Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 115 references

Higher-Order Ambiguity Attitudes

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single preference for combining good with bad ties ambiguity prudence to third derivatives across the major decision models.

desk verdict A solid model-free definition of ambiguity prudence with clean equivalences; the insurance application has a weights inconsistency that is repairable, not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13143 v1 pith:ZBXTKZXL submitted 2025-01-22 q-fin.RM math.OCmath.PR

Mücahit Aygün , Roger J. A. Laeven , Mitja Stadje This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.RMmath.OCmath.PR MSC 91B0691B16
keywords ambiguityprudenceaversionhigher-orderattitudesmodel-freepreferenceChoquetexpectedutilityvariationalpreferencessmoothmodelcapacityderivatives
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

Many decision models treat unknown probabilities differently, so it has been unclear what "prudent under ambiguity" means across models. This paper proposes one behavioral preference: a decision maker should prefer attaching a utility gain to a bad state and a utility loss to a good state. Applying that preference once defines ambiguity aversion, and applying it twice defines ambiguity prudence. The paper proves that in Choquet expected utility, variational divergence, and smooth ambiguity models, this behavioral prudence is exactly equivalent to a nonnegative third derivative of the model's corresponding ingredient. That gives the higher-order derivatives in those models one common economic meaning, and it yields the concrete prediction that ambiguity prudent people buy more insurance when the loss amount itself is ambiguous.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a nested utility-transfer construction on ordered states. For two states with $u_1 < u_2$ and transfer $\bar{u}$, ambiguity aversion is the preference for $[u_1+\bar{u},\omega_1;\, u_2-\bar{u},\omega_2]$ over $[u_1-\bar{u},\omega_1;\, u_2+\bar{u},\omega_2]$: the decision maker prefers to move a gain into the worse state and a loss into the better state. Applying the same construction twice yields ambiguity prudence, the preference for $[u_1+\bar{u},\omega_1;\, u_2-2\bar{u},\omega_2;\, u_3+\bar{u},\omega_3]$ over $[u_1-\bar{u},\omega_1;\, u_2+2\bar{u},\omega_2;\, u_3-\bar{u},\omega_3]$ with equally spaced utilities. The repeated application converts the preference into a statement about third-order differences, and the proofs show that in each model those differences are exactly the third derivative of the capacity under CEU, of the dual conjugate $g^*$ under variational divergence preferences, or of $\varphi$ under smooth ambiguity. The construction rests on state interchangeability: the decision maker is indifferent to permuting utility outcomes across states, so reference probabilities reduce to uniform and asymmetric prior information is excluded.

