IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1512.00227.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Framework for Analyzing Stochastic Jumps in Finance based on Belief and Knowledge

Author

Listed:
  • Takanori Adachi

Abstract

We introduce a formal language IE that is a variant of the language PAL developed in [van Benthem 2011] by adding a belief operator and a common belief operator,specializing to stochastic analysis. A constant symbol in the language denotes a stochastic process so that we can represent several financial events as formulae in the language, which is expected to be clues of analyzing the moments that some stochastic jumps such as financial crises occur based on knowledge and belief of individuals or those shared within groups of individuals. In order to represent beliefs, we use sigma-complete Boolean algebras as generalized sigma-algebras. We use the representation for constructing a model in which the interpretations of the formulae written in the language IE reside. The model also uses some new categories for integrating several components appeared in the theory into one.

Suggested Citation

  • Takanori Adachi, 2015. "A Framework for Analyzing Stochastic Jumps in Finance based on Belief and Knowledge," Papers 1512.00227, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2016.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1512.00227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.00227
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gilboa,Itzhak, 2009. "Theory of Decision under Uncertainty," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521517324.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Christopher P. Chambers & Federico Echenique & Eran Shmaya, 2014. "The Axiomatic Structure of Empirical Content," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(8), pages 2303-2319, August.
    2. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    3. Gilboa, Itzhak & Samuelson, Larry & Schmeidler, David, 2013. "Dynamics of inductive inference in a unified framework," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1399-1432.
    4. Helena Gaspars-Wieloch, 2017. "Newsvendor problem under complete uncertainty: a case of innovative products," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 25(3), pages 561-585, September.
    5. Junyi Chai & Zhiquan Weng & Wenbin Liu, 2021. "Behavioral Decision Making in Normative and Descriptive Views: A Critical Review of Literature," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, October.
    6. Nicola Ranger & Falk Nieh�rster, 2011. "Deep uncertainty in long-term hurricane risk: scenario generation and implications for future climate experiments," GRI Working Papers 51, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    7. Crès, Hervé & Tvede, Mich, 2022. "Aggregation of opinions in networks of individuals and collectives," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    8. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    9. Dietz, Simon, 2012. "The treatment of risk and uncertainty in the US social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 6, pages 1-12.
    10. Larbi Alaoui & Antonio Penta, 2018. "Cost-benefit analysis in reasoning," Economics Working Papers 1621, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    11. Giandomenica Becchio, 2020. "The Two Blades of Occam's Razor in Economics: Logical and Heuristic," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, July.
    12. Faro, José Heleno & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2019. "Dynamic objective and subjective rationality," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), January.
    13. Carvalho, M., 2012. "Static vs Dynamic Auctions with Ambiguity Averse Bidders," Other publications TiSEM 1f078e67-88ec-46e3-ae18-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Maximilian Blesch & Philipp Eisenhauer, 2021. "Robust decision-making under risk and ambiguity," Papers 2104.12573, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    15. Hill, Brian & Michalski, Tomasz, 2018. "Risk versus ambiguity and international security design," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 74-105.
    16. Thai Ha-Huy, 2019. "Savage's theorem with atoms," Documents de recherche 19-05, Centre d'Études des Politiques Économiques (EPEE), Université d'Evry Val d'Essonne.
    17. Heyen, Daniel, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80342, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Daniel Serra, 2019. "La neuroéconomie en question : débats et controverses," CEE-M Working Papers halshs-02160911, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    19. Takao Asano & Xiaojing Cai & Ryuta Sakemoto, 2023. "Time-varying ambiguity shocks and business cycles," KIER Working Papers 1094, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.
    20. Takao Asano & Hiroyuki Kojima, 2022. "Choquet Integrals and Belief Functions," KIER Working Papers 1077, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.

    More about this item

    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:arx:papers:1512.00227. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.