Case-based learning with different similarity functions

The paper applies the rule for adaptation of the aspiration level suggested by Gilboa and Schmeidler to a situation in which the similarity between acts is represented by an arbitrary similarity function [Gilboa, I., Schmeidler, D., 1996. Case-based optimization. Games Econ. Behav. 15, 1–26]. I show that the optimality result derived by Gilboa and Schmeidler in general fails. With a concave similarity function, only corner acts are chosen in the limit. The optimality result can be reestablished by introducing convex regions into the similarity function and modifying the aspiration adaptation rule. A similarity function which is “sufficiently convex” allows approximating optimal behavior with an arbitrary degree of precision.     

Extensive Form Games with Uncertainty Averse Players

Nash equilibrium presumes that the beliefs of a player are represented by a probability measure. Motivated by the Ellsberg Paradox and relevant experimental findings demonstrating that this representation of beliefs may be unrealistic, this paper generalizes Nash equilibrium in finite extensive form games to allow for preferences conforming to the multiple priors model developed by Gilboa and Schmeidler [Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18 (1989), 141–153]. The implications of this generalization for strategy choices and welfare are studied. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C72, D81.     

Sealed bid auctions with uncertainty averse bidders

Summary. Traditional analysis of auctions assumes that each bidder's beliefs about opponents' valuations are represented by a probability measure. Motivated by experimental findings such as the Ellsberg Paradox, this paper examines the consequences of relaxing this assumption in the first and second price sealed bid auctions with independent private values. The multiple priors model of Gilboa and Schmeidler [Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18 (1989), 141–153] is adopted specifically to represent the bidders' (and the auctioneer's) preferences. The unique equilibrium bidding strategy in the first price auction is derived. Moreover, under an interesting parametric specialization of the model, it is shown that the first price auction Pareto dominates the second price auction. Received: December 15, 1995; revised version: February 19, 1997     

Dynamic variational preferences

We introduce and axiomatize dynamic variational preferences, the dynamic version of the variational preferences we axiomatized in [F. Maccheroni, M. Marinacci, A. Rustichini, Ambiguity aversion, robustness, and the variational representation of preferences, Mimeo, 2004], which generalize the multiple priors preferences of Gilboa and Schmeidler [Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior, J. Math. Econ. 18 (1989) 141-153], and include the Multiplier Preferences inspired by robust control and first used in macroeconomics by Hansen and Sargent (see [L.P. Hansen, T.J. Sargent, Robust control and model uncertainty, Amer. Econ. Rev. 91 (2001) 60-66]), as well as the classic Mean Variance Preferences of Markovitz and Tobin. We provide a condition that makes dynamic variational preferences time consistent, and their representation recursive. This gives them the analytical tractability needed in macroeconomic and financial applications. A corollary of our results is that Multiplier Preferences are time consistent, but Mean Variance Preferences are not.     

Ambiguity aversion and the absence of indexed debt

Summary. Following the seminal works of Schmeidler (1989), Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989), roughly put, an agents subjective beliefs are said to be ambiguous if the beliefs may not be represented by a unique probability distribution, in the standard Bayesian fashion, but instead by a set of probabilities. An ambiguity averse decision maker evaluates an act by the minimum expected value that may be associated with it. In spite of wide and long-standing support among economists for indexation of loan contracts there has been relatively little use of indexation, except in situations of extremely high inflation. The object of this paper is to provide a (theoretical) explanation for this puzzling phenomenon based on the hypothesis that economic agents are ambiguity averse. The paper considers a general equilibrium model based on Magill and Quinzii (1997) with ambiguity averse agents, where both nominal and indexed bond contracts are available for trade and all relevant prices are determined endogenously. We obtain conditions which prompt an endogenous cessation of trade in indexed bonds: i.e., conditions under which there is no trade in indexed bonds in any equilibrium; only nominal bonds are traded.Received: 7 April 2003, Revised: 8 March 2004, JEL Classification Numbers: D81, E31, D52, E44.Correspondence to: Sujoy MukerjiWe thank seminar members at Birkbeck, Oxford, Paris I, Southampton and Tel Aviv, the audience at the 00 European Workshop on General Equilibrium Theory, and especially, E.Dekel, I. Gilboa, D. Schmeidler and A. Pauzner for helpful comments. The first author acknowledges financial assistance from an Economic and Social Research Council of U.K. Research Fellowship (# R000 27 1065). The second author thanks financial support from the French Ministry of Research (Action Concertée Incitative).     

Correlated Nash equilibrium

We modify the epistemic conditions for Nash equilibrium only to accommodate Gilboa and Schmeidler's [I. Gilboa, D. Schmeidler, Maxmin expected utility with nonunique prior, J. Math. Econ. 18 (1989) 141-153] maxmin expected utility preferences, and identify the equilibrium concept in n-player strategic games that characterizes the modified epistemic conditions. The epistemic characterization supports the equilibrium concept as a minimal generalization of Nash equilibrium, in the sense that it deviates from Nash equilibrium only in terms of players' attitude towards ambiguity. Consequently, comparing it with Nash equilibrium constitutes a ceteris paribus study of the effects of ambiguity on how a game is played. For example, with ambiguity, (beliefs about) action choices are in general correlated.     

Conditional preferences and updating

This paper axiomatizes updating rules for preferences that are not necessarily in the expected utility class. Two sets of results are presented. The first is the axiomatization of conditional preferences. The second consists of the axiomatization of three updating rules: the traditional Bayes rule, the Dempster-Shafer rule, and the generalized Bayes rule. The last rule can be regarded as the updating rule for the multi-prior expected utility (Gilboa and Schmeidler, J. Math. Econom. 18 (1989) 141). Operationally, it is equivalent to updating each prior by the traditional Bayes rule.     

Stochastically independent randomization and uncertainty aversion

Summary.   This paper proposes a preference-based condition for stochastic independence of a randomizing device in a product state space. This condition is applied to investigate some classes of preferences that allow for both independent randomization and uncertainty or ambiguity aversion (a la Ellsberg). For example, when imposed on Choquet Expected Utility (CEU) preferences in a Savage framework displaying uncertainty aversion in the spirit of Schmeidler [27], it results in a collapse to Expected Utility (EU). This shows that CEU preferences that are uncertainty averse in the sense of Schmeidler should not be used in settings where independent randomization is to be allowed. In contrast, Maxmin EU with multiple priors preferences continue to allow for a very wide variety of uncertainty averse preferences when stochastic independence is imposed. Additionally, these points are used to reexamine some recent arguments against preference for randomization with uncertainty averse preferences. In particular, these arguments are shown to rely on preferences that do not treat randomization as a stochastically independent event. Received: February 10, 2000; revised version: March 30, 2000     

Trembles in extensive games with ambiguity averse players

We introduce and analyze three definitions of equilibrium for finite extensive games with imperfect information and ambiguity averse players. In a setting where players’ preferences are represented by maxmin expected utility, as characterized in Gilboa and Schmeidler (J Math Econ 18(2):141–153, 1989), our definitions capture the intuition that players may consider the possibility of slight arbitrary mistakes. This generalizes the idea leading to trembling-hand perfect equilibrium as introduced in Selten (Int J Game Theory 4(1):25–55, 1975), by allowing for ambiguous trembles characterized by sets of distributions. We prove existence for two of our equilibrium notions and relate our definitions to standard equilibrium concepts with expected utility maximizing players. Our analysis shows that ambiguity aversion can lead to behavioral implications that are distinct from those attained under expected utility maximization, even if ambiguous beliefs only arise from the possibility of slight mistakes in the implementation of unambiguous strategies.     

Attitude toward imprecise information

This paper presents an axiomatic model of decision making under uncertainty which incorporates objective but imprecise information. Information is assumed to take the form of a probability–possibility set, that is, a set P of probability measures on the state space. The decision maker is told that the true probability law lies in P and is assumed to rank pairs of the form (P,f) where f is an act mapping states into outcomes. The key representation result delivers maxmin expected utility (MEU) where the min operator ranges over a set of probability priors—just as in the MEU representation result of Gilboa and Schmeidler [Maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior, J. Math. Econ. 18 (1989) 141–153]. However, unlike the MEU representation, the representation here also delivers a mapping, , which links the probability–possibility set, describing the available information, to the set of revealed priors. The mapping is shown to represent the decision maker's attitude to imprecise information: under our axioms, the set of representation priors is constituted as a selection from the probability–possibility set. This allows both expected utility when the selected set is a singleton and extreme pessimism when the selected set is the same as the probability–possibility set, i.e., is the identity mapping. We define a notion of comparative imprecision aversion and show it is characterized by inclusion of the sets of revealed probability distributions, irrespective of the utility functions that capture risk attitude. We also identify an explicit attitude toward imprecision that underlies usual hedging axioms. Finally, we characterize, under extra axioms, a more specific functional form, in which the set of selected probability distributions is obtained by (i) solving for the “mean value” of the probability–possibility set, and (ii) shrinking the probability–possibility set toward the mean value to a degree determined by preferences.     