What would settle it

In a three-color urn with unknown proportions and otherwise symmetric information, offer the two utility profiles (60,60,240) and (0,180,180) across black, red, yellow; an ambiguity prudent decision maker must choose (60,60,240). Observing a systematic choice of (0,180,180) would refute the behavioral definition. For a CEU decision maker, one can instead compute the third derivative of the capacity at some event $A$ and check the acts in Definition 3.2: a capacity with a negative third derivative paired with the prudent preference pattern would violate Theorem 4.3, while a positive third derivative paired with the opposite pattern would violate Theorem 4.4.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that ambiguity prudence, defined model-free as a preference for combining good with bad over three interchangeable states, is equivalent to a positive third derivative of (i) the capacity in Choquet expected utility, (ii) the dual conjugate of the divergence function in variational divergence preferences, and (iii) the ambiguity attitude function in the smooth ambiguity model. The paper further shows that ambiguity aversion is equivalent to a nonnegative second derivative of the capacity in CEU, is automatically satisfied in maxmin and variational preferences, and is equivalent to concavity of the attitude function in smooth ambiguity. In maxmin expected utility, the prudence preference translates into a convexity condition on the ordered minimizing probabilities, $p_{(2)} \leq (p_{(1)} + p_{(3)})/2$. On the applied side, the paper shows that if a variational-preference decision maker with a $g$-divergence is ambiguity prudent, then introducing noise into the size of an insurable loss increases the optimal indemnity relative to the known-loss case.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is state interchangeability: the decision maker must be indifferent to permuting utility outcomes across states, so no state carries special prior information. If states are asymmetric in information or likelihood, the model-free preference is not well-defined and the equivalences can fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under Choquet expected utility, ambiguity aversion is equivalent to supermodularity of the capacity and ambiguity prudence to nonnegativity of its third derivative, giving higher-order derivatives of capacities a direct behavioral interpretation.
  • Under variational divergence preferences, prudence is equivalent to $(g^*)''' \geq 0$; relative entropy, Burg entropy, $\chi^2$-distance, Hellinger distance, and Cressie–Read divergences with $\theta \leq 2$ all satisfy this condition, so decision makers using them are ambiguity prudent.
  • Under maxmin expected utility, every decision maker is ambiguity averse, and prudence holds exactly when minimizing probabilities satisfy $p_{(2)} \leq (p_{(1)} + p_{(3)})/2$; for neo-additive capacities and $\varepsilon$-contamination, prudence is automatic.
  • Under smooth ambiguity and second-order expected utility, prudence is equivalent to $\varphi''' \geq 0$, so the same third-order condition appears across model classes.
  • In the optimal insurance problem, an ambiguity prudent decision maker with variational preferences chooses a larger indemnity when the loss amount is ambiguous than when it is known, connecting prudence to insurance demand.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The nested construction suggests a natural hierarchy: applying the good-with-bad transfer $n$ times should sign the $n$-th derivative of the capacity or the corresponding model ingredient, so the approach likely extends to ambiguity temperance and higher orders, although only orders two and three are formalized.
  • Because the definition is behavioral, it can be tested directly in symmetric three-color urn experiments; a systematic choice of the “everything good/bad” profile over the “combine good with bad” profile would refute the model-free definition itself, independent of any parametric model.
  • State interchangeability is doing heavy lifting: it forces uniform reference probabilities and symmetric priors. Dropping it would require a state-dependent version of the preference, and the equivalences would need to be re-derived with asymmetric benchmarks.
  • The variational-preference result reinterprets ambiguity prudence as convexity of ordered minimizing probabilities, a probability-side analog of prudence that could connect to robust decision rules in which worst-case beliefs become more extreme as ambiguity grows.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a model-free preference under ambiguity, defined as a primitive behavioral trait: an ambiguity-averse DM prefers a utility gain in a bad state and an equal utility loss in a good state over the reverse; applying this transformation twice yields ambiguity prudence. The paper derives implications of these definitions in several canonical models: for CEU, ambiguity aversion is tied to nonnegative second derivatives of the capacity and ambiguity prudence to nonnegative third derivatives; for variational divergence preferences, prudence is equivalent to (g*)'''' >= 0; for smooth ambiguity and SOEU, prudence is equivalent to phi''' >= 0 under symmetry conditions. The paper also claims that an ambiguity-prudent DM purchases more insurance when the loss amount is ambiguous. All main results are conditional on Assumption 2.1, which requires the DM to be indifferent to permutations of states, and the proofs are gathered in an appendix.

