Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 58 references

New developments in revealed preference theory: decisions under risk, uncertainty, and intertemporal choice

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This survey shows that expected utility, subjective expected utility, maxmin expected utility, and exponential discounting are all exactly testable through price–quantity monotonicity conditions built on Afriat's GARP.

desk verdict A useful and readable survey of revealed-preference tests for risk, uncertainty, and intertemporal choice, organized around a persuasive 'downward-sloping demand' lens, but Theorem 6 is false as stated and the abstract overreaches without the risk-aversion qualifier. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07561 v2 pith:IIFYRN7C submitted 2019-08-20 econ.TH cs.GTecon.EM

Federico Echenique This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.THcs.GTecon.EM MSC 91B0691B0891B1691B42
keywords revealedpreferenceexpectedutilitysubjectivemaxminexponentialdiscountingdownward-slopingdemandriskanduncertaintyintertemporalchoice
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 survey argues that the testable content of four workhorse economic theories—expected utility under risk, subjective expected utility under uncertainty, maxmin expected utility, and exponentially discounted utility—can be stated in one language: choice data from linear budgets must display an inverse relation between prices and quantities, with each theory adding its own qualification. The paper reviews characterization theorems showing that Afriat's classical test of rational choice (GARP) can be strengthened, by balancing price–quantity comparisons across observations in particular ways, to test each theory exactly. If these characterizations are right, researchers with a finite dataset of budget choices can determine whether observed behavior is consistent with each of these foundational models by checking systems of linear inequalities. The survey matters because these are the theories most used in macroeconomics, finance, and experimental economics, and the common thread promises one unified empirical framework for all of them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a balanced sequence of pairs of observed quantities, $(x_{l_i}^{k_i}, x_{l'_i}^{k'_i})$, in which each observation $k$ appears on the left exactly as often as on the right; a doubly balanced sequence additionally requires each good (state or period) $l$ to appear on the left exactly as often as on the right. Economically, balancedness is what lets the analyst 'mix and match' price and quantity comparisons across different observations without accumulating spurious information. The first-order conditions of concave utility then convert the requirement that larger chosen quantities be associated with cheaper prices into a product-of-price-ratios inequality, the downward-sloping demand property; each theory's functional form determines exactly which pairs must be balanced.

What would settle it

The common thread would be broken by a single finite dataset that a theory can rationalize but that violates the corresponding Strong Axiom—for example, an expected-utility-rational dataset failing the Strong Axiom of Revealed Objective Expected Utility. Because each theorem claims an equivalence, checking any published budget-choice dataset against the relevant linear inequalities would settle it; such a counterexample is a concrete, computable falsifier.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that expected utility, subjective expected utility, maxmin expected utility, and exponential discounting all have the same revealed-preference skeleton: after the right adjustment, each theory says that when one chosen quantity exceeds another, the corresponding price ratios must multiply to at most one. Expected utility compares risk-neutral prices (price divided by objective probability); subjective expected utility allows subjective probabilities and therefore requires doubly balanced sequences of pairs; maxmin expected utility has a tight characterization only when there are two states, because then only two extreme beliefs matter; exponential discounting requires the time periods on the left of each comparison to be, on net, no earlier than those on the right. Each characterization is a strengthening of GARP, and each is equivalent to satisfying a 'Strong Axiom' built from balanced pairs. The paper presents these as necessary and sufficient conditions for a finite dataset to be rationalized by the respective theory.

Load-bearing premise

The unified common-thread story rests on the correctness of the cited characterization theorems; in particular the maxmin result is proven only for two states and the expected-utility tests assume risk-averse convex preferences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Expected utility with risk aversion can be tested exactly on finite budget-choice data by checking the Strong Axiom of Revealed Objective Expected Utility, using risk-neutral price ratios.
  • Subjective expected utility demands a weaker test than objective expected utility but a stronger one than GARP: every doubly balanced sequence must satisfy downward-sloping demand.
  • Maxmin expected utility is exactly testable in two-state datasets; outside two states or under other ambiguity models, available characterizations are limited to risk neutrality.
  • Exponential discounting is testable by counting whether later-period quantities in a balanced sequence are consistently larger only when the corresponding price ratios are lower.
  • Any dataset that violates GARP fails all four theories, so the strong axioms are refinements of the same rational-choice core.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The inverse price–quantity thread suggests that all four theories admit a unified implementation as linear inequality systems, so a single software routine could report which theories a dataset passes; the survey does not itself make this implementation claim.
  • The two-state limitation for maxmin may be a real boundary rather than a technical gap: with more than two states the set of beliefs has more than two extreme points, so the argument that one extreme belief explains each choice breaks down; a multi-state characterization may need new conditions or be computationally harder.
  • The same balanced-sequence machinery could plausibly test other intertemporal and non-expected-utility models, such as rank-dependent utility or quasi-hyperbolic discounting, by choosing the appropriate balancing rule; the survey mentions some of these but does not develop a fully general recipe.
  • An experiment with three or more states could directly probe whether the two-state maxmin test under-rejects or over-rejects relative to a future multi-state characterization, since current two-state tests cannot distinguish genuine ambiguity aversion from the state-count limitation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This survey reviews recent revealed preference characterizations for choice under risk, uncertainty, and intertemporal choice. It presents theorems showing that rationalizability by expected utility, subjective expected utility, maxmin expected utility, and exponential discounting is equivalent to strengthened versions of GARP taking the form of downward-sloping demand conditions on balanced or doubly balanced sequences of price-quantity pairs. It also reviews a computational method for expected utility without risk aversion, a necessary condition for probabilistic sophistication, and extensions to multiple physical goods. The paper's organizing claim is that all these theories imply an inverse relation between prices and quantities, with qualifications.

Significance. The survey is well organized and potentially useful as a synthetic reference. Its main value is showing that several recent characterization theorems share a common price-quantity monotonicity structure, and it is commendably transparent about limitations: the maxmin result is restricted to two states, the main tests are joint tests with risk aversion, and the characterization of probabilistic sophistication is open. The theorem statements are generally attributed clearly, and the paper does not claim proofs. However, the abstract overstates the common-thread claim, and Section 4.4 contains a theorem that is false as stated. These issues reduce the reliability of the survey until corrected, though the underlying risk-averse characterization theorems (Theorems 3, 4, 5, and 8) appear to support the inverse-relation reading.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.4, Theorem 6] The statement that a dataset is UEU-rational if and only if it is UEU-rational on the data is false as written. Let S={1,2}, mu=(1/2,1/2), and a single observation p=(1,2), x=(0,1). Then X={0,1}, and the feasible grid points in the budget x1+2x2<=2 are (0,0), (1,0), and (0,1). The strictly increasing function u(0)=0, u(1)=1 makes (0,1) a maximizer on the grid (tied with (1,0)), so the data are UEU-rational on the data. But full UEU-rationality requires a concave, strictly increasing u on R+, and any such u has u(2)>u(1), making (2,0), which is affordable, yield expected utility (u(2)+u(0))/2 > (u(1)+u(0))/2, contradicting optimality of (0,1). The theorem therefore needs additional hypotheses (for example, imposing concavity on the grid utility or a different definition of rationalization on the data); as stated, it is incorrect.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4.4] The abstract's unqualified claim that 'The theories all imply an inverse relation between prices and quantities' is too strong. Section 4.4 itself states that the tests presented earlier 'are really joint tests of the hypotheses that an agent is consistent with some particular theory of choice, and that the agent is risk averse.' The inverse-relation theorems (Theorems 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8) all assume concavity or risk aversion in the relevant sense, and the counterexample in my previous comment shows that the relation fails for expected utility without risk aversion. The abstract, and the survey's framing, should qualify the common-thread claim as applying to the risk-averse/convex specializations, or should present a dedicated, correct statement of what is known without risk aversion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3] The Strong Axiom of Revealed Additively Separable Utility refers to the 'risk-neutral downward-sloping property,' but Definition 4 defines only the 'downward-sloping demand property'; please harmonize the terminology and define the risk-neutral version explicitly.
  2. [Section 4.3] The display defining the Strong Axiom of Revealed Maxmin Expected Utility contains a garbled condition ('|I0,1| + |I1,1| - |I'_{1,1}| = |I'_{0,1}| + |I'_{2,1}| - |I2,1| <= 0'); please restate the intended inequality and verify the notation.
  3. [Section 6.1, Theorem 9] In Statement (3), the term lambda^{k'} p^{k'}_{s'} s / pi_{s'} (x^k_s - x^{k'}_{s'}) appears to be a typographical error; the intended expression is presumably lambda^{k'} (p^{k'}_{s'}/pi_{s'}) dot (x^k_s - x^{k'}_{s'}).
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'subjected expected utility' in the abstract should be 'subjective expected utility,' 'Pasandea' in the affiliation should be 'Pasadena,' 'sue to' in the footnote on Ellsberg should be 'due to,' and Section 4.5 uses both 'v(Fx)' and 'V(Fx')' for the same function.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Survey reports external characterization theorems; the common-thread narrative is an interpretation, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

I examined the claimed derivation chain. The survey makes no new derivations; it presents characterization theorems (Afriat, Kubler-Selden-Wei, Echenique-Saito, Chambers-Echenique-Saito, Polisson-Quah-Renou, Browning) and proposes that their axioms share the form of downward-sloping demand. The axioms are indeed defined as having the 'downward-sloping demand property' (Definition 4 and the several Strong Axiom definitions), so the abstract's 'inverse relation between prices and quantities' is literally built into the test language. However, the substantive content is in the theorems saying that rationality under each theory is equivalent to the corresponding axiom; those theorems are external results, not re-derivations from the survey's own assumptions. Self-citations (Echenique & Saito 2015; Chambers et al. 2016a; Echenique et al. 2019b) are used to attribute theorems, not to justify a contested premise or to forbid alternatives; no uniqueness claim is imported. The survey explicitly flags limitations: the MEU characterization is restricted to two states ('The results on UMEU rationality require the assumption that |S| = 2'), and Section 4.4 says the earlier tests are 'really joint tests' of the theory and risk aversion. These caveats qualify the abstract but do not make the argument circular. The alleged falsehood of Theorem 6 (the skeptic's counterexample) would be a correctness problem in a cited result, not a circular reduction of the survey's claims to its inputs. The paper also states that it will not prove the results it reports ('I shall not prove Theorem 2, or any other results stated in this survey'), which is normal survey practice rather than circularity. Therefore no circular step rises to the level requiring a score above 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The survey does not introduce free parameters or new entities. Its contributions are expository; the only substantive assumptions are the modeling restrictions inherited from the underlying theories (convexity, linear budgets, specific domains like two states for maxmin).

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The survey maintains the assumption of convex (risk-averse) preferences throughout, so first-order conditions characterize optimizing behavior.
    Section 1 states this restriction explicitly; it is needed for the sufficiency of first-order conditions in the characterizations.
  • domain assumption The survey assumes the correctness of the cited theorems from the literature, including Afriat's theorem and the recent characterizations by Kubler et al. (2014), Echenique & Saito (2015), Chambers et al. (2016a), and Echenique et al. (2019b).
    The paper provides no proofs, so the central narrative rests on these external results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New developments in revealed preference theory: decisions under risk, uncertainty, and intertemporal choice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IIFYRN7C

@misc{pith2026190807561,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New developments in revealed preference theory: decisions under risk, uncertainty, and intertemporal choice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IIFYRN7C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07561}
}
read the original abstract

This survey reviews recent developments in revealed preference theory. It discusses the testable implications of theories of choice that are germane to specific economic environments. The focus is on expected utility in risky environments; subjected expected utility and maxmin expected utility in the presence of uncertainty; and exponentially discounted utility for intertemporal choice. The testable implications of these theories for data on choice from classical linear budget sets are described, and shown to follow a common thread. The theories all imply an inverse relation between prices and quantities, with different qualifications depending on the functional forms in the theory under consideration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07561 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Additively separable utility Suppose, for the purpose of exposition, that u is smooth. Then the first￾order conditions of the maximization problem (assuming an interior solution) imply that u ′ (xl) u ′ (xl ′) = pl pl ′ . The first-order condition, and the concavity of u, imply that whenever xl > xl ′ it must be the case that pl pl ′ ≤ 1. In words, larger consumption of good l than of l ′ is only possible when l is … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Violation of subjective expected utility indifference curve at x 1 has a tangent at the 45-degree line that is steeper than the budget line at x 1 . Since the prices at x 1 imply a steeper budget line than at x 2 , we are forced to conclude that the tangent, on the 45-degree line, to the indifference curve passing through x 1 is steeper than the same tangent for the indifference curve passing through x 2 . So the ex… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams A, Cherchye L, De Rock B, Verriest E. 2014. Consume now or later? time inconsistency, collective choice, and revealed preference. American Economic Review 104:4147--83

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Afriat SN. 1967. The construction of utility functions from expenditure data. International Economic Review 8:67--77

    work page 1967

  3. [3]

    Ahn D, Choi S, Gale D, Kariv S. 2014. Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment. Quantitative Economics 5:195--223

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Andreoni J, Sprenger C. 2012. Estimating time preferences from convex budgets. American Economic Review 102:3333--3356

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Blundell RW, Browning M, Crawford IA. 2003. Nonparametric engel curves and revealed preference. Econometrica 71:205--240

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Bossaerts P, Ghirardato P, Guarnaschelli S, Zame WR. 2010. Ambiguity in asset markets: Theory and experiment. Review of Financial Studies 23:1325--1359

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Browning M. 1989. A nonparametric test of the life-cycle rational expectations hypothesis. International Economic Review 30:979--992

    work page 1989

  8. [8]

    Camerer C, Weber M. 1992. Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5:325--370

    work page 1992

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Carvajal A, Ray I, Snyder S. 2004. Equilibrium behavior in markets and games: testable restrictions and identification. Journal of Mathematical Economics 40:1 -- 40. Aggregation, Equilibrium and Observability in honor of Werner Hildenbrand

    2004

  2. [10]

    Carvalho L, Meier S, Wang SW. 2016. Poverty and economic decision making: Evidence from changes in financial resources at payday. American Economic Review 106:260--284

    2016

  3. [11]

    Chambers CP, Echenique F. 2009. Supermodularity and preferences. Journal of Economic Theory 144:1004--1014

    2009

  4. [12]

    Chambers CP, Echenique F. 2016. Revealed preference theory, vol. 56. Cambridge University Press

    2016

  5. [13]

    Chambers CP, Echenique F, Saito K. 2016 a . Testing theories of financial decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113:4003--4008

    2016

  6. [14]

    Chambers CP, Echenique F, Shmaya E. 2014. The axiomatic structure of empirical content. American Economic Review 104:2303--19

    2014

  7. [15]

    Chambers CP, Echenique F, Shmaya E. 2017. General revealed preference theory. Theoretical Economics 12:493--511

    2017

  8. [16]

    Chambers CP, Liu C, Martinez SK. 2016 b . A test for risk-averse expected utility. Journal of Economic Theory 163:775--785

    2016

  9. [17]

    Cherchye L, Crawford I, De Rock B, Vermeulen F. 2009. The revealed preference approach to demand . In Quantifying Consumer Preferences: Estimating Demand Systems, ed. D Slottje, Contributions to Economic Analysis. Emerald Press, 247--280

    2009

  10. [18]

    Cherchye L, Demuynck T, Rock BD. 2018. Normality of demand in a two-goods setting. Journal of Economic Theory 173:361 -- 382

    2018

  11. [19]

    Choi S, Fisman R, Gale D, Kariv S. 2007. Consistency and heterogeneity of individual behavior under uncertainty. American Economic Review 97:1921--1938

    2007

  12. [20]

    Choi S, Kariv S, M \"u ller W, Silverman D. 2014. Who is (more) rational? American Economic Review 104:1518--1550

    2014

  13. [21]

    Crawford I. 2010. Habits revealed. The Review of Economic Studies 77:1382--1402

    2010

  14. [22]

    Crawford I, De Rock B. 2014. Empirical revealed preference. Annual Review of Economics 6:503--524

    2014

  15. [23]

    Debreu G. 1959. Theory of value: An axiomatic analysis of economic equilibrium. Yale University Press

    1959

  16. [24]

    habits as durables

    Demuynck T, Verriest E. 2013. I’ll never forget my first cigarette: a revealed preference analysis of the “habits as durables” model. International Economic Review 54:717--738

    2013

  17. [25]

    Diewert WE. 1973. Afriat and revealed preference theory . The Review of Economic Studies 40:419--425

    1973

  18. [26]

    Diewert WE. 2012. Afriat's theorem and some extensions to choice under uncertainty. The Economic Journal 122:305--331

    2012

  19. [27]

    Dziewulski P. 2018. Revealed time preference. Games and Economic Behavior 112:67 -- 77

    2018

  20. [28]

