The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Learning Under Ambiguity
Abstract
This paper considers learning when the distinction between risk and ambiguity matters. It first describes thought experiments, dynamic variants of those provided by Ellsberg, that highlight a sense in which the Bayesian learning model is extreme—it models agents who are implausibly ambitious about what they can learn in complicated environments. The paper then provides a generalization of the Bayesian model that accommodates the intuitive choices in the thought experiments. In particular, the model allows decision-makers' confidence about the environment to change—along with beliefs—as they learn. A portfolio choice application compares the effect of changes in confidence under ambiguity vs. changes in estimation risk under Bayesian learning. The former is shown to induce a trend towards more stock market participation and investment even when the latter does not.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Ambiguity, Information Quality, and Asset Pricing
EPSTEIN, L. G., & SCHNEIDER, M. (2008) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01314.x · Cited by 833
Self-citationAmbiguity, Learning, and Asset Returns
(2012) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta7618 · Cited by 404
Halpern, J. Y., & Leung, S. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1302.5681 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- EPSTEIN, L. G., & SCHNEIDER, M.
- Venue
- Review of Economic Studies
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-10
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1275-1303
- ISSN
- 0034-6527 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-937X
- OpenAlex
- W3124486855
- Cited by
- 347
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Learning Under Ambiguity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-937x.2007.00464.x
- The paper
- EPSTEIN, L. G., & SCHNEIDER, M. (2007). Learning Under Ambiguity. Review of Economic Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937x.2007.00464.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.