论文标题

荷兰书籍陷阱,用于错误指定

A Dutch-Book Trap for Misspecification

论文作者

Catonini, Emiliano, Lanzani, Giacomo

论文摘要

我们为荷兰书籍提供了反对两种误指定的贝叶斯学习形式的论点。经纪人逐步了解了一个州,并在每个新发现后都会下注。我们说,当代理商愿意接受所有赌注时,他们是荷兰人被预订的,但是由于发现的客观条件概率(即,正确的数据生成过程,DGP),他们的收益是负面的,或者在每个州的前提下都是负面的。当代理人使用正确的数据生成过程使用正确的数据生成过程时,分别不能在以前的信念中更新贝叶斯规则,即使使用误指定的似然函数或从一个词典事务中更新自己的信念,也不能分别荷兰人预订。在对DGP的大量人口解释下,这意味着当不同的人从不同(词典)先验更新其信念或使用误称的可能性时,人口在所有州都可能遭受总损失。因此,荷兰书的论点提供了错误指定危险的一般表征。

We provide Dutch-book arguments against two forms of misspecified Bayesian learning. An agent progressively learns about a state and is offered a bet after every new discovery. We say the agent is Dutch-booked when they are willing to accept all bets, but their payoff is negative under each state either ex-post, or in expectation given the objective conditional probabilities of the discoveries (i.e., the correct data-generating process, DGP). Respectively, an agent cannot be Dutch-booked if and only if they update their beliefs with Bayes rule either from the previous belief, even using misspecified likelihood functions, or from one lexicographic prior, using the correct data-generating process. Under a large population interpretation of the DGP, this means that a population can suffer aggregate losses under all states when different individuals update their beliefs from different (lexicographic) priors, or using misspecified likelihoods. Thus, the Dutch-book argument offers a general characterization of the perils of misspecification.

扫码加入交流群

加入微信交流群

微信交流群二维码

扫码加入学术交流群,获取更多资源