Coherence without Additivity.

The Dutch book argument is a coherence condition for the existence of subjective probabilities. This note gives a general framework of analysis for this argument in a nonadditive probability setting. Particular cases are given by comonotonic and affinely related Dutch books that lead to Choquet expectations and Min expectations.Coherence; Dutch Book; Constant Linearity; Choquet Expectation; Multiple Priors

Parametric Weighting Functions

This paper provides behavioral foundations for parametric weighting functions under rankdependent utility. This is achieved by decomposing the independence axiom of expected utility into separate meaningful properties. These conditions allow us to characterize rank-dependent utility with power and exponential weighting functions. Moreover, by restricting the conditions to subsets of the probability interval, foundations of rank-dependent utility with parametric inverse-S shaped weighting functions are obtained. --Comonotonic independence,probability weighting function,preference foundation,rank-dependent utility

A Quantitative Measurement of Regret Theory

This paper introduces a choice-based method that for the first time makes it possible to quantitatively measure regret theory, one of the most popular models of decision under uncertainty. Our measurement is parameter-free in the sense that it requires no assumptions about the shape of the functions reflecting utility and regret. The choice of stimuli was such that event-s

Duhemian Themes in Expected Utility Theory

This monographic chapter explains how expected utility (EU) theory arose in von Neumann and Morgenstern, how it was called into question by Allais and others, and how it gave way to non-EU theories, at least among the specialized quarters of decion theory. I organize the narrative around the idea that the successive theoretical moves amounted to resolving Duhem-Quine underdetermination problems, so they can be assessed in terms of the philosophical recommendations made to overcome these problems. I actually follow Duhem's recommendation, which was essentially to rely on the passing of time to make many experiments and arguments available, and evebntually strike a balance between competing theories on the basis of this improved knowledge. Although Duhem's solution seems disappointingly vague, relying as it does on "bon sens" to bring an end to the temporal process, I do not think there is any better one in the philosophical literature, and I apply it here for what it is worth. In this perspective, EU theorists were justified in resisting the first attempts at refuting their theory, including Allais's in the 50s, but they would have lacked "bon sens" in not acknowledging their defeat in the 80s, after the long process of pros and cons had sufficiently matured. This primary Duhemian theme is actually combined with a secondary theme - normativity. I suggest that EU theory was normative at its very beginning and has remained so all along, and I express dissatisfaction with the orthodox view that it could be treated as a straightforward descriptive theory for purposes of prediction and scientific test. This view is usually accompanied with a faulty historical reconstruction, according to which EU theorists initially formulated the VNM axioms descriptively and retreated to a normative construal once they fell threatened by empirical refutation. From my historical study, things did not evolve in this way, and the theory was both proposed and rebutted on the basis of normative arguments already in the 1950s. The ensuing, major problem was to make choice experiments compatible with this inherently normative feature of theory. Compability was obtained in some experiments, but implicitly and somewhat confusingly, for instance by excluding overtly incoherent subjects or by creating strong incentives for the subjects to reflect on the questions and provide answers they would be able to defend. I also claim that Allais had an intuition of how to combine testability and normativity, unlike most later experimenters, and that it would have been more fruitful to work from his intuition than to make choice experiments of the naively empirical style that flourished after him. In sum, it can be said that the underdetermination process accompanying EUT was resolved in a Duhemian way, but this was not without major inefficiencies. To embody explicit rationality considerations into experimental schemes right from the beginning would have limited the scope of empirical research, avoided wasting resources to get only minor findings, and speeded up the Duhemian process of groping towards a choice among competing theories

Some remarks on non expected utility

Dottorato di ricerca in matematica per le decisioni matematiche. 12. ciclo. Relatore Erio Castagnoli. Coordinatore Marco ZecchinConsiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche - Biblioteca Centrale - P.le Aldo Moro, 7, Rome; Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale - P.za Cavalleggeri, 1, Florence / CNR - Consiglio Nazionale delle RichercheSIGLEITItal

Reconciling support theory and the book-making principle

Book-making principle, Support theory, Nonexpected utility, D81,