IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2202.10121.html

A Dutch-Book Trap for Misspecification

Author

Listed:
  • Emiliano Catonini
  • Giacomo Lanzani

Abstract

We provide Dutch-book arguments against misspecified Bayesian learning. An agent progressively learns about a state and is offered a bet after every discovery. We say the agent is deterministically Dutch-booked when they would accept all bets, but their payoff is ex-post negative under each state. More generally, we say that the agent is Dutch-booked when they would accept all bets, but their expected payoff under each fundamental state is negative. With this, the agent cannot be deterministically Dutch-booked if and only if they update their beliefs using Bayes' rule, even with misspecified likelihoods. The agent cannot be Dutch booked if and only if they update their beliefs using Bayes' rule with a lexicographic prior and using the correct data-generating process. We show that offers of financial instruments and behavior in Monty Hall problems can be viewed as Dutch books that extract a sure expected gain from a misspecified population.

Suggested Citation

  • Emiliano Catonini & Giacomo Lanzani, 2022. "A Dutch-Book Trap for Misspecification," Papers 2202.10121, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2026.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2202.10121
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2202.10121
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Battigalli, P. & Catonini, E. & Manili, J., 2023. "Belief change, rationality, and strategic reasoning in sequential games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 527-551.
    2. 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..
    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. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Catonini, Emiliano, 2024. "The epistemic spirit of divinity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).

    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. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Catonini, Emiliano, 2024. "The epistemic spirit of divinity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    2. Hammond, Peter J., 1999. "Non-Archimedean subjective probabilities in decision theory and games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 139-156, September.
    3. Asheim, Geir & Søvik, Ylva, 2003. "The semantics of preference-based belief operators," Memorandum 05/2003, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    4. Peter A. Streufert, 2006. "Products of Several Relative Probabilities," University of Western Ontario, Departmental Research Report Series 20061, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
    5. Giacomo Bonanno & Cédric Dégremont, 2013. "Logic and Game Theory," Working Papers 11, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    6. Heifetz Aviad & Meier Martin & Schipper Burkhard C., 2021. "Prudent Rationalizability in Generalized Extensive-form Games with Unawareness," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 21(2), pages 525-556, June.
    7. Asheim, G.B. & Dufwenberg, M., 1996. "Admissibility and Common Knowledge," Discussion Paper 1996-16, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    8. Catonini, Emiliano & De Vito, Nicodemo, 2024. "Cautious belief and iterated admissibility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    9. Asheim, Geir B. & Dufwenberg, Martin, 2003. "Admissibility and common belief," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 208-234, February.
    10. Charles F. Manski, 2008. "Partial Prescriptions For Decisions With Partial Knowledge," NBER Working Papers 14396, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Klaus Nehring, 2006. "Decision-Making in the Context of Imprecise Probabilistic Beliefs," Economics Working Papers 0034, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    12. Asheim, Geir B., 2002. "On the epistemic foundation for backward induction," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 121-144, November.
    13. Tsakas, Elias, 2014. "Epistemic equivalence of extended belief hierarchies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 126-144.
    14. Heifetz, Aviad & Meier, Martin & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2019. "Comprehensive rationalizability," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 185-202.
    15. Luo, Xiao & Qian, Xuewen, 2025. "Conditional hypothesis testing systems," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    16. Joseph Y. Halpern & Yoram Moses, 2017. "Characterizing solution concepts in terms of common knowledge of rationality," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(2), pages 457-473, May.
    17. Shuige Liu, 2024. "Level-$k$ Reasoning, Cognitive Hierarchy, and Rationalizability," Papers 2404.19623, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2024.
    18. Geir B. Asheim & Andrés Perea, 2019. "Algorithms for cautious reasoning in games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(4), pages 1241-1275, December.
    19. Ganguli, Jayant & Heifetz, Aviad & Lee, Byung Soo, 2016. "Universal interactive preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 237-260.
    20. Heifetz, Aviad & Meier, Martin & Schipper, Burkhard C, 2011. "Prudent rationalizability in generalized extensive-form games," MPRA Paper 30220, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:2202.10121. 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.