Bayesian Risk Preference Persuasion

Shutian Liu

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Bayesian Risk Preference Persuasion

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A sender can steer a receiver's risk preference—not just her actions—and this paper tells exactly when it works.

desk verdict A genuinely new preference-persuasion framework with a solid reinsurance application, but Theorem 1's benefit claim is internally inconsistent — the proof proves the opposite of the statement. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.13810 v2 pith:ZYXYBSPL submitted 2026-07-15 math.OC

Shutian Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OC MSC 91A2791B0691B30

keywords riskpreferencepersuasioninformationdesignBayesiancoherentmeasuresaveragevalue-at-risktimeconsistencyreinsuranceposteriorbeliefs

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a sender can deliberately design information—not to change a receiver's actions directly, but to change the receiver's risk preference itself. The receiver starts with a coherent risk measure (average value-at-risk) and, after observing a system state, revises that preference in a time-consistent way. The sender chooses a Bayes-plausible distribution of posterior beliefs; each belief induces a specific revised confidence level, and the sender's best achievable outcome is the convex closure of the resulting value function. The paper identifies a sufficient condition, based on a Wasserstein-distance bound, under which persuasion strictly lowers the average risk the receiver perceives—and shows when it cannot. An application to reinsurance design illustrates when a reinsurer gains from steering the insurer's risk preference and constructs the optimal signal rules.

What carries the argument

The central object is the time-consistent decomposition of a coherent risk measure: the identity ρ(Y) = sup E[Z_t · ρ_{Z_t}(Y|t)], where Z_t are dual densities, and the induced 'conditional AV@R at random level', AV@R_{1−(1−α)Z_t}(Y|t). This identity lets the paper treat the receiver's preference revision as a controlled variable: each posterior belief determines a feasible set of dual densities Z(μ), and the receiver picks the optimizer Z*_t(μ). The sender's optimization then becomes a convex-closure problem over the function ˆv(μ), and the benefit condition is derived by bounding the deviation of ˆv(μ) from ˆv(μ0) via Wasserstein distances between mixture distributions and total-variation

What would settle it

A controlled experiment where individuals receive information about the likelihood of states and then choose among gambles: if post-information risk attitudes do not match the AV@R_{1−(1−α)Z_t} levels implied by the time-consistency decomposition, the paper's premise fails. Alternatively, a calibration of the reinsurance model with actual insurer behavior: if the insurer's post-signal choices deviate from the predicted α_t = 1 − e^{−tν}, the optimal signal rules in Theorems 3–4 would not achieve the claimed losses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the sender's optimal information design is characterized by a Bayes-plausible distribution of posterior beliefs over states, where each posterior belief μ induces the receiver to revise her risk preference to AV@R_{α_t} with α_t = 1 − (1−α) Z*_t(μ), and Z*_t(μ) is the optimal dual variable in the time-consistent decomposition of the initial AV@R under belief μ. The sender's value is V(μ0) = inf{b : (μ0,b) ∈ cov(epi(ˆv))}, the lower convex closure of the sender's expected loss under each belief, and the optimal signal rule can be reconstructed from the posterior distribution that attains this closure. The paper further claims that, under the assumption that there is

Load-bearing premise

The receiver's revised preference is not an independent behavioral response but is computed from the time-consistency decomposition: after seeing state t she uses AV@R at level 1−(1−α)Z*_t, where Z*_t is the optimizer of the decomposition for the current belief; if real decision-makers revise risk attitudes differently, the whole steering mechanism dissolves.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the characterization holds, a sender can compute the optimal information design by solving a convex-closure problem, and the optimal signal needs at most |T| signals, one per state.
Persuasion that targets preferences is not automatically beneficial: when no belief satisfies the 'information the sender would share' condition, any Bayes-plausible signal leaves the sender no better than the prior.
When the informational gain exceeds the Wasserstein bound in Lemma 6, sending information strictly decreases the receiver's average perceived risk, giving a testable prediction of when preference persuasion pays off.
In the reinsurance setting, the reinsurer can strictly benefit only in specific parameter regions (Cases 2 and 3), with explicit optimal signal rules; in Case 1, persuasion never strictly helps.
For the action-inclusive problems, existence of an optimal signal rule requires uniqueness of the optimal dual variable; without it, no continuous selection may exist and optimal persuasion may fail.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If risk preferences actually revise as modeled, persuasion becomes a substitute for direct incentive design: a sender who cannot control the receiver's risk attitude can steer it through information alone, extending information design to preference parameters, not just actions.
The framework suggests an empirical test: in insurance or security settings, one could measure whether post-signal risk-taking matches the AV@R_{1−(1−α)Z} revision rule; a mismatch would bound the practical scope of preference persuasion.
The Wasserstein bound hints at a robustness principle: the sender's benefit from persuasion is limited by how much the signal moves the belief and how sensitive conditional loss distributions are to state changes—so in very stable environments, preference persuasion may be inherently weak.
The state-dependent-action variant describes a receiver who 'splits' into copies with different revised preferences after each state, suggesting dynamic or multi-agent extensions where one signal steers a population of post-revision selves—a feature absent from standard persuasion models.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper is worth engaging, but don't trust Theorem 1 in its current form. The sign error is real and load-bearing. Condition (14) defines "information the sender would share" as a decrease — E_mu[AV@R...] < E_mu[AV@R...] - epsilon — yet the proof of Theorem 1 restates it as an increase (16) with the opposite inequality and then concludes an increase. So the stated "decrease" result is unsupported. This matters because Theorem 1 is the paper's main answer to "when does persuasion benefit the sender?"

