\section{Introduction}
\label{sec1}
The recent economic crisis once again drew attention to the
insufficient ability of modern economic theory to properly account
for uncertainty and imperfect knowledge: neglect of these issues
is argued to be one of the reasons for the failure of the economic
profession in the difficult times of 2007--2009; cf.~{\em The
Economist\/} (2007) \cite{eco2007}, Colander {\em et al\/} (2009)
\cite{coletal2009}, Taleb (2010) \cite{tal2010}, Akerlof and Shiller
(2009) \cite{akeshi2009}, and Svetlova and Fiedler (2011)
\cite{svefie2011}. Next to the voices from the inside of the
profession, there is the related criticism from neighbouring
disciplines such as, e.g., economic sociology; cf.~Beckert (1996)
\cite{bec1996}, and Esposito (2007, 2010) \cite{esp2007, esp2010}. The
impression arises that economists are utterly ignorant: they
supposedly do not pay (enough) attention to the issues which the
rest of the world consider to be most crucial for economic life.
We asked ourselves if this ignorance is indeed a part of
scientific practice in economics. Is it correct that nobody has
properly tackled the issue of true uncertainty and imperfect
knowledge since Knight (1921) \cite{kni1921} and Keynes (1921)
\cite{key1921} during the post-WW~I twentieth century?

In this article, we aim to arrive at a more differentiated
judgement. Based on a
review of the literature, we classify the developments in
economics and decision theory that refer to uncertainty and
imperfect knowledge. We identify three major directions that deal
with these issues in economics, specifically {\em risk\/}, {\em
uncertainty as ambiguity\/}, and {\em uncertainty as
unawareness\/}. However, it should be stressed that our goal is
not a detailed classification of
approaches {\em per se\/}, but answering the question of how
{\em non-knowledge\/} has been represented formally in
economic theory to date. This task requires, however, some
detailed detection work, because {\em non-knowledge\/} has not
been an explicit issue in economics yet.

Surely, there is knowledge economy, cf.~Rooney {\em et al\/}
(2008) \cite{roo2008}, where knowledge is treated as a resource or a
desirable asset. Also, knowledge is an important topic in
information economics, as pioneered by Stigler (1961)
\cite{sti1961}, Akerlof (1970) \cite{ake1970}, Spence (1973)
\cite{spe1973}, and Stiglitz (1975, 2002) \cite{sti1975, sti2002},
where it is considered to be one of the tools to maximise profit.
Generally, in economics, knowledge is considered as a good that is
commonly available in principle (and should be used); the opposite
--- non-knowledge ---
is treated implicitly as a lack of information. In philosophy and
the social sciences, the situation is not very different, though
there are interesting recent attempts to overcome ``theoretical
preoccupations that underlie the study of knowledge accumulation,''
McGoey (2012) \cite[p~1]{mcg2012}, and to develop an agenda for the
social and cultural study of ignorance; cf.~McGoey (2012)
\cite{mcg2012} and Proctor (2008) \cite{pro2008}. Ignorance should be
treated ``as more than `not yet known' or the steadily retreating
frontier,'' Proctor (2008) \cite[p~3]{pro2008}, and should be
separately accounted for as a strategic resource and the source of
economic profit and progress; cf.~Knight (1921) \cite{kni1921} and
Esposito (2010) \cite{esp2010}. In economic theory, there have been
occasional voices pleading for more attention to ``true
uncertainty'', understood as the principle impossibility of
foreseeing all future events that may occur in the exogenous
world, cf.~Davidson (1991) \cite{dav1991} and Dequech (2006)
\cite{deq2006}, and to ``unknown unknowns'', cf.~Taleb (2007)
\cite{tal2007} and Diebold {\em et al\/} (2010) \cite{dieetal2010}.
However, non-knowledge has not become an independent issue of any
significant interest or importance for economists so far. Thus, to
find out how ignorance is formalised in the approaches considered
here, we have to uncover first which aspects of decision-making
are treated (often indirectly) as unknown, and which mathematical
instruments are used to represent them.

Our focus is on the principle non-knowledge of future events in
the exogenous world, which is the primary source of uncertainty.
After providing, in Section \ref{sec2}, a brief historical
overview to position the approaches considered within the ongoing
debate on uncertainty, we are concerned with the formal
mathematical representation of {\em ambiguity\/} in Section
\ref{sec3}, and of {\em unawareness\/} in Section \ref{sec4}.
Accordingly, we identify and review two approaches to the
formalisation of non-knowledge in the literature: one based on
economic agents' decision-making in the context of a state space
representing the exogenous world, as in Savage's (1954)
\cite{sav1954} axiomatisation and some successor concepts (ambiguity
as situations with unknown probabilities), and one based on
decision-making over a set of menus of potential future
opportunities, providing the possibility of derivation of agents'
subjective state spaces (unawareness as situation with imperfect
subjective knowledge of all future events). Due to the large
number of papers written on this topic, we have to be selective
and, hence, cannot provide an exhaustive overview. We particularly
draw attention to the last-mentioned line of research, namely
uncertainty as unawareness, as it represents an exciting attempt
to formalise ``unknown unknowns'' by radically departing from the
mainstream paradigm of Savage's axiomatisation. Finally, in
Section \ref{sec5}, we discuss the impending challenges and tasks
of formalisation of non-knowledge in economics. We believe that
without a detailed understanding of how non-knowledge has been
represented in economics so far, no serious research agenda for
studying ignorance as an independent part of economic theory can
be developed. We hope that this article provides one of the first
useful steps towards such an agenda.

\section{Historical developments}
\label{sec2}
Though there has not been an explicit discussion on non-knowledge
in economic theory, this issue permanently turns up in relation to
the topic of uncertainty. We identified three branches in the
literature on decision-making of economic agents under conditions
of uncertainty --- {\em risk, ambiguity\/} and {\em
unawareness\/} --- and, in what follows, present those three
directions and discuss the issue of knowledge versus ignorance in
relation to each of them:
\begin{itemize}

\item[(i)] {\em risk\/}: in formal representations, possible
states and events regarding the exogenous world and their
respective probabilities are known to all economic agents; they
agree on the probability measure to be employed in calculations of
individual utility,

\item[(ii)] {\em uncertainty I -- ambiguity\/}: in formal
representations, possible states and events are known but their
respective probabilities are not known to the agents; each of them
employs their own subjective (prior) probability measure in
calculations of individual utility,

\item[(iii)] {\em uncertainty II -- unawareness\/}: in formal
representations, possible states and events are known only
incompletely to the agents; there is ignorance among them as
regards relevant probability measures for calculations of
individual utility.

\end{itemize}
This classification goes back to the work on uncertainty by Knight
(1921) \cite{kni1921}, Keynes (1921, 1937) \cite{key1921, key1937},
Shackle (1949, 1955) \cite{sha1949, sha1955}, and Hayek (1945)
\cite{hay1945}, who tightly connected
the discussion of uncertainty with two kinds of knowledge, or
rather ignorance: specifically, with imperfect knowledge of future
events (uncertainty II), and with knowledge or non-knowledge of
probability measures relating to future events (uncertainty I).
Though the detailed depiction of the historical development of
those concepts would go far beyond the scope of this paper, we
consider it important to highlight the main ideas in this
development in order to provide a topical frame for our discussion
on the conceptualisation of non-knowledge in contemporary economic
theory.

Generally, the authors mentioned differentiate between
{\em epistemological\/} and {\em ontological uncertainty\/}.
{\em Epistemological uncertainty\/} is related to situations where
economic agents lack the knowledge necessary to construct adequate
probability measures. According to Knight (1921) \cite{kni1921},
e.g., theoretical, i.e., {\em a priori\/} probabilities on the one
hand, and statistical probabilities on the other,
are based on a valid fundament of knowledge: the law of large
numbers, or statistical grouping. The {\em a priori\/} probability
can be predicted using counting principles and a completely
homogeneous classification of instances (e.g., by rolling dice),
the statistical probability describes the frequency of an outcome
based on a classification of empirical events or instances, given
repeated trials. Knowledge is understood
in both cases as (empirical) information that allows for the
classification of possible outcomes. These two kinds of
probability ({\em a priori\/} and statistical) can be measured,
and in this sense are known and unanimously agreed upon by all
agents involved in decision-making processes (the situation of
{\em risk\/}). Hence, such probability measures can be reasonably
referred to as objective.

However, Knight suggests that these two categories do not exhaust
all possibilities for defining a probability measure; he
adds ``estimates'', or subjective probabilities. Quoting Knight
(1921) \cite[p~225]{kni1921}: ``The distinction
here is that there is no valid basis of any kind for classifying
instances. This form of probability is involved in the greatest
logical difficulties of all \ldots.'' Knight refers to this last
situation as a situation of {\em uncertainty\/} (ibid
\cite[p~233]{kni1921}); uncertainty can be defined as absence of
probable knowledge. In the situation of risk, probabilities
represent the measurable degree of non-knowledge; in the
uncertainty situation, this degree is immeasurable, and in this
sense probabilities are not known. Keynes (1921) \cite{key1921} also
suggested a concept of immeasurable probabilities as logical
relationships, and argued in his 1937 paper --- in unison with
Knight --- that economic agents lack a valid basis to devise
probability measures. In his definition uncertainty exists, e.g.,
in the case of predicting the price of copper or the interest rate
20 years hence (Keynes (1937) \cite[p~113]{key1937}): ``About these
matters there is no scientific basis on which to form any
calculable probability whatever. We simply do not know.''
Probabilities are used by economic agents as a convention that
enables them to act (ibid \cite[p~114]{key1937}); at the same time,
though probabilities are widely applied, they represent the
agents' ignorance rather than their (scientific) knowledge.

