Relative Maximum Likelihood updating of ambiguous beliefs
Journal of Mathematical Economics, ISSN: 0304-4068, Vol: 99, Page: 102587
2022
- 9Citations
- 6Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
This paper proposes and axiomatizes a new updating rule: Relative Maximum Likelihood (RML) updating for ambiguous beliefs represented by a set of priors ( C ). This rule takes the form of applying Bayes’ rule to a subset of C. This subset is a linear contraction of C towards its subset ascribing the maximal probability to the observed event. The degree of contraction captures the extent of willingness to discard priors based on likelihood when updating. Two well-known updating rules of multiple priors, full Bayesian (FB) and Maximum Likelihood (ML), are included as special cases of RML. An axiomatic characterization of conditional preferences generated by RML updating is provided when the preferences admit Maxmin Expected Utility representations. The axiomatization relies on weakening the axioms characterizing FB and ML. The axiom characterizing ML is identified for the first time in this paper, addressing a long-standing open question in the literature.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304406821001488; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmateco.2021.102587; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85119411888&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0304406821001488; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmateco.2021.102587
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know