What is actually new: the synthesis of Bayesian persuasion with Pflug-Pichler time-consistent risk decomposition. Treating the dual variable Z_t as the receiver's "action" and letting beliefs induce revised AV@R levels is a real modeling idea. The existence machinery — lower semicontinuity of the value, convex-closure characterization — is standard but correctly executed. The Wasserstein bound in Lemma 4, bounding the distance between mixture distributions with a fixed kernel and varying marginals, is a genuinely useful technical result. The reinsurance application is also concrete: the exponential-distribution setup, the revised confidence levels in Lemma 8, and the three cases in Theorems 3 and 4 are specific enough to be checked and look correct on a first pass. The self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing, so circularity is not a concern.

Soft spots beyond the sign error: the proof of Theorem 1 fails to construct the paired belief mu' and weight gamma. Even after flipping the inequality, you would need to show a Bayes-plausible split exists with one "good" belief and one "bad" belief, and that Lemma 6's bound applies to the bad one. The current proof just asserts the split. There is also a notational tangle: the theorem statement's bound involves mu', but the proof's "good" belief is mu''. These are fixable, but they need to be fixed. The behavioral premise — that receivers revise preferences exactly per the Pflug-Pichler decomposition — is a strong assumption, but it is stated plainly and is a modeling choice, not an analytic flaw.

Who this is for: researchers in operations research, decision theory, and information design who work on receivers with non-expected-utility preferences. The paper deserves a serious referee; the framework and application are solid enough that the sign error should trigger a revision, not a desk rejection. I would send it to peer review with a clear request: correct Theorem 1's statement and proof, and spell out the existence of the required belief split.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a Bayesian persuasion model in which the receiver's risk preference is not fixed but is revised after observing a state, according to the Pflug–Pichler time-consistent decomposition of a coherent risk measure. The sender chooses a Bayes-plausible distribution of posterior beliefs; each belief induces conditional AV@R revisions through optimal dual variables. For preference persuasion per se, the sender's value is characterized as the convex closure V(μ0)=inf{b:(μ0,b)∈cov(epi(vhat))}, and Section 3.2 gives a Wasserstein-based condition intended to identify when persuasion can decrease average risk. The paper also treats preference persuasion with actions and applies the framework to optimal reinsurance, constructing signal rules and expected losses in several parameter regimes.

Significance. The contribution is potentially useful: it embeds risk-preference revision into information design and provides explicit constructive examples, a finite-signal bound, and a reinsurance application with closed-form signal rules and verifiable parameter cases. The convex-closure existence argument and the reinsurance computations are concrete and falsifiable. However, the main benefit theorem in §3.2 is not proven as stated; because this theorem is the paper's central answer to 'when does persuasion benefit the sender?', the manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (3)

[§3.2, Theorem 1; Eqs. (14), (16), (17)] The statement of Theorem 1 ('decrease average risk') is contradicted by its proof. Condition (14) formalizes 'there is information the sender would share' as Eμ''[AV@R_{α,Z*(μ'')}(Y|t)] < Eμ''[AV@R_{α,Z*(μ0)}(Y|t)] − ε. In the proof, this hypothesis is restated as Eq. (16) with the opposite inequality, Eμ''[AV@R_{α,Z*(μ'')}(Y|t)] > Eμ''[AV@R_{α,Z*(μ0)}(Y|t)] + ε, and the proof then concludes an increase, Eη vhat(μ) > vhat(μ0). Eq. (16) is not a consequence of (14); it is the reverse. Consequently the only general result answering when preference persuasion benefits the sender is unsupported as stated. The authors must decide whether the intended claim is 'decrease' for the minimizing sender in Problem (7), in which case (14) and the final inequality must be reversed and the proof reworked, or 'increase' for a maximizing sender, in which case the theorem statement must change.
[§3.2, Theorem 1 proof; Lemma 6] Even after correcting the sign, the proof does not establish the required Bayes-plausible distribution. The proof introduces a prior split μ0 = γμ' + (1−γ)μ'' and an η supported on {μ',μ''}, but it never specifies μ' or γ, nor does it verify that the assumed ε bound applies to the belief appearing in condition (14). Lemma 6 bounds |Eμ[AV@R_{α,Z*(μ)}(Y|t)] − Eμ[AV@R_{α,Z*(μ0)}(Y|t)]| for each μ, whereas the proof must control the mixed term γD(μ') + (1−γ)D(μ''). The factor γ/(1−γ) enters, so the condition ε > L(Y)/(1−α)[W1(μ0,μ')+G(μ0,μ')] + M0(2dTV(μ0,μ')+m) + M'm is not by itself sufficient. A construction of μ' and γ, together with a proof that Eη vhat(μ) lies on the desired side of vhat(μ0), is load-bearing for the theorem's claim.
[§3.1, Lemma 3] The proof of lower semicontinuity of vhat is too terse. The sentence 'By Berge’s theorem, the receiver must be indifferent between a set of risk adjustments at μ' does not constitute a derivation of liminf vhat(μ_n) ≥ vhat(μ). Since Corollary 1 and the convex-closure characterization depend on this property, the argument should be written out: take a sequence μ_n→μ, extract a convergent subsequence of optimal selections from the compact set Z*(μ_n), and pass to the limit using continuity of AV@R in its level and the definition of vhat as the minimum over Z*(μ).

minor comments (4)

[§3.2, Lemma 5] The displayed inequality uses AV@R^{Q1}_α(Y) on both sides; the second term should be AV@R^{Q2}_α(Y).
[§5.2, Theorem 4] The 'optimal expected loss' values stated in Theorem 4 are positive expressions, but v(μ) defined earlier in §5.2 is negative (the reinsurer receives premium minus indemnity). Please either add the missing minus sign or explicitly state that the theorem reports the negative of the expected loss.
[§2.3, Eq. (13)] The signal-rule reconstruction π(s|t)=μ_s(t)η(μ_s)/μ0(t) needs a convention when μ0(t)=0, since the formula is undefined on prior-null states.
[§3.4] The sentence 'this optimal signal rule ... suggests not performing preference revision' is potentially confusing: the signal does induce degenerate posterior beliefs, and the point is that the induced preference revision coincides with the initial AV@R on the relevant conditional losses. Rephrasing would help the reader distinguish 'no revision of the conditional risk level' from 'no information transmission'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central derivation is self-contained; self-citations are contextual. Theorem 1 has a sign inconsistency, but that is a correctness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. The receiver's revised preference in Section 2.2 is obtained from the Pflug-Pichler time-consistent decomposition (eqs. (5)-(6)), an external theorem with stated assumptions; it is a modeling premise, not a parameter fitted to the paper's conclusions. The value characterization V(µ0)=inf{b:(µ0,b)∈cov(epi(ˆv))} in Corollary 1/eq. (12) is the standard Kamenica-Gentzkow convex-envelope argument adapted to a minimizer via the epigraph; it is an equivalence from lower semicontinuity, not a circular prediction. Lemma 6 and Theorem 1 are derived from Lipschitz continuity of AV@R and Wasserstein/total-variation bounds; no free parameter is calibrated to the target result, and the examples use closed-form distributions. The author's self-citations (Liu [33]; Liu and Zhu [34,35]) appear only in the introduction as related-work comparisons and are not used in the proofs of Theorems 1-4; hence they are not load-bearing. One caveat must be flagged: in Section 3.2, condition (14) is stated with '<', but the proof of Theorem 1 restates the hypothesis as (16) with '>' and concludes an increase, so the stated 'decrease average risk' result is not proven as written. This is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction, so it does not raise the circularity score. The circularity score of 2 reflects only the presence of minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Pflug-Pichler decomposition as a behavioral rule, the standard Bayesian persuasion common-knowledge structure, and several tractability restrictions (uniqueness of the dual variable, premium principle, exponential losses). No free parameters are fitted to data; all constants are model inputs or derived values.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The receiver's interim risk preference is exactly the time-consistent decomposition AV@R_α(Y)=sup_Z E[Z_t AV@R_{1-(1-α)Z_t}(Y|t)] (Pflug-Pichler Theorem 21), and she revises her preference to AV@R_{1-(1-α)Z*_t}.
Section 2.2 "Information-contingent preference revision" and eq. (6). This is the core behavioral premise: the paper assumes a DM's preference change follows the mathematical decomposition rather than deriving it from primitive preferences or evidence.
domain assumption The conditional distributions P(·|t) and the prior μ0 are common knowledge and the sender and receiver share the same posterior beliefs.
Section 2.1: "Throughout this paper, we assume that the sender and the receiver share the same belief." This is standard in Bayesian persuasion but restricts the model.
standard math The dual representation of law-invariant coherent risk measures (Fenchel-Moreau) and AV@R's random-level conditional form hold as stated.
Equations (1)-(6), from Artzner et al., Föllmer-Schied, and Pflug-Pichler.
domain assumption There exists "information that the sender would share" with slack ε>0 (condition 14).
Section 3.2, condition (14). This is the standard 'there is a belief the sender prefers to disclose' assumption; without it, persuasion cannot help.
ad hoc to paper In Theorem 2 the optimal dual variable Z* is unique; in the reinsurance application, the expected-value premium principle with κ>0, exponential conditional loss distributions, and parameter restrictions q0<q̃ (Case 2) and t2>t1(1/q−1/q̄) (Case 3) are assumed.
Section 4 (Theorem 2) and Section 5.2. These assumptions make the analysis tractable and are not derived from data or first principles.
domain assumption Sender-preferred subgame perfect equilibrium: when the receiver is indifferent, the sender chooses the revision/action he prefers.
Section 2.3 and eq. (11). This is a standard tie-breaking convention in Bayesian persuasion but is a substantive equilibrium-selection assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayesian Risk Preference Persuasion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZYXYBSPL

@misc{pith2026260713810,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayesian Risk Preference Persuasion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZYXYBSPL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13810}
}

read the original abstract

A decision-maker's risk preference is inherently unstable and may adjust in response to external information, shaping subsequent choices and outcomes. This paper develops a persuasion framework to study how information can be designed to steer risk preferences and decision results. In our model, a receiver starts with an initial risk preference represented by a coherent risk measure and revises it after observing a system state generated by an information rule claimed by a sender. The revision must preserve time consistency of risk evaluations before and after the state realization. We characterize the sender's optimal information design by analyzing the induced distribution of posterior beliefs over states. Each belief leads to specific preference revisions and corresponding conditional risk assessments. We identify conditions under which information design benefits the sender across several settings and illustrate the framework's potential in risk management through an application to reinsurance design.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

F. J. Anscombe and R. J. Aumann. A definition of subjective probability.The annals of mathematical statistics, 34(1):199–205, 1963

1963
[2]

Anunrojwong, K

J. Anunrojwong, K. Iyer, and D. Lingenbrink. Persuading risk-conscious agents: A geometric approach.Operations research, 72(1):151–166, 2024

2024
[3]

Armbruster and E

B. Armbruster and E. Delage. Decision making under uncertainty when preference information is incomplete.Management science, 61(1):111–128, 2015

2015
[4]

Artzner, F

P. Artzner, F. Delbaen, J.-M. Eber, and D. Heath. Coherent measures of risk.Mathematical finance, 9(3):203–228, 1999

1999
[5]

Astudillo and P

R. Astudillo and P. Frazier. Multi-attribute bayesian optimization with interactive preference learning. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 4496–4507. PMLR, 2020

2020
[6]

R. J. Aumann, M. Maschler, and R. E. Stearns.Repeated games with incomplete information. MIT press, 1995

1995
[7]

Babichenko, I

Y . Babichenko, I. Talgam-Cohen, H. Xu, and K. Zabarnyi. Information design in the principal-agent problem.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.13688, 2022

arXiv 2022
[8]

Barseghyan, J

L. Barseghyan, J. Prince, and J. C. Teitelbaum. Are risk preferences stable across contexts? evidence from insurance data. American Economic Review, 101(2):591–631, 2011

