The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Maxmin Expected Utility with a Non-Unique Prior
Open accessOverview
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
Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity
Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122575 · Cited by 1,795
Uncertainty Aversion, Risk Aversion, and the Optimal Choice of Portfolio
Dow, J., & da Costa Werlang, S. R. (1992) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/2951685 · Cited by 773
Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study
Halevy, Y. (2007) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00755.x · Cited by 609
Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation
Ghirardato, P., & Marinacci, M. (2002) · Journal of Economic Theory · doi:10.1006/jeth.2001.2815 · Cited by 482
Deposit Competition and Financial Fragility: Evidence from the US Banking Sector
Egan, M., Hortaçsu, A., & Matvos, G. (2017) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20150342 · Cited by 435
Metadata
- Authors
- Gilboa, I., Schmeidler, D., Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D.
- Venue
- AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)
- Publisher
- University of Minnesota Rochester
- Published
- 1986-01-01
- OpenAlex
- W3205459585
- Cited by
- 668
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Maxmin Expected Utility with a Non-Unique Prior. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.22004/ag.econ.275405
- The paper
- Gilboa, I., Schmeidler, D., Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1986). Maxmin Expected Utility with a Non-Unique Prior. AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA). https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.275405
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.
