Skip to main content

Choquet Expected Utility Representation of Preferences on Generalized Lotteries

  • Conference paper
Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems (IPMU 2014)

Abstract

The classical von Neumann–Morgenstern’s notion of lottery is generalized by replacing a probability distribution on a finite support with a belief function on the power set of the support. Given a partial preference relation on a finite set of generalized lotteries, a necessary and sufficient condition (weak rationality) is provided for its representation as a Choquet expected utility of a strictly increasing utility function.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chateauneuf, A., Cohen, M.: Choquet expected utility model: a new approach to individual behavior under uncertainty and social choice welfare. In: Fuzzy Meas. and Int.: Th. and App., pp. 289–314. Physica, Heidelberg (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Coletti, G., Regoli, G.: How can an expert system help in choosing the optimal decision? Th. and Dec. 33(3), 253–264 (1992)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Coletti, G., Scozzafava, R.: Toward a General Theory of Conditional Beliefs. Int. J. of Int. Sys. 21, 229–259 (2006)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Coletti, G., Scozzafava, R., Vantaggi, B.: Inferential processes leading to possibility and necessity. Inf. Sci. 245, 132–145 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Dempster, A.P.: Upper and Lower Probabilities Induced by a Multivalued Mapping. Ann. of Math. Stat. 38(2), 325–339 (1967)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Denneberg, D.: Non-additive Measure and Integral. Theory and Decision Library: Series B, vol. 27. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1994)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Ellsberg, D.: Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms. Quart. Jour. of Econ. 75, 643–669 (1961)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y.: Uncertainty, belief and probability. Comput. Int. 7(3), 160–173 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gale, D.: The Theory of Linear Economic Models. McGraw Hill (1960)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gilboa, I., Schmeidler, D.: Additive representations of non-additive measures and the Choquet integral. Ann. of Op. Res. 52, 43–65 (1994)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Jaffray, J.Y.: Linear utility theory for belief functions. Op. Res. Let. 8(2), 107–112 (1989)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Mc Cord, M., de Neufville, R.: Lottery Equivalents: Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment. Man. Sci. 23(1), 56–60 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Miranda, E., de Cooman, G., Couso, I.: Lower previsions induced by multi-valued mappings. J. of Stat. Plan. and Inf. 133, 173–197 (2005)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Quiggin, J.: A Theory of Anticipated Utility. J. of Ec. Beh. and Org. 3, 323–343 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Savage, L.: The foundations of statistics. Wiley, New York (1954)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Shafer, G.: A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Schmeidler, D.: Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica 57(3), 571–587 (1989)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Schmeidler, D.: Integral representation without additivity. Proc. of the Am. Math. Soc. 97(2), 255–261 (1986)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Smets, P.: Decision making in the tbm: the necessity of the pignistic transformation. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning 38(2), 133–147 (2005)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O.: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press (1944)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Walley, P.: Statistical reasoning with imprecise probabilities. Chapman & Hall, London (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wakker, P.: Under stochastic dominance Choquet-expected utility and anticipated utility are identical. Th. and Dec. 29(2), 119–132 (1990)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Coletti, G., Petturiti, D., Vantaggi, B. (2014). Choquet Expected Utility Representation of Preferences on Generalized Lotteries. In: Laurent, A., Strauss, O., Bouchon-Meunier, B., Yager, R.R. (eds) Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems. IPMU 2014. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 443. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08855-6_45

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08855-6_45

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08854-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08855-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics