Rossella Agliardi, 2017. "Asymmetric Choquet random walks and ambiguity aversion or seeking," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(4), pages 591-602, December.
    13. André Lapied & Robert Kast, 2005. "Updating Choquet valuation and discounting information arrivals," Working Papers 05-09, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jan 2005.
    14. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2005:i:10:p:1-6 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Giulianella Coletti & Davide Petturiti & Barbara Vantaggi, 2019. "Dutch book rationality conditions for conditional preferences under ambiguity," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 279(1), pages 115-150, August.
    16. Lapied, André & Toquebeuf, Pascal, 2012. "Dynamically consistent CEU preferences on f-convex events," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 252-256.
    17. Driouchi, Tarik & So, Raymond H.Y. & Trigeorgis, Lenos, 2020. "Investor ambiguity, systemic banking risk and economic activity: The case of too-big-to-fail," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    18. Nicolas Aubert & Bernard Grand & André Lapied & Patrick Rousseau, 2009. "Is employee ownership so senseless," Finance, Presses universitaires de Grenoble, vol. 30(2), pages 5-29.
    19. Takashi Ui & Atsushi Kajii, 2005. "Equivalence of the Dempster-Shafer rule and the maximum likelihood rule implies convexity," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(10), pages 1-6.

    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. André Lapied & Robert Kast, 2005. "Updating Choquet valuation and discounting information arrivals," Working Papers 05-09, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jan 2005.
    2. Robert Kast & André Lapied, 2010. "Valuing future cash flows with non separable discount factors and non additive subjective measures: conditional Choquet capacities on time and on uncertainty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 27-53, July.
    3. 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.
    4. Alexander Ludwig & Alexander Zimper, 2013. "A decision-theoretic model of asset-price underreaction and overreaction to dividend news," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 625-665, November.
    5. Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2014. "Biased Bayesian learning with an application to the risk-free rate puzzle," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 79-97.
    6. Marciano Siniscalchi, 2001. "Bayesian Updating for General Maxmin Expected Utility Preferences," Discussion Papers 1366, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    7. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Do Bayesians Learn Their Way Out of Ambiguity?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 269-285, December.
    8. André Lapied & Robert Kast, 2010. "Dynamically consistent Choquet random walk and real investments," Working Papers 10-21, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised 2010.
    9. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Umut Keskin & Olivier l’Haridon & Chen Li, 2018. "The Effect of Learning on Ambiguity Attitudes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2181-2198, May.
    10. Mayumi Horie, 2007. "A General Update Rule for Convex Capacities," KIER Working Papers 644, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    11. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.
    12. Zimper, Alexander, 2009. "Half empty, half full and why we can agree to disagree forever," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 283-299, August.
    13. Georgalos, Konstantinos, 2021. "Dynamic decision making under ambiguity: An experimental investigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 28-46.
    14. Jean-Philippe Lefort, 2006. "Comparison of experts in the non-additive case," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques b06088, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    15. Roger, Patrick, 2000. "Properties of bid and ask reservation prices in the rank-dependent expected utility model," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 269-285, November.
    16. Alberto Naudon & Matías Tapia, 2004. "Ignorance, Fixed Costs, and the Stock Market Participation Puzzle," Econometric Society 2004 Latin American Meetings 252, Econometric Society.
    17. Alexander Zimper, 2012. "The emergence of “fifty-fifty” probability judgements in a conditional Savage world," Working Papers 291, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    18. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Umut Keskin & Olivier L'Haridon & Author-Name: Chen Li, 2013. "Learning under ambiguity: An experiment using initial public offerings on a stock market," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes 1 & University of Caen) 201331, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes 1, University of Caen and CNRS.
    19. 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.
    20. Konstantinos Georgalos, 2019. "An experimental test of the predictive power of dynamic ambiguity models," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 51-83, August.

    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:kap:theord:v:51:y:2001:i:2:p:367-386. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.