Adam Dominiak
ABSTRACT
In this paper we show that unlike in Bayesian frameworks asymmetric information does matter and can explain differences in common knowledge decisions due to ambiguous character of agents' private information. Agents share a common, but-not-necessarily-additive, prior beliefs represented by capacities. It is shown that, if each agent's information partition is made up of unambiguous events in the sense of Nehring [12, Mat. Soc. Sci. 38, 197--213], then it is impossible that the agents disagree on their commonly known decisions, whatever these decisions are: whether posterior beliefs or conditional expectations. Conversely, an agreement on conditional expectations, but not on posterior beliefs, implies that agents' private information must consist of Nehring-unambiguous events. The results obtained allow to attribute the existence of a speculative trade to the presence of agents' diverse and ambiguous information.
- R. J. Aumann. Agreeing to disagree. The Annals of Statistics, 4:1236--1239, 1976.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- M. Bacharach. Some extension of a claim of aumann in axiomatic model of knowledge. Journal of Economic Theory, 37:167--190, 1985.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Chateauneuf, J. Eichberger, and S. Grant. Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities. Journal of Economic Theory, 137:538--567, 2007.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. P. Dempster. A generalization of bayesian inference. Journal of Royal Statistical Society Series B, 30:205--247, 1968.Google Scholar
- A. Dominiak and J.-P. Lefort. Unambiguous events and dynamic choquet preferences. Economic Theory, 2009. forthcoming.Google Scholar
- A. Dominiak and J.-P. Lefort. Agreement thoerem for neo-additive beliefs. Mimeo, University of Heidelberg, 2010.Google Scholar
- J. Geanakoplos and J. Sebenius. Don't bet on it: Contingent agreements with asymmetric information. Journal of American Statistical Association, 78:424--426, 1983.Google ScholarCross Ref
- I. Gilboa and D. Schmeidler. Updating ambiguous beliefs. Journal of Economic Theory, 59:33--49, 1993.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Jaffray. Bayesian updating and belief functions. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 22:1144--1152, 1992.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Milgrom and N. Stokey. Information, trade and common knowledge. Journal of Economic Theory, 26:17--27, 1982.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Morris. Trade with heterogeneous prior beliefs and asymmetric information. Econometrica, 62:1327--1347, 1994.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Nehring. Capacities and probabilistic beliefs: A precarious coexistence. Mathematical Social Science, 38:197--213, 1999.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Schmeidler. Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica, 57:571--587, 1989.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Zhang. Subjective ambiguity, expected utility and choquet expected utility. Economic Theory, 20:159--181, 2002.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Agreeing to disagree type results under ambiguity
Recommendations
Agreeing to disagree with limit knowledge
LORI'11: Proceedings of the Third international conference on Logic, rationality, and interactionThe possibility for agents to agree to disagree is considered in an extended epistemic-topological framework. In such an enriched context, Aumann's impossibility theorem is shown to no longer hold. More precisely, agents with a common prior belief ...
Agreeing what to do
ArgMAS'10: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent SystemsWhen deliberating about what to do, an autonomous agent must generate and consider the relative pros and cons of the different options. The situation becomes even more complicated when an agent is involved in a joint deliberation, as each agent will ...
TAPHSIR: towards AnaPHoric ambiguity detection and ReSolution in requirements
ESEC/FSE 2022: Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software EngineeringWe introduce TAPHSIR – a tool for anaphoric ambiguity detection and anaphora resolution in requirements. TAPHSIR facilities reviewing the use of pronouns in a requirements specification and revising those pronouns that can lead to misunderstandings ...
Comments