2011

Show all 50 references

[9]

Beauchêne, J

D. Beauchêne, J. Li, and M. Li. Ambiguous persuasion.Journal of Economic Theory, 179:312–365, 2019

2019
[10]

J. Berg, J. Dickhaut, and K. McCabe. Risk preference instability across institutions: A dilemma.Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 102(11):4209–4214, 2005

2005
[11]

Bergemann and S

D. Bergemann and S. Morris. Bayes correlated equilibrium and the comparison of information structures in games.Theoretical Economics, 11(2):487–522, 2016. 31

2016
[12]

Cabrales, O

A. Cabrales, O. Gossner, and R. Serrano. Entropy and the value of information for investors.American Economic Review, 103 (1):360–377, 2013

2013
[13]

Cai and Y

J. Cai and Y . Chi. Optimal reinsurance designs based on risk measures: A review.Statistical Theory and Related Fields, 4(1): 1–13, 2020

2020
[14]

Candogan and H

O. Candogan and H. Gurkan. The value of information design in supply chain management.Management Science, 71(8): 6545–6558, 2025

2025
[15]

Charness, N

G. Charness, N. Chemaya, and D. Trujano-Ochoa. Learning your own risk preferences.Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 67 (1):1–19, 2023

2023
[16]

Chen and T

Y . Chen and T. Lin. Persuading a behavioral agent: Approximately best responding and learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03719, 2023

2023 arXiv
[17]

Chi and K

Y . Chi and K. S. Tan. Optimal reinsurance under var and cvar risk measures: a simplified approach.ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA, 41(2):487–509, 2011

2011
[18]

De Clippel and X

G. De Clippel and X. Zhang. Non-bayesian persuasion.Journal of Political Economy, 130(10):2594–2642, 2022

2022
[19]

Delage, S

E. Delage, S. Guo, and H. Xu. Shortfall risk models when information on loss function is incomplete.Operations Research, 70 (6):3511–3518, 2022

2022
[20]

Feng, C.-J

Y . Feng, C.-J. Ho, and W. Tang. Rationality-robust information design: Bayesian persuasion under quantal response. In Proceedings of the 2024 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 501–546. SIAM, 2024

2024
[21]

Föllmer and A

H. Föllmer and A. Schied.Stochastic finance: an introduction in discrete time. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2025

2025
[22]

Gandhi, A

A. Gandhi, A. Samek, and R. Serrano-Padial. Information and risk preferences: The case of insurance choice, 2017

2017
[23]

Guo and H

S. Guo and H. Xu. Robust spectral risk optimization when the subjective risk aversion is ambiguous: a moment-type approach. Mathematical Programming, 194(1/2):305, 2022

2022
[24]

B. R. Handel and J. T. Kolstad. Health insurance for “humans”: Information frictions, plan choice, and consumer welfare. American Economic Review, 105(8):2449–2500, 2015

2015
[25]

Kamenica and M

E. Kamenica and M. Gentzkow. Bayesian persuasion.American Economic Review, 101(6):2590–2615, 2011

2011
[26]

E. Karni. A definition of subjective probabilities with state-dependent preferences.Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 187–198, 1993

1993
[27]

T. T. Kerman, P. J.-J. Herings, and D. Karos. Persuading sincere and strategic voters.Journal of Public Economic Theory, 26 (1):e12671, 2024

2024
[28]

Koessler, M

F. Koessler, M. Laclau, and T. Tomala. Interactive information design.Mathematics of Operations Research, 47(1):153–175, 2022

2022
[29]

M. Li, X. Tong, and H. Xu. Randomization of spectral risk measures and distributional robustness.Journal of Risk, 27:1–56, 2025

2025
[30]

Lin and A

Z. Lin and A. Ruszczy´nski. An integrated transportation distance between kernels and approximate dynamic risk evaluation in markov systems.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 61(6):3559–3583, 2023

2023
[31]

Lipnowski and L

E. Lipnowski and L. Mathevet. Disclosure to a psychological audience.American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 10(4): 67–93, 2018. 32

2018
[32]

J. Liu, M. Kadzi´nski, and X. Liao. Modeling contingent decision behavior: A bayesian nonparametric preference-learning approach.INFORMS Journal on Computing, 35(4):764–785, 2023

2023
[33]

S. Liu. Games with incomplete information played by risk-revising players.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.19738, 2026