Interestingly, in the later literature this issue was taken up by
Ellsberg (1961) \cite{ell1961}, who, in his experiments,
distinguished between situations with known probability measures
over some event space (when the color and number of the balls in
an urn are known to agents; thus, they can form probabilities),
and situations with unknown probability measures (agents know only
the colors of balls but not the exact number of balls of each
color; thus, they deal with the ignorance of probability).
Ellsberg demonstrated empirically that people tend to prefer
situations with known probability measures over situations with
unknown probability measures; he explicitly referred to situations
with unknown probability measures as {\em ambiguous\/} and named
the phenomenon of avoiding such situations ``ambiguity aversion''
(corresponding to the term ``uncertainty aversion'' coined by
Knight (1921) \cite{kni1921}).

It must be noted that the discussion about measurability of
probabilities in economic life, as well as about their objective
vs subjective character, was severely influenced and pulled in one
particular, for a long time uncontested, direction by the line of
argumentation due to Ramsey (1931) \cite{ram1931}, de Finetti
(1937) \cite{fin1937}, and Savage (1954) \cite{sav1954}. Ramsey
and de Finetti reacted to Knight's and Keynes' concepts of
uncertainty as situations with immeasurable probabilities with the
axiomatisation of subjective probabilities: they demonstrated that
subjective probabilities can always be derived from the observed
betting behaviour of economic agents, rendering the whole
discussion about measurability and objectivity of probabilities
seemingly obsolete. Adopting these results, Savage generalised the
theory of decision under risk, i.e., the expected utility theory
as conceived of originally by Bernoulli (1738) \cite{ber1738} and
von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944) \cite{neumor1944}. While the
expected utility concept as an element of risk theory was based on
objective probability measures, Savage combined expected utility
theory and the subjective probability approach of Ramsey and de
Finetti to deliver a new variant of an
axiomatisation of decision under conditions of uncertainty ---
subjective expected utility theory. This concept was perfectly
compatible with the Bayes--Laplace approach to probability theory
and statistics where subjective {\em prior\/} probabilities can
always be assumed to exist and adjusted in the process of
learning. The crucial feature of Savage's probabilistic
sophistication is the principle neglect of the Knightian
distinction between risk and uncertainty, as Savage's concept
presupposes that even if an objective probability measure for
future events is not known, it can always be assumed that
economic agents behave {\em as if\/} they apply an individual
subjective (prior) probability measure to estimating the
likelihood of future events; and these probability measures can in
principle be derived {\em a posteriori\/} from an axiomatic model
on the basis of empirical data on agents' choice behaviour. By
this theoretical move, the immeasurability (and thus the
knowability) issue is eliminated. The question of the validity of
the subjective degrees of beliefs foundation, or of the origin of
subjective probabilities, is beyond Savage's model, as these are
built into the {\em as-if\/}-construction from the outset.

However, the Knightian distinction continued to bother economists
and --- especially after Ellsberg's (1961) \cite{ell1961} paper
--- a new branch of research appeared in the literature that
endeavoured to re-introduce uncertainty, understood as absence of
perfect knowledge of relevant probability measures, into economic
theory. The most prominent attempt was delivered by Gilboa and
Schmeidler (1989) \cite{gilsch1989}.
In the next section, we will introduce the basic elements of their
axiomatisation of decision under uncertainty in terms of
non-unique probability measures,
and contemplate how non-knowledge is represented in this concept.
At the same time, the attentive reading of Knight, Keynes and
Shackle suggests that the issue of uncertainty is not restricted
to the question whether probabilities can be meaningfully defined
or measured. There is a more fundamental issue of {\em ontological
uncertainty\/} which is concerned with the principle unknowability
of what is going on in an economic system; it goes beyond the
scope of epistemic uncertainty.

Note that in the framework of epistemic uncertainty, knowledge
that is relevant for the derivation of a meaningful probability
measure is generally treated as information; compare the
respective definition by Epstein and Wang (1994)
\cite[p~283]{epswan1994}, who define risk as a situation ``where
probabilities are available to guide choice, and uncertainty,
where information is too imprecise to be summarized adequately by
probabilities.'' It is interesting that also beyond the borders of
economic theory --- in the IPCC (2007) \cite{ipcc2007} report
--- the Knightian distinction between risk and uncertainty is
understood as an epistemic one: ``The fundamental distinction
between `risk' and `uncertainty' is as introduced by economist
Frank Knight (1921), that risk refers to cases for which the
probability of outcomes can be ascertained through
well-established theories with reliable complete data, while
uncertainty refers to situations in which the appropriate data
might be fragmentary or unavailable.'' (\ldots) The clear relation
``information (empirical data) -- probabilities'' is presupposed.
The lack of knowledge, in this case, can be theoretically removed
by becoming more skillful in calculating, or by collecting more
information.

However, it should be stressed that Knight (as well as Keynes and
Shackle) did not conceive of ignorance as lack of information but
rather as ontological indeterminacy, the ``inherent unknowability
in the factors'', see Knight (1921) \cite[p~219]{kni1921}. Shackle
(1955) \cite{sha1955} relates the genuinely imperfect knowledge
about future events to the
absence of an exhaustive list of possible consequences of choices.
Traditional probability theory assumes that the list of
consequences over which probability is distributed is an
exhaustive list of possible outcomes, or, in Shackle's terms,
hypotheses. However, so Shackle, if there is a residual
hypothesis, that is, the list of possible consequences is
incomplete, the probability model runs into trouble. By adding a
hypothesis to the list of possible hypotheses, each corresponding
probability of the previously known hypotheses has to be revised
downwards; see Shackle (1955) \cite[p~27]{sha1955}. If five possible
hypotheses are considered and a sixth hypothesis is added, and
additivity of probabilities is assumed, the probability of each of
the initial five hypotheses is subsequently lower.
This objection applies to both approaches, namely the frequentist
approach to probability theory on the one hand, and the
Bayes--Laplace approach which deals with belief-type subjective
(prior) probability measures on the other, because neither can
incorporate a residual hypothesis, or the principle non-knowledge
of future states. Thus, referring to the genuinely imperfect
knowledge about future events, Shackle (but also Knight and
Keynes) expressed doubts whether probability theory in general is
sufficient to account for decision under uncertainty, and whether
it should be the central issue after all.

By far more important than the issue of devising suitable
probability measures seems to be the non-knowledge of possible
future states of the exogenous world and of related outcomes. Only
if we manage to account properly for this imperfect knowledge, can
we conceptualise properly human decision-making, or, in the words
of Shackle (1959) \cite[p~291]{sha1959}, a non-empty decision.
Crocco (2002) \cite{cro2002} explains: ``An empty decision is the
mere account of a formal solution to a formal problem. It is that
situation where a person has a complete and certain knowledge
about all possible choices and all possible outcomes of each
choice. It is a mechanical and inevitable action," or, in the
words of Heinz von F\"orster (1993) \cite[p~153]{foe1993}, every
decidable (or perfectly known) problem is already decided; true
decisions always presuppose genuine undecidability.
In this sense, Savage's concept is rather concerned with empty
decisions, because it presupposes situations with full knowledge
of possible events, acts and outcomes, rendering agents' choices
just a mechanical application of the personal utility-maximisation
rule.

In economics, genuine undecidability should enter theory.
Most economic decisions are truly undecidable because they take
place under conditions of imperfect knowledge of the situation to
be faced, which is in the sense of the American pragmatist
philosopher John Dewey (1915) \cite[p~506]{dew1915} a genuinely
``incomplete situation'': ``something is `there', but what is
there does not constitute the entire objective situation.'' This
``means that the decision-maker does not have complete knowledge
of the following: (a)~the genesis of the present situation,
(b)~the present situation itself, or (c)~the future outcomes that
remain contingent on the decisions that are made in the present
situation;'' see Nash (2003) \cite[p~259]{nas2003}. According to
Dewey (1915) \cite{dew1915}, the situation is underdetermined,
unfinished, or not wholly given.

This principle non-knowledge can be explained, so Shackle (1949,
1955) \cite{sha1949, sha1955}, by the character of economic
decisions, which he considers to be non-devisible, non-seriable,
and crucial experiments. {\em Non-devisible experiments\/} imply
only a single trial; {\em non-seriable experiments\/} are not
statistically important even in the aggregate; an example of a
seriable experiment is fire insurance: although no reasonable
probability can be assigned to an individual house to burn down,
if there are sufficiently many events, a (statistical)
probability will emerge. Most importantly, economic decisions are
{\em crucial experiments\/}: they inevitably alter the conditions
under which they were performed (this definition applies to all
strategic situations, e.g., chess play, but also financial
markets). Within
the genuinely social context of economic life, economic events are
rather {\em endogenous\/} to the decision processes of agents and
are dependent on the actions and thinking of other market
participants. There are path dependencies and reflexivity; cf.
Soros (1998) \cite{sor1998}. In general, a meaningful approach to
decision-making should take into account that the future is
principally unknowable, due to ontological features of the
exogenous world such as openness, organic unity, and
underdeterminacy. These are features which are typically
attributed to complex systems; cf.~Keynes {\em et
al\/} (1926) \cite[p~150]{keyetal1926}: ``We are faced at every turn
with the problems of Organic Unity, of Discreteness, of
Discontinuity --- the whole is not equal to the sum of the parts,
comparisons of quantity fail us, small changes produce large
effects, the assumptions of a uniform and homogeneous continuum
are not satisfied.''
In such a system, not all constituent
variables and structural relationships connecting them are known
or knowable. Thus, in an open and organic system, some information
is not available at the time of decision-making, and cannot be
searched, obtained or processed in principle. Surprises, or
unforeseen events, are normal, not exceptional. The list of
possible events or states is not predetermined and very little, or
nothing at all, can be known about the adequate probability
measure for this radically incomplete set of future events.

These considerations require a more sophisticated distinction of
decision-making configurations, namely a distinction that goes
beyond the usual {\em risk\/} vs {\em uncertainty as ambiguity\/}
debate. As Dequech (2006) \cite[p~112]{deq2006} puts it:
``Even though the decision-maker under ambiguity does not know
with full reliability the probability that each event (or state of
the world) will obtain, he/she usually knows all the possible
event \ldots. Fundamental uncertainty, in contrast, is
characterized by the possibility of creativity and
non-predetermined structural change. The list of possible events
is not predetermined or knowable ex ante, as the future is yet to
be created.'' What Dequech calls ``fundamental uncertainty'' (or
``true uncertainty'' in terms of some post-Keynesians (e.g.,
Davidson (1991) \cite{dav1991}) enters the recent debate in the
economic literature under the label of ``unawareness''.

The {\em unawareness\/} concept, as introduced by Kreps 1979
\cite{kre1979}, Dekel {\em et al\/} (1998, 2001)
\cite{deketal1998,deketal2001}, and Epstein {\em et al\/} (2007)
\cite{epsetal2007}, presupposes a coarse (imperfect) subjective
knowledge of all possible future events. This concept criticises
Savage's (1954) \cite{sav1954} axiomatisation and suggests a radical
departure from it. Savage's axiomatisation is characterised by the
in principle observability and knowability of all possible future
events. These events belong to the primitives of the model
and are assumed to be exogenous and known to
all economic agents. In Savage's model, the
(compact) state space representing the exogenous world the
agents are continually interacting with is ``a space of
mutually exclusive and exhaustive states of nature, representing
all possible alternative unfoldings of the world''; see Machina
(2003) \cite[p~26]{mac2003}. The exhaustiveness criterion is very
restrictive and basically precludes non-knowledge of future states
on the part of the agents. Machina (2003) \cite[p~31]{mac2003}
continues: ``When the decision maker has reason to `expect the
unexpected' [or the residual hypothesis in terms of Shackle ---
the authors], the exhaustivity requirement cannot necessarily be
achieved, and the best one can do is specify a final, catch-all
state, with a label like `none of the above', and a very
ill-defined consequence.'' Obviously, true uncertainty as
imperfect knowledge of possible future states of the exogenous
world is not an element of Savage's model.
The pioneers of the {\em unawareness\/} concept depart from
Savage's axiomatisation by replacing the state space in the list
of primitives by a set of menus over actions which are the objects
of choice. This theoretical move allows for dealing with
unforeseen contingencies, i.e., an inability of economic agents to
list all possible future states of the exogenous world.

We now turn to give a more formal presentation of the two main
concepts of uncertainty we discussed so far: uncertainty as
ambiguity and uncertainty as unawareness.

\section{Uncertainty as ambiguity: non-knowledge of probability
measures}
\label{sec3}
All decision-theoretical approaches to modelling an economic
agent's state of knowledge regarding future developments of the
exogenous world,
the ensuing prospects for an individual's opportunities, and the
agent's consequential choice behaviour under conditions of
uncertainty employ an axiomatic description of the characteristic
properties of observable choice behaviour and derive a
quantitative representation of an agent's preferences in
decision-making. Uncertainty in this context is generally
interpreted as ambiguity perceived by an agent with respect to
unknown probabilities by which future states of the exogenous
world will be realised. In these approaches the standard
assumption of neoclassical economics of an agent whose
choices are fully rational is being maintained. The main issue
of modelling here is to put forward a set of primitives which can
be observed in principle in real-life settings, as well as a
minimal set of axioms describing exhaustively the interconnections
between these primitives, to provide the conceptual basis for (in
general highly technically demanding) mathematical proofs of
representation theorems.
Most approaches in the literature propose an expected utility (EU)
representation of an agent's preferences in terms of a
real-valued personal utility function which is an unobservable
theoretical construct, thus following the quantitative
game-theoretical tradition of von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944)
\cite{neumor1944}. A related issue is the question to what extent an
agent's choice behaviour can be reasonably viewed as influenced by
a set of personal subjective probabilities regarding the (unknown)
future states of the exogenous world. We begin by briefly
reviewing the central aspects of the axiomatic approach taken by
Savage (1954) \cite{sav1954} to describe one-shot choice situations
--- the subjective expected utility (SEU) framework, which
attained the prominent status of a standard model in decision
theory.