Significance. If the technical gaps are repaired, this is a valuable contribution: it gives simple, interpretable behavioral foundations for higher-order derivatives of capacities and ambiguity-attitude functions, and it does so without fitting parameters or assuming the target representation. The algebraic proofs are explicit and the definitions are amenable to experimental testing. The paper also draws useful connections to neo-additive capacities, level-K priors, and divergence preferences. However, the strength of the claims is heavily dependent on the strong symmetry condition in Assumption 2.1, and the insurance application as written contains a state-space inconsistency that undermines a central claimed application. The equivalences in the abstract are mathematically attractive but currently not all are fully established by the proofs as printed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 8, Eqs. (26)-(28)] The state-space bookkeeping in the insurance application is inconsistent with Assumption 2.1. The noisy-loss act X_epsilon(s) is defined on the k+1 states omega_(1,epsilon), omega_(1,-epsilon), omega_2, ..., omega_k. Under Assumption 2.1 the reference probability P must be uniform, so the two loss states should each receive weight 1/(k+1) and the k-1 no-loss states should collectively receive weight (k-1)/(k+1). The displayed objective after (26) instead uses weights 1/(2k) for each loss state and (k-1)/k for the no-loss block. These weights correspond to a k-state model in which the original loss state has been split into two equally likely sub-states, which is not the formal Savage state space of Section 2.1 and does not satisfy Assumption 2.1. Since the first-order conditions (27)-(28) and the comparison s*_epsilon >= s* are derived from this objective, the insurance-demand conclusion is not established under the paper's maintained assumptions. The section should be reworked with consistent uniform weights, or the two-stage model should be formally axiomatized.
  2. [Appendix A.4, proof of Theorem 7.8] The displayed equivalence in the proof reads phi(u1+u_bar)+phi(u2-2u_bar)+phi(u3+u_bar) >= phi(u1+u_bar)+phi(u2-2u_bar)+phi(u3+u_bar), which is tautological. The right-hand side should read phi(u1-u_bar)+phi(u2+2u_bar)+phi(u3-u_bar). As printed, the proof does not connect the definition of ambiguity prudence to Lemma A.1 and therefore does not establish the claimed equivalence with phi''' >= 0. This is a typo, but it occurs in a central theorem highlighted in the abstract and needs correction.
  3. [Appendix A.4, proof of Theorem 7.10] In the converse direction, the proof asserts that the double integral of (F_TA - F_TB) 'can take any positive value' and then concludes that any negative phi''' yields a violation of prudence. This density-style claim is not demonstrated. The double integral is a deterministic function of the parameters u1, u2, u3, u_bar, p1, p2, p3 through the T_i's; the proof needs either an explicit construction realizing an arbitrary positive value or a separate argument that the attainable values are rich enough to intersect the region where phi''' < 0. Without this step, the necessity of phi''' >= 0 in Theorem 7.10 is not fully proven.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Assumption 2.1] The abstract calls the preference 'model-free', but all main results are conditional on the strong state-interchangeability assumption. Remark 4.5 acknowledges this, but the abstract and introduction could more prominently qualify the scope of the claims.
  2. [Appendix A.4, proof of Lemma 7.4] The argument that a strictly increasing concave function cannot be a non-linear polynomial of odd degree greater than one is correct but is stated too tersely; spelling out why such a polynomial cannot be concave on all of R would improve readability.
  3. [Section 8, after Eq. (26)] The notation 'k-1/k g*(...)' should be typeset as '(k-1)/k g*(...)' to avoid the appearance of k - 1/k; the intended fraction is clear from context but the notation is distracting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the behavioral definitions are finite-difference conditions and the model equivalences are derived algebraically; the only self-citation is incidental and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central equivalences are not circular. Definitions 3.1 and 3.2 are primitive act comparisons, and Theorems 4.1-4.4, 5.9, 7.8 and 7.10 are proven by direct computation of utility differences; the third-derivative conditions are consequences of those computations, not assumed inputs. Assumption 2.1 is an explicit symmetry premise, not a disguised form of the target results. The g-divergence and SOEU insurance applications use previously derived characterizations (e.g., (g*)''' >= 0 implies convexity of (g*)') rather than assuming the conclusion. No parameter is fitted and no prediction is a renamed input. The one self-citation (Laeven and Stadje 2023, footnote 5) merely notes that the second-order act comparison is a special case of their Axiom A6; nothing in the proof chain depends on it. The only notable flaw is in Section 8: after equation (26) the noisy-loss problem appears to have k+1 states yet uses weights 1/(2k) per loss state and (k-1)/k for the no-loss states, which is inconsistent with Assumption 2.1's uniform reference measure (or with the stated number of no-loss states). This is a technical correctness gap in the insurance application, not a circular step, and does not raise the circularity score.

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

No fitted parameters appear; the paper is purely theoretical. The axioms listed are the structural assumptions of the canonical decision models plus the paper's own symmetry assumption. The invented-entities count is zero, since the model-free preference is a behavioral definition, not a new physical or mathematical object.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.1: the DM is indifferent to permuting utility outcomes across interchangeable states.
    Used in the sufficiency directions of Theorems 4.2, 4.4, 5.2, 5.5, and 7.8, and to make the behavioral definition state-symmetric; without it the model-free preference is not well-defined.
  • standard math State space is finite with a power-set sigma-algebra and finite-valued acts.
    Section 2.1 sets this domain; all integrals and capacity derivatives become finite sums.
  • domain assumption Capacity is monotone, grounded, and normalized with nu(S)=1.
    This is the standard CEU framework in Section 4, used for all capacity-derivative characterizations.
  • domain assumption g is lower-semicontinuous, convex, with g(1)<infinity and superlinear growth; g* is its Fenchel dual.
    These are the standard conditions for variational divergence preferences in Section 5.3, used in Theorem 5.9 and Table 1.
  • domain assumption Assumption 7.1: if a probability vector lies in M, then its pairwise swaps also lie in M; in SA results mu is symmetric.
    This transfers Assumption 2.1 to the smooth ambiguity model in Section 7 and is needed for the phi''' characterizations.
  • domain assumption M is contained in the set where p_(2) <= (p_(1)+p_(3))/2 in Theorems 7.10 and 7.11.
    This convexity condition on ordered probabilities is required for the equivalence between phi''' >= 0 and ambiguity prudence in the smooth ambiguity model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Higher-Order Ambiguity Attitudes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZBXTKZXL

@misc{pith2026250113143,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Higher-Order Ambiguity Attitudes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZBXTKZXL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13143}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a model-free preference under ambiguity, as a primitive trait of behavior, which we apply once as well as repeatedly. Its single and double application yield simple, easily interpretable definitions of ambiguity aversion and ambiguity prudence. We derive their implications within canonical models for decision under risk and ambiguity. We establish in particular that our new definition of ambiguity prudence is equivalent to a positive third derivative of: (i) the capacity in the Choquet expected utility model, (ii) the dual conjugate of the divergence function under variational divergence preferences and (iii) the ambiguity attitude function in the smooth ambiguity model. We show that our definition of ambiguity prudent behavior may be naturally linked to an optimal insurance problem under ambiguity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13143 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ambiguous insurance Notes: This figure illustrates the certainty equivalent c (full insurance) and the acts X (no insurance) and Y (ambiguous insurance), where ℓ = e 2,000. An ambiguity averse CEU DM will prefer c(w0, K) hence X(w0, K) to Y (w0, K), i.e., there exists m > 0 such that indifference occurs between the act that pays off −K if one of the w0 highly unfavorable colors is drawn and c(w0, K) − m otherwise on… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Ambiguous insurance with a large loss Notes: This figure illustrates the generalized acts c(w0, K), X(w0, K) and Y (w0, K), where ℓ = e 2,000 and K ≫ ℓ. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ambiguity averse neo-additive capacities. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ambiguity prudent neo-additive capacities. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ordered optimal probabilities i 7→ p ∗ (i) Notes: This figure plots the argmin p ∗ of (12), where the p ∗ (i) ’s are coordinates of the vector p ∗ in descending order. In Theorem 5.5, it is proven that the VP DM is ambiguity prudent when the map i 7→ p ∗ (i) is convex.…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Baillon, A. (2017). Prudence with respect to ambiguity. The Economic Journal , 127:1731--1755

    2017

  2. [2]

    Ben-Tal, A., den Hertog, D., de Waegenaere, A. M. B., Melenberg, B., and Rennen, G. (2013). Robust solutions of optimization problems affected by uncertain probabilities. Management Science , 59(2):341--357

    2013

  3. [3]

    and Teboulle, M

    Ben-Tal, A. and Teboulle, M. (1986). Expected utility, penalty functions, and duality in stochastic nonlinear programming. Management Science , 32(11):1445--1466

    1986

  4. [4]

    and Teboulle, M

    Ben-Tal, A. and Teboulle, M. (1987). Penalty functions and duality in stochastic programming via -divergence functionals. Mathematics of Operations Research , 12(2):224--240

    1987

  5. [5]

    and Teboulle, M

    Ben-Tal, A. and Teboulle, M. (2007). An old-new concept of convex risk measures: T he optimized certainty equivalent. Mathematical Finance , 17(3):449--476

    2007

  6. [6]

    and Vandenberghe, L

    Boyd, S. and Vandenberghe, L. (2004). Convex Optimization . Cambridge University Press, New York, 1st edition

    2004

  7. [7]

    v., Laeven, R

    Bruggen, P. v., Laeven, R. J. A., and van de Kuilen, G. (2024). Higher-order risk attitudes for non-expected utility. Working paper, Center for Economic Research. CentER Discussion Paper Nr. 2024-019, https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/files/101140130/2024-019.pdf

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Burzoni, M., Riedel, F., and Soner, H. (2021). Viability and arbitrage under K nightian uncertainty. Econometrica , 89(3):1207--1234

    2021

Show all 115 references
  1. [9]

    Castagnoli, E., Cattelan, G., Maccheroni, F., Tebaldi, C., and Wang, R. (2022). Star-shaped risk measures. Operations Research , 70(5):2637--2654

    2022

  2. [10]

    Cerreia-Vioglio, S., Maccheroni, F., and Marinacci, M. (2022). Ambiguity aversion and wealth effects. Journal of Economic Theory , 199:104898

    2022

  3. [11]

    Cerreia-Vioglio, S., Maccheroni, F., Marinacci, M., and Montrucchio, L. (2011). Uncertainty averse preferences. Journal of Economic Theory , 146:1275--1330

    2011

  4. [12]

    Chateauneuf, A. (1991). On the use of capacities in modeling uncertainty aversion and risk aversion. Journal of Mathematical Economics , 20:343--369

    1991

  5. [13]

    Chateauneuf, A., Eichberger, J., and Grant, S. (2007). Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities. Journal of Economic Theory , 137(1):538--567

    2007

  6. [14]

    Chen, A., Vanduffel, S., and Wilke, M. (2025). Optimal payoffs under smooth ambiguity. European Journal of Operational Research , 320(3):754--764

    2025

  7. [15]

    Chew, S. H., E. K. and Safra, Z. (1987). Risk aversion in the theory of expected utility with rank dependent probabilities. Journal of Economic Theory , 42(2):370--381

    1987

  8. [16]

    de Finetti, B. (1931). Sul significato soggettivo della probabilit\`a. Fundamenta Mathematicae , 17:298--329

    1931

  9. [17]

    and Schlesinger, H

    Deck, C. and Schlesinger, H. (2010). Exploring higher order risk effects. Review of Economic Studies , 77:1403--1420

    2010

  10. [18]

    and Schlesinger, H

    Deck, C. and Schlesinger, H. (2014). Consistency of higher order risk preferences. Econometrica , 82:1913--1943

    2014

  11. [19]

    and Pomatto, L

    Denti, T. and Pomatto, L. (2022). Model and predictive uncertainty: A foundation for smooth ambiguity preferences. Econometrica , 90(2):551--584

    2022

  12. [20]

    Denuit, M. M. and Eeckhoudt, L. R. (2010). A general index of absolute risk attitude. Management Science , 56:712--715

    2010

  13. [21]

    and Wiesen, D

    Ebert, S. and Wiesen, D. (2011). Testing for prudence and skewness seeking. Management Science , 57:1334--1349

    2011

  14. [22]

    and Wiesen, D

    Ebert, S. and Wiesen, D. (2014). Joint measurement of risk aversion, prudence, and temperance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty , 48:231--252

    2014

  15. [23]

    R., Gollier, C., and Schlesinger, H

    Eeckhoudt, L. R., Gollier, C., and Schlesinger, H. (2005). Economic and Financial Decisions under Risk . Princeton University Press, Princeton

    2005

  16. [24]

    Eeckhoudt, L. R. and Laeven, R. J. A. (2022). Dual moments and risk attitudes. Operations Research , 70:1330--1341

    2022

  17. [25]

    R., Laeven, R

    Eeckhoudt, L. R., Laeven, R. J. A., and Schlesinger, H. (2020). Risk apportionment: The dual story. Journal of Economic Theory , 185:104971

    2020

  18. [26]

    Eeckhoudt, L. R. and Schlesinger, H. (2006). Putting risk in its proper place. American Economic Review , 96:280--289

    2006

  19. [27]

    R., Schlesinger, H., and Tsetlin, I

    Eeckhoudt, L. R., Schlesinger, H., and Tsetlin, I. (2009). Apportioning of risks via stochastic dominance. Journal of Economic Theory , 144:994--1003

    2009

  20. [28]

    and Kelsey, D

    Eichberger, J. and Kelsey, D. (1999). E-capacities and the E llsberg paradox. Theory and Decision , 46:107--138

    1999

  21. [29]

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

    1961

  22. [30]

    Etner, J., Jeleva, M., and Tallon, J. M. (2012). Decision theory under ambiguity. Journal of Economic Surveys , 26(2):234--270

    2012

  23. [31]

    Fabbri, F., Principi, G., and Stanca, L. (2024). Absolute and relative ambiguity attitudes. arXiv:2406.01343v2

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    and Schied, A

    F\"ollmer, H. and Schied, A. (2016). Stochastic Finance . De Gruyter, Berlin, 4th edition

    2016

  25. [33]

    and Knispel, T

    Föllmer, H. and Knispel, T. (2011). Entropic risk measures: C oherence vs.\ convexity, model ambiguity and robust large deviations. Stochastics and Dynamics , 11(02n03):333--351

    2011

  26. [34]

    Ghirardato, P., Maccheroni, F., and Marinacci, M. (2004). Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude. Journal of Economic Theory , 118:133--173

    2004

  27. [35]

    and Schmeidler, D

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

    1989

  28. [36]

    Grabisch, M. (2016). Set Functions, Games and Capacities in Decision Making . Springer, Cham

    2016

  29. [37]

    and Pesendorfer, W

    Gul, F. and Pesendorfer, W. (2014). Expected uncertain utility theory. Econometrica , 82(1):1--39

    2014

  30. [38]

    and Pesendorfer, W

    Gul, F. and Pesendorfer, W. (2015). Hurwicz expected utility and subjective sources. Journal of Economic Theory , 159:465--488

    2015

  31. [39]

    Hansen, L. P. and Sargent, T. J. (2001). Robust control and model uncertainty. American Economic Review , 91:60--66

    2001

  32. [40]

    and Tversky, A

    Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica , 47(2):263--292

    1979

  33. [41]

    Keynes, J. M. (1921). A Treatise on Probability . Macmillan and Company Ltd., London

    1921

  34. [42]

    Kimball, M. S. (1990). Precautionary saving in the small and in the large. Econometrica , 58:53--73

    1990

  35. [43]

    Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., and Mukerji, S. (2005). A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica , 73:1849--1892

    2005

  36. [44]

    Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit . Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    1921

  37. [45]

    Krätschmer, V., Ladkau, M., Laeven, R. J. A., Schoenmakers, J. G. M., and Stadje, M. (2018). Optimal stopping under uncertainty in drift and jump intensity. Mathematics of Operations Research , 43(4):1177--1209

    2018

  38. [46]

    Laeven, R. J. A., Rosazza Giannin, E., and Zullino, M. (2023). Dynamic return and star-shaped risk measures via BSDEs . Mimeo, https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03447

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Laeven, R. J. A., Schoenmakers, J. G. M., Schweizer, N., and Stadje, M. (2024). Robust multiple stopping --- A duality approach. Mathematics of Operations Research . in press

    2024

  40. [48]

    Laeven, R. J. A. and Stadje, M. (2023). A rank-dependent theory for decision under risk and ambiguity. Mimeo, https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.05977

    2023

  41. [49]

    Maafi, H. (2011). Preference reversals under ambiguity. Management Science , 57(11):2054--2066

    2011

  42. [50]

    Maccheroni, F., Marinacci, M., and Rustichini, A. (2006). Ambiguity aversion, robustness, and the variational representation of preferences. Econometrica , 74:1447--1498

    2006

  43. [51]

    Machina, M. J. and Schmeidler, D. (1992). A more robust definition of subjective probability. Econometrica , 60:745--780

    1992

  44. [52]

    Marinacci, M. (2002). Probabilistic sophistication and multiple priors. Econometrica , 70:755--764

    2002

  45. [53]

    F., Geiss, C., and Tressler, J

    Menezes, C. F., Geiss, C., and Tressler, J. (1980). Increasing downside risk. American Economic Review , 70:921--932

    1980

  46. [54]

    Neilson, W. S. (1993). Ambiguity aversion: An axiomatic approach using second order probabilities. Mimeo

    1993

  47. [55]

    Neilson, W. S. (2010). A simplified axiomatic approach to ambiguity aversion. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty , 41:113--124

    2010

  48. [56]

    N., Trautmann, S

    Noussair, C. N., Trautmann, S. T., and van de Kuilen, G. (2014). Higher order risk attitudes, demographics, and financial decisions. Review of Economic Studies , 81:325--355

    2014

  49. [57]

    and Schlotter, R

    Pichler, A. and Schlotter, R. (2020). Entropy based risk measures. European Journal of Operational Research , 285:223--236

    2020

  50. [58]

    Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization , 3:323--343

    1982

  51. [59]

    Ramsey, F. P. (1931). Truth and probability. In The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays . Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

    1931

  52. [60]

    Savage, L. J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics . Wiley, New York. 2nd (1972) Edition, Dover, New York

    1954

  53. [61]

    Schmeidler, D. (1986). Integral representation without additivity. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society , 97:253--261

    1986

  54. [62]

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

    1989

  55. [63]

    P., Thaler, R

    Wakker, P. P., Thaler, R. H., and Tversky, A. (1997). Probabilistic insurance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty , 15:7--28

    1997

  56. [64]

    Yaari, M. E. (1987). The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica , 55:95--115

    1987

  57. [65]

    Baillon, A. (2017). Prudence with respect to ambiguity. The Economic Journal, 127, 1731--1755

    2017

  58. [66]

    Ben-Tal, A., den Hertog, D., de Waegenaere, A. M. B., Melenberg, B., and Rennen, G. (2013). Robust solutions of optimization problems affected by uncertain probabilities. Management Science, 59(2), 341--357

    2013

  59. [67]

    Ben-Tal, A., and Teboulle, M. (2007). An old-new concept of convex risk measures: T he optimized certainty equivalent. Mathematical Finance, 17(3), 449--476

    2007

  60. [68]

    Cerreia-Vioglio, S., Maccheroni, F., Marinacci, M., and Montrucchio, L. (2011). Uncertainty averse preferences. Journal of Economic Theory, 146, 1275--1330

    2011

  61. [69]

    Cerreia-Vioglio, S., Maccheroni, F., and Marinacci, M. (2022). Ambiguity aversion and wealth effects. Journal of Economic Theory, 199, 104898

    2022

  62. [70]

    Chateauneuf, A. (1991). On the use of capacities in modeling uncertainty aversion and risk aversion. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 20, 343--369

    1991

  63. [71]

    Chateauneuf, A., Eichberger, J., and Grant, S. (2007). Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities. Journal of Economic Theory, 137(1), 538--567

    2007

  64. [72]

    de Finetti, B. (1931). Sul significato soggettivo della probabilit\`a. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 17, 298--329

    1931

  65. [73]

    and Schlesinger, H

    Deck, C. and Schlesinger, H. (2010). Exploring higher order risk effects. Review of Economic Studies, 77, 1403--1420

    2010

  66. [74]

    and Schlesinger, H

    Deck, C. and Schlesinger, H. (2014). Consistency of higher order risk preferences. Econometrica, 82, 1913--1943

    2014

  67. [75]

    Denneberg, D. (1994). Non-Additive Measure and Integral. Springer, Dordrecht

    1994

  68. [76]

    and Wiesen, D

    Ebert, S. and Wiesen, D. (2011). Testing for prudence and skewness seeking. Management Science, 57, 1334--1349

    2011

  69. [77]

    and Wiesen, D

    Ebert, S. and Wiesen, D. (2014). Joint measurement of risk aversion, prudence, and temperance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 48, 231--252

    2014

  70. [78]

    Eeckhoudt, L. R. and Schlesinger, H. (2006). Putting risk in its proper place. American Economic Review, 96, 280--289

    2006

  71. [79]

    R., Schlesinger, H

    Eeckhoudt L. R., Schlesinger, H. and Tsetlin, I. (2009). Apportioning of risks via stochastic dominance. Journal of Economic Theory, 144, 994--1003

    2009

  72. [80]

    R., Laeven, R

    Eeckhoudt, L. R., Laeven, R. J. A. and Schlesinger, H. (2020). Risk apportionment: The dual story. Journal of Economic Theory, 185, 104971

    2020

  73. [81]

    R., and Laeven, R

    Eeckhoudt, L. R., and Laeven, R. J. A. (2022). Dual moments and risk attitudes. Operations Research, 70, 1330--1341

    2022

  74. [82]

    Eichberger, J., and Kelsey, D. (1999). E-capacities and the Ellsberg paradox. Theory and Decision, 46, 107--138

    1999

  75. [83]

    Ekern, S. (1980). Increasing n th degree risk. Economics Letters, 6, 329--333

    1980

  76. [84]

    Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643--669

    1961

  77. [85]

    and Tallon J

    Etner, J., Jeleva, M. and Tallon J. M. (2012). Decision theory under ambiguity. Journal of Economic Surveys, 26(2), 234--270

    2012

  78. [86]

    Epstein, L. G. (1999). A definition of uncertainty aversion. Review of Economic Studies, 66, 579--608

    1999

  79. [87]

    and Schied, A

    F\"ollmer, H. and Schied, A. (2016). Stochastic Finance. 4th ed., De Gruyter, Berlin (4th ed. 2016)

    2016

  80. [88]

    Ghirardato, P., and Marinacci, M. (2001). Risk, ambiguity, and the separation of utility and beliefs. Mathematics of Operations Research, 26, 864--890

    2001

  81. [89]

    Ghirardato, P., and Marinacci, M. (2002). Ambiguity made precise: A comparative foundation. Journal of Economic Theory, 102, 251--289

    2002

  82. [90]

    Ghirardato, P., Maccheroni, F., Marinacci, M., and Siniscalchi, M. (2003). A subjective spin on roulette wheels. Econometrica, 71(6), 1897--1908

    2003

  83. [91]

    Ghirardato, P., Maccheroni, F., and Marinacci, M. (2004). Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude. Journal of Economic Theory, 118, 133--173

    2004

  84. [92]

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

    1989

  85. [93]

    Grabisch, M. (2016). Set Functions, Games and Capacities in Decision Making. Springer, Cham

    2016

  86. [94]

    Gul, F., and Pesendorfer, W. (2014). Expected uncertain utility theory. Econometrica, 82(1), 1--39

    2014

  87. [95]

    Gul, F., and Pesendorfer, W. (2015). Hurwicz expected utility and subjective sources. Journal of Economic Theory, 159, 465--488

    2015

  88. [96]

    P., and Sargent, T

    Hansen, L. P., and Sargent, T. J. (2001). Robust control and model uncertainty. American Economic Review, 91, 60--66

    2001

  89. [97]

    Keynes, J. M. (1921). A Treatise on Probability. Macmillan and Company Ltd., London

    1921

  90. [98]

    Kimball, M. S. (1990). Precautionary saving in the small and in the large. Econometrica, 58, 53--73

    1990

  91. [99]

    Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., and Mukerji, S. (2005). A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica, 73, 1849--1892

    2005

  92. [100]

    Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    1921

  93. [101]

    Laeven, R. J. A., and Stadje, M. (2023). A rank-dependent theory for decision under risk and ambiguity. Mimeo

    2023

  94. [102]

    van, Laeven, R

    Bruggen, P. van, Laeven, R. J. A., van de Kuilen, G. (2023). Higher-order risk attitudes for non-expected utility. Mimeo

    2023

  95. [103]

    Maccheroni, F., Marinacci, M., and Rustichini, A. (2006). Ambiguity aversion, robustness, and the variational representation of preferences. Econometrica, 74, 1447--1498

    2006

  96. [104]

    J., and Schmeidler, D

    Machina, M. J., and Schmeidler, D. (1992). A more robust definition of subjective probability. Econometrica, 60, 745--780

    1992

  97. [105]

    Marinacci, M. (2002). Probabilistic sophistication and multiple priors. Econometrica, 70, 755--764

    2002

  98. [106]

    F., Geiss, C., and Tressler, J

    Menezes, C. F., Geiss, C., and Tressler, J. (1980). Increasing downside risk. American Economic Review, 70, 921--932

    1980

  99. [107]

    Neilson, W. S. (2010). A simplified axiomatic approach to ambiguity aversion. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 41, 113--124

    2010

  100. [108]

    N., Trautmann, S

    Noussair, C. N., Trautmann, S. T., and van de Kuilen, G. (2014). Higher order risk attitudes, demographics, and financial decisions. Review of Economic Studies, 81, 325--355

    2014

  101. [109]

    Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 3, 323--343

    1982

  102. [110]

    Ramsey, F. P. (1931). Truth and probability. In: The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

    1931

  103. [111]

    Savage, L. J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, New York (2nd ed. 1972, Dover, New York)

    1954

  104. [112]

    Schmeidler, D. (1986). Integral Representation without Additivity. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 97, 253--261

    1986

  105. [113]

    Schmeidler, D. (1989). Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica, 57, 571--587

    1989

  106. [114]

    Strzalecki, T. (2011). Axiomatic foundations of multiplier preferences. Econometrica, 79, 47--73

    2011

  107. [115]

    Yaari, M. E. (1987). The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica, 55, 95--115

    1987

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.