2026
[34]

Liu and Q

S. Liu and Q. Zhu. Mitigating moral hazard in insurance contracts using risk preference design.Operations Research Letters, 62:107322, 2025

2025
[35]

Liu and Q

S. Liu and Q. Zhu. Stackelberg risk preference design.Mathematical Programming, 209(1):785–823, 2025

2025
[36]

Maitra, A

U. Maitra, A. R. Hota, and P. E. Paré. Optimal bayesian persuasion for containing sis epidemics.IEEE Control Systems Letters, 8:2499–2504, 2024

2024
[37]

Mathevet, J

L. Mathevet, J. Perego, and I. Taneva. On information design in games.Journal of Political Economy, 128(4):1370–1404, 2020

2020
[38]

Nasioulas, E

A. Nasioulas, E. Potier, F. Cerrotti, M. Lebreton, and S. Palminteri. Feedback-induced attitudinal changes in risk preferences. Nature Communications, 2026

2026
[39]

G. C. Pflug and A. Pichler.Multistage stochastic optimization, volume 1104. Springer, 2014

2014
[40]

G. C. Pflug and A. Pichler. Time-consistent decisions and temporal decomposition of coherent risk functionals.Mathematics of Operations Research, 41(2):682–699, 2016

2016
[41]

Rayo and I

L. Rayo and I. Segal. Optimal information disclosure.Journal of political Economy, 118(5):949–987, 2010

2010
[42]

R. T. Rockafellar and R. J. Wets.Variational analysis. Springer, 1998

1998
[43]

Ruszczy ´nski and A

A. Ruszczy ´nski and A. Shapiro. Optimization of convex risk functions.Mathematics of operations research, 31(3):433–452, 2006

2006
[44]

M. O. Sayin and T. Ba¸ sar. Bayesian persuasion with state-dependent quadratic cost measures.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 67(3):1241–1252, 2021

2021
[45]

A. Shapiro. On kusuoka representation of law invariant risk measures.Mathematics of Operations Research, 38(1):142–152, 2013

2013
[46]

Su and H

Z. Su and H. Xu. Continuous and monotone bayesian nash equilibrium with incomplete information about player’s risk preferences.Available at SSRN 5118754, 2025

2025
[47]

Tversky, P

A. Tversky, P. Slovic, and D. Kahneman. The causes of preference reversal.The American Economic Review, pages 204–217, 1990

1990
[48]

Villani et al.Optimal transport: old and new, volume 338

C. Villani et al.Optimal transport: old and new, volume 338. Springer, 2009

2009
[49]

Wang and H

W. Wang and H. Xu. Preference robust state-dependent distortion risk measure on act space and its application in optimal decision making.Computational Management Science, 20(1):45, 2023

2023
[50]

Zhu and M

S. Zhu and M. Fukushima. Worst-case conditional value-at-risk with application to robust portfolio management.Operations research, 57(5):1155–1168, 2009. 33

2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

F. J. Anscombe and R. J. Aumann. A definition of subjective probability.The annals of mathematical statistics, 34(1):199–205, 1963

1963

[2] [2]

Anunrojwong, K

J. Anunrojwong, K. Iyer, and D. Lingenbrink. Persuading risk-conscious agents: A geometric approach.Operations research, 72(1):151–166, 2024

2024

[3] [3]

Armbruster and E

B. Armbruster and E. Delage. Decision making under uncertainty when preference information is incomplete.Management science, 61(1):111–128, 2015

2015

[4] [4]

Artzner, F

P. Artzner, F. Delbaen, J.-M. Eber, and D. Heath. Coherent measures of risk.Mathematical finance, 9(3):203–228, 1999

1999

[5] [5]

Astudillo and P

R. Astudillo and P. Frazier. Multi-attribute bayesian optimization with interactive preference learning. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 4496–4507. PMLR, 2020

2020

[6] [6]

R. J. Aumann, M. Maschler, and R. E. Stearns.Repeated games with incomplete information. MIT press, 1995

1995

[7] [7]

Babichenko, I

Y . Babichenko, I. Talgam-Cohen, H. Xu, and K. Zabarnyi. Information design in the principal-agent problem.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.13688, 2022

arXiv 2022

[8] [8]

Barseghyan, J

L. Barseghyan, J. Prince, and J. C. Teitelbaum. Are risk preferences stable across contexts? evidence from insurance data. American Economic Review, 101(2):591–631, 2011

2011