IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1605.07680.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Generalized Subjective Lexicographic Expected Utility Representation

Author

Listed:
  • Hugo Cruz-Sanchez

Abstract

We provide foundations for decisions in face of unlikely events by extending the standard framework of Savage to include preferences indexed by a family of events. We derive a subjective lexicographic expected utility representation which allows for infinitely many lexicographically ordered levels of events and for event-dependent attitudes toward risk. Our model thus provides foundations for models in finance that rely on different attitudes toward risk (e.g. Skiadas [9]) and for off-equilibrium reasonings in infinite dynamic games, thus extending and generalizing the analysis in Blume, Brandenburger and Dekel [3].

Suggested Citation

  • Hugo Cruz-Sanchez, 2016. "Generalized Subjective Lexicographic Expected Utility Representation," Papers 1605.07680, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1605.07680
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.07680
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lawrence Blume & Adam Brandenburger & Eddie Dekel, 2014. "Lexicographic Probabilities and Choice Under Uncertainty," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Language of Game Theory Putting Epistemics into the Mathematics of Games, chapter 6, pages 137-160, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Machina, Mark J & Schmeidler, David, 1992. "A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 745-780, July.
    3. Fishburn, Peter C. & LaValle, Irving H., 1998. "Subjective expected lexicographic utility with infinite state sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 323-346, October.
    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. Klaus Nehring, 2006. "Decision-Making in the Context of Imprecise Probabilistic Beliefs," Economics Working Papers 0034, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    2. Marcus Pivato & Élise Flore Tchouante, 2024. "Bayesian social aggregation with non-Archimedean utilities and probabilities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 77(3), pages 561-595, May.
    3. Lo, Kin Chung, 2009. "Correlated Nash equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 722-743, March.
    4. Yi-Chun Chen & Xiao Luo & Chen Qu, 2016. "Rationalizability in general situations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 61(1), pages 147-167, January.
    5. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & David Schmeidler, 2004. "Rationality of Belief Or: Why Savage's axioms are neither necessary nor sufficient for rationality, Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 07-001, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 03 Jan 2007.
    6. Marcus Pivato, 2014. "Additive representation of separable preferences over infinite products," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 31-83, June.
    7. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & David Schmeidler, 2004. "Rationality of Belief Or: Why Savage's axioms are neither necessary nor sufficient for rationality, Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 07-001, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 03 Jan 2007.
    8. Halpern, Joseph Y., 2010. "Lexicographic probability, conditional probability, and nonstandard probability," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 155-179, January.
    9. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & David Schmeidler, 2004. "Rationality of Belief Or: Why Savage's axioms are neither necessary nor sufficient for rationality, Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 07-001, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 03 Jan 2007.
    10. Emiliano Catonini, 2022. "A Dutch book argument for belief consistency," Papers 2202.10121, arXiv.org.
    11. 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.
    12. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    13. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    14. Asheim, Geir & Søvik, Ylva, 2003. "The semantics of preference-based belief operators," Memorandum 05/2003, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    15. Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers & Paul J. Healy, 2020. "Incentives in experiments with objective lotteries," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-29, March.
    16. Itzhak Gilboa & Offer Lieberman & David Schmeidler, 2012. "On the Definition of Objective Probabilities by Empirical Similarity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Case-Based Predictions An Axiomatic Approach to Prediction, Classification and Statistical Learning, chapter 11, pages 259-280, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. 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.
    18. Fleurbaey, Marc & Zuber, Stéphane, 2017. "Fair management of social risk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 666-706.
    19. Asheim, G.B. & Dufwenberg, M., 1996. "Admissibility and Common Knowledge," Discussion Paper 1996-16, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    20. Simone Cerroni & Sandra Notaro & W. Douglass Shaw, 2011. "Do Monetary Incentives and Chained Questions Affect the Validity of Risk Estimates Elicited via the Exchangeability Method? An Experimental Investigation," Department of Economics Working Papers 1110, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:1605.07680. 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.