Robust control and model misspecification

A decision maker fears that data are generated by a statistical perturbation of an approximating model that is either a controlled diffusion or a controlled measure over continuous functions of time. A perturbation is constrained in terms of its relative entropy. Several different two-player zero-sum games that yield robust decision rules are related to one another, to the max-min expected utility theory of Gilboa and Schmeidler [Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior, J. Math. Econ. 18 (1989) 141-153], and to the recursive risk-sensitivity criterion described in discrete time by Hansen and Sargent [Discounted linear exponential quadratic Gaussian control, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 40 (5) (1995) 968-971]. To represent perturbed models, we use martingales on the probability space associated with the approximating model. Alternative sequential and nonsequential versions of robust control theory imply identical robust decision rules that are dynamically consistent in a useful sense.     

Aggregation of semiorders: intransitive indifference makes a difference

Summary A semiorder can be thought of as a binary relationP for which there is a utilityu representing it in the following sense:xPy iffu(x) –u(y) > 1. We argue that weak orders (for which indifference is transitive) can not be considered a successful approximation of semiorders; for instance, a utility function representing a semiorder in the manner mentioned above is almost unique, i.e. cardinal and not only ordinal. In this paper we deal with semiorders on a product space and their relation to given semiorders on the original spaces. Following the intuition of Rubinstein we find surprising results: with the appropriate framework, it turns out that a Savage-type expected utility requires significantly weaker axioms than it does in the context of weak orders.We wish to thank Tatsuro Ichiishi, Jorge Nieto, Ariel Rubinstein, Efraim Sadka and especially David Schmeidler and anonymous referees for stimulating discussions and comments. I. Gilboa received partial financial support from NSF grants nos. IRI-8814672 and SES-9113108, as well as from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.     

Efficient egalitarian equivalent allocations over a single good

This paper studies efficient and egalitarian allocations over a single heterogeneous and infinitely divisible good. We prove the existence of such allocations using only measure-theoretic arguments. Under the additional assumption of complete information, we identify a sufficient condition on agents’ preferences that makes it possible to apply the Pazner–Schmeidler rule for uniquely selecting an efficient egalitarian equivalent allocation. Finally, we exhibit a simple procedure that implements the Pazner–Schmeidler selection in a subgame-perfect equilibrium. We thank Gabrielle Demange, William Thomson, two referees and seminar audiences at Boston, Palermo and Rochester University for their comments. Financial support from MIUR is acknowledged.     

Information and size of coalitions

We consider a set of asymmetrically informed agents, where the information of each trader is susceptible of being altered when she becomes a member of a coalition. For this, we consider a general rule that depending on the coalition, a signal (or an information partition) is assigned to each member of the coalition. We set examples showing that Grodal’s (Econometrica 40:581–583, 1972), Schmeidler’s (Econometrica 40:579–580, 1972) and Vind’s (Econometrica 40:585–586, 1972) core characterizations of a continuum economy may fail in this general informational setting. However, under mild assumptions on the rule, we extend Schmeidler’s and Vind’s results to economies that allocate information to agents in each coalition according to the rule. We then focus on information mechanisms based on the size of coalitions and provide a general characterization result for the corresponding cores. Moreover, we pay close attention to the rule that assigns the shared information to each member of specific coalitions. We prove that the resulting cores are exactly the same independently of whether arbitrarily small or large coalitions share information.     

On the existence of pure-strategy equilibria in large games

Over the years, several formalizations and existence results for games with a continuum of players have been given. These include those of Schmeidler [D. Schmeidler, Equilibrium points of nonatomic games, J. Stat. Phys. 4 (1973) 295-300], Rashid [S. Rashid, Equilibrium points of non-atomic games: Asymptotic results, Econ. Letters 12 (1983) 7-10], Mas-Colell [A. Mas-Colell, On a theorem by Schmeidler, J. Math. Econ. 13 (1984) 201-206], Khan and Sun [M. Khan, Y. Sun, Non-cooperative games on hyperfinite Loeb spaces, J. Math. Econ. 31 (1999) 455-492] and Podczeck [K. Podczeck, On purification of measure-valued maps, Econ. Theory 38 (2009) 399-418]. The level of generality of each of these existence results is typically regarded as a criterion to evaluate how appropriate is the corresponding formalization of large games.In contrast, we argue that such evaluation is pointless. In fact, we show that, in a precise sense, all the above existence results are equivalent. Thus, all of them are equally strong and therefore cannot rank the different formalizations of large games.     