The primitives in Savage (1954) \cite{sav1954} are
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] an exhaustive set of mutually exclusive future states
$\omega$ of the exogenous world which an agent cannot actively
take an influence on; these constitute a state space
$\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ which is assumed to be continuous,
compact, and can be partitioned into a finite number of pairwise
disjoint events; possible events $A, B, \ldots$ are considered
subsets of $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$, with $2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$
the set of all such subsets of $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$,

\item[(ii)] a finite or infinite set of outcomes $x$ contingent on
future states $\omega$, forming an outcome space
$\boldsymbol{X}$, and

\item[(iii)] a weak binary preference order $\succeq$ (``prefers
at least as much as'') defined over the agent's objects of choice
--- a set of potential individual acts $f$ an agent may
consciously take in reaction to realised future states~$\omega$ of
the exogenous world, yielding predetermined outcomes $x$ ---,
describing their personal ranking of available options; these acts
form a space $\boldsymbol{F}$.
\end{itemize}
In more detail, an act is defined as a (not necessarily
real-valued, continuous) mapping $f: \boldsymbol{\Omega}
\rightarrow \boldsymbol{X}$ from the set of future states
$\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ to the set of possible outcomes
$\boldsymbol{X}$, so the set of acts available to an agent at
a given instant in time, in view of known future states $\omega$
but of unknown probabilities, is
$\boldsymbol{F} = \boldsymbol{X}^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$.
There is no additional structure needed in this model regarding
measures or topology on either space $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ or
$\boldsymbol{X}$, except for continuity and compactness of
$\boldsymbol{\Omega}$. An observable weak binary preference order
over the set of acts is given by $\succeq \subset \boldsymbol{F}
\times \boldsymbol{F}$, intended to reflect an agent's subjective
beliefs regarding future states $\omega$, and the usefulness of
acts the agent may take in response to ensuing states.

Savage introduces a minimal set
of seven axioms (P1 to P7) to characterise the theoretical nature
of this preference order over acts (and, by implication,
related outcomes), which are commonly referred to in the
literature as weak order resp.~completeness, sure-thing principle,
state-independence, comparative probability, non-triviality,
Archimedean, and finitely additive probability measures; cf.
Nehring (1999) \cite[p~105]{ner1999} and Gilboa (2009)
\cite[p~97ff]{gil2009}. These
axioms constitute the foundation of a representation theorem
proved by Savage which states that an agent's (one-shot) choice
behaviour
under conditions of uncertainty may be viewed as if it was guided
by (i)~a real-valued personal utility function $U: \boldsymbol{X}
\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that assigns subjective value to specific
outcomes $x \in \boldsymbol{X}$, and (ii)~a single finitely
additive subjective probability measure $\mu:
2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}} \rightarrow [0,1]$ on the space of all
possible future events $2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$. In particular,
an agent's choice behaviour may be modelled as if for the acts $f$
available to them they strive to maximise a real-valued EU
preference function $V: \boldsymbol{F} \rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$, defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:savagerepr}
V(f) := \int_{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}U(f(\omega))\,\mu({\rm d}\omega)
\ .
\end{equation}
Hence, in this setting an act $f \in \boldsymbol{F}$ is weakly
preferred by an agent to an act $g \in \boldsymbol{F}$, iff
$V(f) \geq V(g)$.

The elements of Savage's SEU model may be schematically summarised
in terms of a decision matrix of the following structure (here for
a partition of the continuous and compact $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$
into a finite number $n$ of pairwise disjoint events):
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c|cccc|c}
\text{probability measure}\ \mu & P(\omega_{1}) & P(\omega_{2}) &
\ldots & P(\omega_{n}) & \\
\hline
\text{acts}\ \boldsymbol{F}\ \backslash\ \text{states}
\ \boldsymbol{\Omega} & \omega_{1} &
\omega_{2} & \ldots & \omega_{n} & \\
\hline
f_{1} & x_{11} & x_{12} & \ldots & x_{1n} & \\
f_{2} & x_{21} & x_{22} & \ldots & x_{2n} & \text{outcomes}
\ \boldsymbol{X} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots &
\end{array} \ ,
\end{equation}
where $0 \leq P(\omega_{i}) \leq 1$ and $\sum_{i}P(\omega_{i})=1$
(and generally: $\mu \geq 0$ and
$\int_{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\mu({\rm d}\omega) = 1$). Note that,
formally, Savage's framework reduces an
agent's situation of decision under uncertainty, in the Knightian
sense of not knowing the probability measure associated with
$(\boldsymbol{\Omega}, 2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})$ {\em a priori\/},
to a manageable situation of decision under risk by introducing a
{\em single\/} subjective Bayesian prior probability measure as a
substitute. This is to say, every single economic agent possesses
for themselves a unique probability measure which they employ in
their individual calculations of utility; a probability measure is
thus {\em known\/} to every individual from the outset, but there
is no reason whatsoever that these measures should coincide
between agents.

Savage's main claim is that his framework can be used to
explicitly derive for an arbitrary economic agent who makes
rational choices in parallel (i)~a unique subjective probability
measure $\mu$ over $(\boldsymbol{\Omega},
2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})$, and (ii)~a personal utility function
$U$ over $\boldsymbol{F}$ (unique up to positive linear
transformations), from observation of their choice behaviour
in practice. For the sequel it is worth mentioning that Savage's
numerical SEU representation~(\ref{eq:savagerepr}) can be
interpreted to fall into either of the categories of ordinal or
additive EU representations.

\medskip
Various authors have criticised Savage's SEU model for different
reasons, where in particular the claim is that one or more of his
axioms are regularly being violated in real-life situations of
(one-shot) choice. Bewley (1986,2002) \cite{bew1986, bew2002}, for
example, points the finger
to the completeness axiom P1 in that he considers it unrealistic
to assume that all agents have a clear-cut ranking of all the acts
available to them, when it need not necessarily be clear from the
outset which acts comprise the complete set $\boldsymbol{F}$. In
his work he therefore proposes an axiomatic alternative to
Savage's SEU model which discards the completeness axiom in favour
of an inertia assumption regarding the status quo of an agent's
personal situation.

More prominent still is Ellsberg's (1961)\cite{ell1961} empirical
observation that in situations of choice under uncertainty
rational agents need not necessarily act as
subjective expected utility maximisers: given the choice between a
game of chance with known probabilities of the possible outcomes
and the identical game of chance where the probabilities are
unknown, the majority of persons tested exhibited the phenomenon
of uncertainty aversion by opting for the former game. Ellsberg
showed that this kind of behaviour correspond to a violation of
Savage's sure-thing principle axiom P2.

\medskip
A possible resolution of
this conflict was suggested in the multiple priors maxmin expected
utility (MMEU) model due to Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989)
\cite{gilsch1989}, which takes uncertainty aversion explicitly into
account by stating that under conditions of uncertainty an agent
need not have to have a unique subjective prior probability
measure $\mu$, but rather an {\em entire set\/} $\Pi$ worth of such
measures $\pi$ from which they select in making decisions
according to the maxmin principle. In this sense, Gilboa and
Schmeidler take an explicit attempt at formalising Knightian
uncertainty in problems of decision-making, interpreted as
situations with in principle unknowable probability measures over
$(\boldsymbol{\Omega},2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})$. The degree of an
agent's ignorance is encoded in the generically unconstrained
cardinality of the set of Bayesian priors~$\Pi$: no criteria are
formulated according to which an agent assesses the relevance of
any particular probability measure that is conceivable for a given
situation of decision-making. Non-knowledge regarding the
likelihood of future events here is linked to the number of
elements included in the individual set $\Pi$ that is employed in
an agent's individual calculation of utility and so is represented
in a more comprehensible fashion than in Savage's framework.

Nevertheless, the primitives of the MMEU model are unchanged with
respect to Savage's SEU model. Based on a minimal set of six
axioms (A1 to A6) referred to resp.~as weak order,
certainty-independence, continuity, monotonicity,
uncertainty aversion and non-degeneracy, the representation
theorem Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989) \cite{gilsch1989} prove employs
a real-valued preference function $V: \boldsymbol{F} \rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$ defined by the minimum expected utility relation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gilschrepr}
V(f) := \min_{\pi\in \Pi}
\int_{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}(E_{f(\omega)}U)\,{\rm d}\pi \ ,
\end{equation}
with $\Pi \subset \Delta(\boldsymbol{\Omega})$ a non-empty,
closed and convex set of finitely additive probability measures
over $(\boldsymbol{\Omega},2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})$, and $U:
\boldsymbol{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ a non-constant real-valued
personal utility function. Again, an act $f \in \boldsymbol{F}$ is
then weakly preferred by an agent to an act $g \in
\boldsymbol{F}$, iff $V(f) \geq V(g)$.

Since its inception, Gilboa and Schmeidler's MMEU model has
enjoyed a number of applications in the econometrical literature;
e.g. in Epstein and Wang (1994) \cite{epswan1994} on intertemporal
asset pricing; Hansen {\em et al\/} (1999) \cite{hanetal1999} on
savings behaviour; Hansen and Sargent (2001, 2003)
\cite{hansar2001,hansar2003} on macroeconomic situations;
Nishimura and Ozaki (2004) \cite{nisoza2004} on a job search model;
and Epstein and Schneider (2010) \cite{epssch2010} on implications
for portfolio choice and asset pricing. Rigotti and Shannon (2005)
\cite{rigsha2005}, who propose an approach to formalising
uncertainty in financial markets on the basis of Bewley's
(1986,2002) \cite{bew1986,bew2002} idea of discarding Savage's
completeness axiom P1, contrast their findings on the impact of
uncertainty on equilibrium configurations in decision-making
processes with corresponding consequences arising from an MMEU
perspective.

