IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fem/femwpa/2012.04.html

Ambiguous Aggregation of Expert Opinions: The Case of Optimal R&D Investment

Author

Listed:
  • Stergios Athanassoglou

    (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei and Euro-Mediterranean Center for Climate Change)

  • Valentina Bosetti

    (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei and Euro-Mediterranean Center for Climate Change)

  • Gauthier de Maere d'Aertrycke

    (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei and Euro-Mediterranean Center for Climate Change, Italy)

Abstract

How should a decision-maker allocate R&D funds when a group of experts provides divergent estimates on a technology's potential effectiveness? To address this question, we propose a simple decision-theoretic framework that takes into account ambiguity over the aggregation of expert opinion and a decision-maker's attitude towards it. In line with the paper's focus on R&D investment, decision variables in our model may affect experts' subjective probability distributions of the future potential of a technology. Using results from convex optimization, we are able to establish a number of analytical results including a closed-form expression of our model's value function, as well as a thorough investigation of its differentiability properties. We apply our framework to original data from a recent expert elicitation survey on solar technology. The analysis suggests that more aggressive investment in solar technology R&D is likely to yield significant dividends even, or rather especially, after taking ambiguous aggregation into account.

Suggested Citation

  • Stergios Athanassoglou & Valentina Bosetti & Gauthier de Maere d'Aertrycke, 2012. "Ambiguous Aggregation of Expert Opinions: The Case of Optimal R&D Investment," Working Papers 2012.04, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  • Handle: RePEc:fem:femwpa:2012.04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://feem-media.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/NDL2012-004.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baker, Erin & Chon, Haewon & Keisler, Jeffrey, 2009. "Advanced solar R&D: Combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(Supplemen), pages 37-49.
    2. Valentina Bosetti & Carlo Carraro & Marzio Galeotti & Emanuele Massetti & Massimo Tavoni, 2006. "WITCH. A World Induced Technical Change Hybrid Model," Working Papers 2006_46, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    3. repec:aen:journl:2006se_jaccard-a02 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    5. Baker, Erin & Keisler, Jeffrey M., 2011. "Cellulosic biofuels: Expert views on prospects for advancement," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 595-605.
    6. Gilboa, Itzhak & Marianacci, Massimo, 2011. "Ambiguity and the Bayesian Paradigm," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275755, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.
    7. Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2006. "Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 111-127, January.
    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. Daniela Grieco, 2018. "Innovation and stock market performance: A model with ambiguity-averse agents," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 287-303, April.

    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. Erin Baker & Olaitan Olaleye & Lara Aleluia Reis, 2015. "Decision Frameworks and the Investment in R&D," Working Papers 2015.42, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    2. Stergios Athanassoglou & Valentina Bosetti, 2015. "Setting Environmental Policy When Experts Disagree," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 61(4), pages 497-516, August.
    3. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, "undated". "Finding Common Ground when Experts Disagree: Belief Dominance over Portfolios of Alternatives," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 243147, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    4. Fiorese, Giulia & Catenacci, Michela & Bosetti, Valentina & Verdolini, Elena, 2014. "The power of biomass: Experts disclose the potential for success of bioenergy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 94-114.
    5. Baker, Erin & Olaleye, Olaitan & Aleluia Reis, Lara, 2015. "Decision frameworks and the investment in R&D," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 275-285.
    6. Massimiliano AMARANTE, 2014. "What is Ambiguity?," Cahiers de recherche 04-2014, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    7. Mort Webster & Karen Fisher-Vanden & David Popp & Nidhi Santen, 2017. "Should We Give Up after Solyndra? Optimal Technology R&D Portfolios under Uncertainty," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(S1), pages 123-151.
    8. Agnieszka Wiszniewska-Matyszkiel, 2016. "Belief distorted Nash equilibria: introduction of a new kind of equilibrium in dynamic games with distorted information," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 243(1), pages 147-177, August.
    9. Ghossoub, Mario, 2011. "Monotone equimeasurable rearrangements with non-additive probabilities," MPRA Paper 37629, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 23 Mar 2012.
    10. Nemet, Gregory F. & Baker, Erin & Jenni, Karen E., 2013. "Modeling the future costs of carbon capture using experts' elicited probabilities under policy scenarios," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 218-228.
    11. Shiri Alon & Aviad Heifetz, 2014. "The logic of Knightian games," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 2(2), pages 161-182, October.
    12. Laura Diaz Anadon & Erin Baker & Valentina Bosetti & Lara Aleluia Reis, 2016. "Expert views - and disagreements - about the potential of energy technology R&D," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 677-691, June.
    13. Gruetzemacher, Ross & Paradice, David & Lee, Kang Bok, 2020. "Forecasting extreme labor displacement: A survey of AI practitioners," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    14. Matthew Kovach, 2024. "Ambiguity and partial Bayesian updating," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 78(1), pages 155-180, August.
    15. Massimo Guidolin & Francesca Rinaldi, 2013. "Ambiguity in asset pricing and portfolio choice: a review of the literature," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(2), pages 183-217, February.
    16. Anadon, Laura Diaz & Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Reis, Lara Aleluia, "undated". "Too Early to Pick Winners: Disagreement across Experts Implies the Need to Diversify R&D Investment," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 232924, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    17. Lang, Matthias & Wambach, Achim, 2013. "The fog of fraud – Mitigating fraud by strategic ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 255-275.
    18. Dean, Mark & Ortoleva, Pietro, 2017. "Allais, Ellsberg, and preferences for hedging," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), January.
    19. André, Eric, 2014. "Optimal portfolio with vector expected utility," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 50-62.
    20. Stefania Minardi & Andrei Savochkin, 2017. "Characterizations of Smooth Ambiguity Based on Continuous and Discrete Data," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 167-178, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources

    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:fem:femwpa:2012.04. 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: Alberto Prina Cerai The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Alberto Prina Cerai to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feemmit.html .

    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.