Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to main content

Abstract

We extend the notion of natural extension, that gives the least committal extension of a given assessment, from the theory of sets of desirable gambles to that of choice functions. We give an expression of this natural extension and characterise its existence by means of a property called avoiding complete rejection. We prove that our notion reduces indeed to the standard one in the case of choice functions determined by binary comparisons, and that these are not general enough to determine all coherent choice function. Finally, we investigate the compatibility of the notion of natural extension with the structural assessment of indifference between a set of options.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is not an extension of a rejection function defined on a smaller domain \(\mathcal {B}\) to a bigger domain \(\mathcal {Q}_0\). Rather, it is the extension of an assessment, where we do not necessarily know all the rejected options in every option set in \(\mathcal {B}\) (except for 0).

References

  1. Arrow, K.: Social Choice and Individual Values. Yale University Press (1951)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Uzawa, H.: Note on preference and axioms of choice. Ann. Inst. Stat. Math. 8, 35–40 (1956)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Seidenfeld, T., Schervish, M.J., Kadane, J.B.: Coherent choice functions under uncertainty. Synthese 172(1), 157–176 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Rubin, H.: A weak system of axioms for “rational” behavior and the nonseparability of utility from prior. Stat. Risk Model. 5(1–2), 47–58 (1987)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Van Camp, A., Miranda, E., de Cooman, G.: Lexicographic choice functions. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 92, 97–119 (2018)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Van Camp, A., de Cooman, G., Miranda, E., Quaeghebeur, E.: Coherent choice functions, desirability and indifference. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 341(C), 1–36 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2017.05.019

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Aizerman, M.A.: New problems in the general choice theory. Soc. Choice Welfare 2, 235–282 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Sen, A.: Social choice theory: a re-examination. Econometrica 45, 53–89 (1977)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. He, J.: A generalized unification theorem for choice theoretic foundations: avoiding the necessity of pairs and triplets. Economics Discussion Paper 2012–23, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schwartz, T.: Rationality and the myth of the maximum. Noûs 6(2), 97–117 (1972)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sen, A.: Choice functions and revealed preference. Rev. Econ. Stud. 38(3), 307–317 (1971)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Quaeghebeur, E.: Desirability. In: Augustin, T., Coolen, F.P.A., de Cooman, G., Troffaes, M.C.M. (eds.) Introduction to Imprecise Probabilities, pp. 1–27. Wiley, Hoboken (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  13. de Cooman, G., Quaeghebeur, E.: Exchangeability and sets of desirable gambles. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 53(3), 363–395 (2012). Precisely imprecise: a collection of papers dedicated to Henry E. Kyburg, Jr

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bradley, S.: How to choose among choice functions. In: Augustin, T., Doria, S., Miranda, E., Quaeghebeur, E. (eds.) Proceedings of ISIPTA 2015, pp. 57–66. Aracne (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Seidenfeld, T.: Decision without independence and without ordering: what is the difference? Econ. Philos. 4, 267–290 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Van Camp, A., de Cooman, G.: Exchangeable choice functions. In: Antonucci, A., Corani, G., Couso, I., Destercke, S. (eds.) Proceedings of ISIPTA 2017. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 62, pp. 346–357 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research in this paper has been supported by project TIN2014-59543-P.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arthur Van Camp .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Van Camp, A., Miranda, E., de Cooman, G. (2018). Natural Extension of Choice Functions. In: Medina, J., et al. Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems. Theory and Foundations. IPMU 2018. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 854. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91476-3_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91476-3_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-91475-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-91476-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics