IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v72y2012i1p15-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ambiguity aversion in multi-armed bandit problems

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Anderson

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Anderson, 2012. "Ambiguity aversion in multi-armed bandit problems," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 15-33, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:72:y:2012:i:1:p:15-33
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-011-9259-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11238-011-9259-2
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-011-9259-2?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. Klibanoff, Peter & Marinacci, Massimo & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2009. "Recursive smooth ambiguity preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 930-976, May.
    2. Robin M. Hogarth & Hillel J. Einhorn, 1990. "Venture Theory: A Model of Decision Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(7), pages 780-803, July.
    3. Noah Gans & George Knox & Rachel Croson, 2007. "Simple Models of Discrete Choice and Their Performance in Bandit Experiments," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 383-408, December.
    4. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    5. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
    6. Braunstein, Yale M & Schotter, Andrew, 1982. "Labor Market Search: An Experimental Study," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 20(1), pages 133-144, January.
    7. Robert J. Meyer & Yong Shi, 1995. "Sequential Choice Under Ambiguity: Intuitive Solutions to the Armed-Bandit Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(5), pages 817-834, May.
    8. Yoram Halevy, 2007. "Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 503-536, March.
    9. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    10. Cox, James C & Oaxaca, Ronald L, 1989. "Laboratory Experiments with a Finite-Horizon Job-Search Model," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 301-329, September.
    11. Schotter, Andrew & Braunstein, Yale M, 1981. "Economic Search: An Experimental Study," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 19(1), pages 1-25, January.
    12. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    13. Jeffrey Banks & David Porter & Mark Olson, 1997. "An experimental analysis of the bandit problem," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 10(1), pages 55-77.
    14. Cox, James C & Oaxaca, Ronald L, 1992. "Direct Tests of the Reservation Wage Property," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(415), pages 1423-1432, November.
    15. John W. Pratt & David A. Wise & Richard Zeckhauser, 1979. "Price Differences in almost Competitive Markets," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 93(2), pages 189-211.
    16. Traeger, Christian P., 2010. "Subjective Risk, Confidence, and Ambiguity," CUDARE Working Papers 90461, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    17. Hey, John D., 1987. "Still searching," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 137-144, March.
    18. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    19. repec:cdl:agrebk:1326487 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. James Cox & Ronald Oaxaca, 2000. "Good News and Bad News: Search from Unknown Wage Offer Distributions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(3), pages 197-225, March.
    21. Kahn, Barbara E & Sarin, Rakesh K, 1988. "Modeling Ambiguity in Decisions under Uncertainty," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(2), pages 265-272, September.
    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. Farzad Pourbabaee, 2022. "Robust experimentation in the continuous time bandit problem," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 73(1), pages 151-181, February.
    2. Cosmin Ilut & Rosen Valchev & Nicolas Vincent, 2020. "Paralyzed by Fear: Rigid and Discrete Pricing Under Demand Uncertainty," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(5), pages 1899-1938, September.
    3. W. Kip Viscusi & Scott DeAngelis, 2018. "Decision irrationalities involving deadly risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 225-252, December.
    4. Oliveira, Fernando S. & Costa, Manuel L.G., 2018. "Capacity expansion under uncertainty in an oligopoly using indirect reinforcement-learning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(3), pages 1039-1050.
    5. Li, Jian, 2019. "The K-armed bandit problem with multiple priors," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 22-38.
    6. Pierpaolo Battigalli & Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci, 2015. "Self-Confirming Equilibrium and Model Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(2), pages 646-677, February.
    7. Shaun Larcom & Ferdinand Rauch & Tim Willems, 2017. "The Benefits of Forced Experimentation: Striking Evidence from the London Underground Network," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(4), pages 2019-2055.
    8. Hu, Yingyao & Kayaba, Yutaka & Shum, Matthew, 2013. "Nonparametric learning rules from bandit experiments: The eyes have it!," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 215-231.
    9. Johannes Hoelzemann & Nicolas Klein, 2021. "Bandits in the lab," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), pages 1021-1051, July.
    10. Jean Paul Rabanal & Aleksei Chernulich & John Horowitz & Olga A. Rud & Manizha Sharifova, 2019. "Market timing under public and private information," Working Papers 151, Peruvian Economic Association.
    11. Battigalli, P. & Francetich, A. & Lanzani, G. & Marinacci, M., 2019. "Learning and self-confirming long-run biases," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 740-785.
    12. Hudja, Stanton, 2021. "Is Experimentation Invariant to Group Size? A Laboratory Analysis of Innovation Contests," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    13. Farzad Pourbabaee, 2021. "Robust Experimentation in the Continuous Time Bandit Problem," Papers 2104.00102, arXiv.org.
    14. Oyarzun, Carlos & Sanjurjo, Adam & Nguyen, Hien, 2017. "Response functions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 1-31.

    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. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.
    2. Christoph Bühren & Fabian Meier & Marco Pleßner, 2023. "Ambiguity aversion: bibliometric analysis and literature review of the last 60 years," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 495-525, June.
    3. David Ahn & Syngjoo Choi & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2014. "Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 5, pages 195-223, July.
    4. John D. Hey & Noemi Pace, 2018. "The explanatory and predictive power of non two-stage-probability theories of decision making under ambiguity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 6, pages 139-167, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Sergio Almeida & Marcos Rangel, 2016. "Probabilistic Sophistication, Sources Of Uncertainty, And Cognitive Ability: Experimental Evidence," Anais do XLII Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 42nd Brazilian Economics Meeting] 131, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    6. Nicolas Jacquemet & Olivier L’Haridon & Isabelle Vialle, 2014. "Marché du travail, évaluation et économie expérimentale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(1), pages 189-226.
    7. Stephen G. Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Ambiguity Attitudes in a Large Representative Sample," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1363-1380, May.
    8. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Gulen, Huseyin & Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2022. "Comparing ambiguous urns with different sizes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    9. Ayala Arad & Gabrielle Gayer, 2012. "Imprecise Data Sets as a Source of Ambiguity: A Model and Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 188-202, January.
    10. Nicolas Jacquemet & Olivier L’Haridon & Isabelle Vialle, 2014. "Marché du travail, évaluation et économie expérimentale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(1), pages 189-226.
    11. Karni, Edi & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Ambiguity and Nonexpected Utility," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    12. Yang, Chun-Lei & Yao, Lan, 2011. "Ellsberg Paradox and Second-order Preference Theories on Ambiguity: Some New Experimental Evidence," MPRA Paper 28531, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. König-Kersting, Christian & Kops, Christopher & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2023. "A test of (weak) certainty independence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    14. Chen Li, 2017. "Are the poor worse at dealing with ambiguity?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 239-268, June.
    15. 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.
    16. Paul Viefers, 2012. "Should I Stay or Should I Go?: A Laboratory Analysis of Investment Opportunities under Ambiguity," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1228, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    17. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    18. Yoram Halevy & Vincent Feltkamp, 2005. "A Bayesian Approach to Uncertainty Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(2), pages 449-466.
    19. Lemoine, Derek M. & Traeger, Christian P., 2010. "Tipping Points and Ambiguity in the Economics of Climate Change," CUDARE Working Papers 98127, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    20. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bandit problem; Gittins index; Ambiguity aversion; C91; C44; C73; D83;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory
    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    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:kap:theord:v:72:y:2012:i:1:p:15-33. 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.