Existence of equilibria for economies with externalities and a measure space of consumers

Summary. This paper considers an exchange economy with a measure space of agents and consumption externalities, which take into account two possible external effects on consumers preferences: dependence upon prices and dependence upon other agents consumption. We first consider a model with a general externality mapping and we then treat the particular case of reference coalition externalities, in which the preferences of each agent a are influenced by prices and by the global or the mean consumption of the agents in finitely many (exogenously given) reference coalitions associated with agent a. Our paper provides existence results of equilibria in both models when consumers have transitive preferences. It extends in exchange economies the standard results by Aumann [2], Schmeidler [16], Hildenbrand [12], and previous results by Greenberg et al. [11] for price dependent preferences, Schmeidler [17] for fixed reference coalitions and Noguchi [15] for a more particular concept of reference coalitions. We also mention related results obtained independently by Balder [4].Received: 25 May 2004, Revised: 19 October 2004, JEL Classification Numbers: D62, D51, H23. Correspondence to: Bernard CornetThis paper has benefited from comments and valuable discussions with Erik Balder, Stefan Balint, Jean-Marc Bonnisseau, Alessandro Citanna, Gael Giraud, Filipe Martins-da-Rocha, Jean-Philippe Médecin, Jean-François Mertens, Nicholas Yannelis and an anonymous referee.     

Bayesian beliefs with stochastic monotonicity: An extension of Machina and Schmeidler

Machina and Schmeidler show that the probabilistic sophistication can be obtained in an Anscombe–Aumann setting without imposing expected utility by maintaining stochastic monotonicity and adding a new axiom loosely analogous to Savage's P4. This analogous axiom, however, is very strong. In this note, we obtain probabilistic sophistication using a weaker (and more natural) analog of Savage's P4. Stochastic monotonicity is sufficient to bridge the gap, where Anscombe and Aumman use independence twice, we use stochastic monotonicity twice.     

On mixed markets with asymmetric information

In asymmetric information exchange economies involving both non-negligible and negligible agents, one should expect the failure of the private Core-Walras Equivalence Theorem. This paper shows that if “large” traders are similar to each other, then they lose their market power and hence the Equivalence Theorem can be restored. We also investigate on weaker equivalences among Walrasian expectations allocations, Aubin private core and private core allocations of the original mixed economy and the atomless one associated to it, without the assumption that all atoms are of the same type. Furthermore, extensions of Hervés-Moreno-Yannelis and Schmeidler Theorems (compare Hervés et al. in J Math Econ 41:844–856, 2005a; Schemidler in Econometrica 40:579–580, 1972) are given for differential information economies in which the feasibility constraints are imposed with an equality (exact feasibility).     

Ex ante versus interim rationality and the existence of bubbles

Summary Tirole (1982) is commonly interpreted as proving that bubbles are impossible with finitely many rational traders with common priors. We study a simple variation of his model in which bubbles can occur, even though traders have common priors and common knowledge that the asset has no fundamental value. In equilibrium, agents purchase the asset at successively higher prices until the bubble bursts and no subsequent trade occurs. Each trader's initial wealth determines the last date at which he could possibly trade. The date at which the bubble bursts is a function of these finite truncation dates for the individual traders. Since initial wealth is private information, no trader knows when the bubble will burst. There are two key differences between our model and Tirole's which enable us to construct equilibrium bubbles this way. First, Tirole requires ex ante optimality, while we only require every trader's strategy to be optimal conditional on his information — i.e., interim optimal. As we argue in the text, this would seem to be the relevant definition of optimality. Second, Tirole considers competitive equilibria, while we analyze a simple bargaining game.We thank Abhijit Banerjee, James Dow, Itzhak Gilboa, Debra Holt, Fallaw Sowell, Sanjay Srivastava, Stan Zin, seminar participants at Pennsylvania State University, Indian Statistical Institute at Calcutta, Carnegie Mellon, the University of Rochester, the University of Maryland, the London Business School, the University of British Columbia, and the Sixth World Congress, and Michael Woodford and an anonymous referee for helpful comments. Both authors were at Carnegie Mellon University when this research was begun. The second author also thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for financial support.