Benchmarking real-valued acts
A benchmarking procedure ranks real-valued acts by the probability that they outperform a benchmark B; that is, an act f is evaluated by means of the functional V(f) = P(f > B). Expected utility is a special case of benchmarking procedure, where the acts and the benchmark are stochastically independent. This paper provides axiomatic characterizations of preference relations that are representable as benchmarking procedures. The key axiom is the sure-thing principle. When the state space is infinite, different continuity assumptions translate into different properties of the probability P.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Gerard Debreu, 1959. "Topological Methods in Cardinal Utility Theory," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 76, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Robert Bordley & Marco LiCalzi, 2000. "Decision analysis using targets instead of utility functions," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 53-74.
- Erio Castagnoli & Marco LiCalzi, 2005. "Expected utility without utility," Game Theory and Information 0508004, EconWPA.
- Segal, Uzi, 1993.
" The Measure Representation: A Correction,"
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,
Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 99-107, January.
- Chateauneuf, Alain, 1999. "Comonotonicity axioms and rank-dependent expected utility theory for arbitrary consequences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 21-45, August.
- Hong, Chew Soo & Wakker, Peter, 1996. "The Comonotonic Sure-Thing Principle," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 5-27, January.
- LiCalzi, Marco, 1998. "Variations on the measure representation approach," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 255-269, April.
- Wakker, Peter, 1993. " Counterexamples to Segal's Measure Representation Theorem," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 91-98, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpmi:0502001. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.