Safety, in Numbers
We introduce a way to compare actions in decision problems. An action is safer than another if the set of beliefs at which the decision-maker prefers the safer action increases in size (in the set inclusion sense) as the decision-maker becomes more risk averse. We provide a full characterization of this relation and show that it is equivalent to a robust concept of single-crossing. We discuss applications to investment hedging, security design, and game theory.
PDF AbstractTasks
Datasets
Add Datasets
introduced or used in this paper
Results from the Paper
Submit
results from this paper
to get state-of-the-art GitHub badges and help the
community compare results to other papers.
Methods
No methods listed for this paper. Add
relevant methods here