    Echenique F, Imai T, Saito K. 2018. Approximate expected utility rationalization. Caltech SS Working Paper 1441

    2018

  21. [29]

    Echenique F, Imai T, Saito K. 2019 a . Decision making under uncertainty: An experimental study in market settings. Mimeo, California Institute of Technology

    2019

  22. [30]

    Echenique F, Imai T, Saito K. 2019 b . Testable implications of models of intertemporal choice: Exponential discounting and its generalizations. Caltech SS Working Paper 1388

    2019

  23. [31]

    Echenique F, Saito K. 2015. Savage in the market. Econometrica 83:1467--1495

    2015

  24. [32]

    Ellsberg D. 1961. Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 75:643--669

    1961

  25. [33]

    Epstein LG. 2000. Are probabilities used in markets? Journal of Economic Theory 91:86--90

    2000

  26. [34]

    Fishburn PC. 1975. Separation theorems and expected utilities. Journal of Economic Theory 11:16--34

    1975

  27. [35]

    Fishburn PC. 1979. Utility theory for decision making. Krieger

    1979

  28. [36]

    Fudenberg D, Iijima R, Strzalecki T. 2014. Stochastic choice and revealed perturbed utility. Mimeo, Harvard University

    2014

  29. [37]

    Gilboa I, Schmeidler D. 1989. Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics 18:141--153

    1989

  30. [38]

    Green RC, Srivastava S. 1986. Expected utility maximization and demand behavior. Journal of Economic Theory 38:313--323

    1986

  31. [39]

    Halevy Y, Persitz D, Zrill L. 2018. Parametric recoverability of preferences. Journal of Political Economy 126:1558--1593

    2018

  32. [40]

    Hansen LP, Sargent TJ. 2008. Robustness. Princeton university press

    2008

  33. [41]

    Hey J, Pace N. 2014. The explanatory and predictive power of non two-stage-probability theories of decision making under ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 49:1--29

    2014

  34. [42]

    Houthakker H. 1950. Revealed preference and the utility function . Economica 17:159--174

    1950

  35. [43]

    Kubler F, Selden L, Wei X. 2014. Asset demand based tests of expected utility maximization. American Economic Review 104:3459--80

    2014

  36. [44]

    Machina MJ, Schmeidler D. 1992. A more robust definition of subjective probability. Econometrica :745--780

    1992

  37. [45]

    Matzkin RL. 1994. Restrictions of economic theory in nonparametric methods. Handbook of econometrics 4:2523--2558

    1994

  38. [46]

    Matzkin RL, Richter MK. 1991. Testing strictly concave rationality. Journal of Economic Theory 53:287--303

    1991

  39. [47]

    Nishimura H, Ok EA, Quah J. 2017. A comprehensive approach to revealed preference theory. American Economic Review 107:1239--63

    2017

  40. [48]

    Polisson M. 2018. A lattice test for additive separability. IFS Working Paper W18-08

    2018

  41. [49]

    Polisson M, Quah J, Renou L. 2017. Revealed preferences over risk and uncertainty. University of St.\ Andrews School of Economics and Finance Discussion Paper No. 1706

    2017

  42. [50]

    Quah J. 2014. A test for weakly separable preferences. Tech. rep., Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series, 708, University of Oxford

    2014

  43. [51]

    Rockafellar RT. 1997. Convex analysis. Princeton university press

    1997

  44. [52]

    Samuelson P. 1938. A note on the pure theory of consumer's behaviour . Economica 5:61--71

    1938

  45. [53]

    Trautmann ST, van de Kuilen G. 2015. Ambiguity attitudes. In The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, eds. G Keren, G Wu. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 89--116

    2015

  46. [54]

    Varian H. 2006. Revealed preference . Samuelsonian economics and the twenty-first century :99--115

    2006

  47. [55]

    Varian HR. 1982. The nonparametric approach to demand analysis. Econometrica :945--973

    1982

  48. [56]

    Varian HR. 1983 a . Nonparametric tests of consumer behaviour. The Review of Economic Studies 50:99--110

    1983

  49. [57]

    Varian HR. 1983 b . Nonparametric tests of models of investor behavior. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 18:269--278

    1983

  50. [58]

    Varian HR. 1988. Estimating risk aversion from Arrow-Debreu portfolio choice. Econometrica 56:973--979

    1988

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.