The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ambiguity and Second-Order Belief
Abstract
Anscombe and Aumann (1963) wrote a classic characterization of subjective expected utility theory. This paper employs the same domain for preference and a closely related (but weaker) set of axioms to characterize preferences that use second-order beliefs (beliefs over probability measures). Such preferences are of interest because they accommodate Ellsberg-type behavior.
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
Cites
“Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms.”
Ellsberg, D. (1961) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1884324 · Cited by 7,891
Cited by
Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study
Halevy, Y. (2007) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00755.x · Cited by 609
Ambiguity, Learning, and Asset Returns
(2012) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta7618 · Cited by 404
Metadata
- Venue
- Econometrica
- Publisher
- The Econometric Society
- Published
- 2009
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1575-1605
- ISSN
- 0012-9682 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1944236952
- Cited by
- 243
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.00
- 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
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.