\medskip
The strongest criticism to date of Savage-type state space models
of decision-making under conditions of uncertainty was voiced at
the end of the 1990ies by Dekel {\em
et al\/} (1998) \cite{deketal1998}. They showed that given one
considers it unrealistic for an economic agent to be aware of all
possible future states $\omega$ of the exogenous world, a standard
state space model is incapable of consistently incorporating the
dimension of an agent's unawareness of future contingencies.
The basis of the formal treatment of the issue at hand are
information structures referred to as possibility
correspondences.
A possibility correspondence amounts to a function $P:
\boldsymbol{\Omega} \rightarrow
2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$ that maps elements~$\omega$ in some state
space $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ to subsets thereof, so that
$P(\omega)$ is interpreted as the set of states an agent considers
possible when the realised state is~$\omega$. In this picture, an
agent ``knows'' an event $E \in
2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$ at a state~$\omega$ provided $P(\omega)
\subseteq E$. Hence, given a possibility correspondence $P$, a
knowledge operator $K: 2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}} \rightarrow
2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$ is determined by
\begin{equation}
K(E) := \{\omega \in \boldsymbol{\Omega}|P(\omega) \subseteq E\}
\quad\text{for all}\quad
E \in 2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}} \ ;
\end{equation}
$K(E)$ represents the set of states in $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ for
which an agent knows that event $E$ must have occurred.
According to Dekel {\em et al\/}, it is commonplace to assume that
such a knowledge operator features the properties of
(i)~necessitation, meaning
$K(\boldsymbol{\Omega})=\boldsymbol{\Omega}$, and
(ii)~monotonicity, meaning $E \subseteq F \Rightarrow K(E)
\subseteq K(F)$. In addition, an unawareness operator may be
defined as a mapping $U: 2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}} \rightarrow
2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$, so that $U(E)$ is to be regarded as the
set of states in $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ where an agent is unaware
of the possibility that event $E$ may occur. With these structures
in place, a standard state space model is represented by a triplet
$(\boldsymbol{\Omega},K,U)$.

To obtain their central result, Dekel {\em et al\/} require a
minimal set of only three axioms which characterise the nature of
the operators $K$ and $U$: these demand that for every event $E
\in 2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$, (i)~$U(E) \subseteq \neg K(E) \cap
\neg K(\neg K(E))$, called plausibility,\footnote{The symbol
$\neg$ denotes complementation.} (ii)~$K(U(E)) =
\emptyset$, called KU introspection, and (iii)~$U(E) \subseteq
U(U(E))$, called AU introspection. Given a standard state space
model $(\boldsymbol{\Omega},K,U)$ satisfies these three axioms,
the theorem proven by Dekel {\em et al\/} (1998)
\cite[p~166]{deketal1998} states that in such a setting
(a)~``the agent is never unaware of anything,'' provided $K$
satisfies the necessitation property, and (b)~``if the agent is
unaware of anything, he knows nothing,'' provided $K$ satisfies
the monotonicity property. This result renders standard state
space models void as regards the intention of formally capturing
an agent's unawareness of subjective contingencies in a
non-trivial way.

\medskip
The work by Dekel {\em et al\/} (1998) \cite{deketal1998}, in
particular, triggered a series of papers written during the last
decade, which aspire to include an agent's unawareness of future
subjective contingencies in a coherent model that continues to
employ a kind of EU representation of an agent's manifested
preferences in situations of choice under conditions of
uncertainty. We turn to highlight the, in our view, most important
papers of this development next.

\section{Uncertainty as unawareness: non-knowledge of complete
state spaces}
\label{sec4}
Since the status of possible future states $\omega$ of the
exogenous world as a primitive in a decision-theoretical model on
an agent's choice behaviour under conditions of uncertainty is
questionable due to the lack of a convincing operational
instruction for observation of such states, a number of authors
have dropped the state space $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ from the set of
primitives altogether and turned to focus instead on the
description of an agent's preferences when they are unaware of
some future subjective contingencies which take a direct influence
on future outcomes such as the pay-offs of certain actions. In the
papers to be considered in the following, the conceptual line of
thought pursued in which originated in the work by Kreps (1979)
\cite{kre1979}, the primitives underlying this alternative approach
comprise in general
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] a (typically finite) set $\boldsymbol{B}$ of
alternative opportunities, actions, or options; a generic element
in this set will be denoted by $b$,

\item[(ii)] a (typically finite) set $\boldsymbol{X}$ of all
conceivable non-trivial menus compiled from elements in
$\boldsymbol{B}$, with a generic element denoted by $x$; note that
$\boldsymbol{X} = 2^{\boldsymbol{B}}\backslash\{\emptyset\}$,

\item[(iii)] a weak binary preference order $\succeq$ defined over
the agent's objects of choice, presently menus in $\boldsymbol{X}$.
\end{itemize}
The setting conceived of in this approach considers a two-stage
choice process in which an agent will initially (``now'') choose a
particular menu $x$, from which, contingent on subsequently
ensuing states $\omega$ of the exogenous world, they will choose a
specific element $b$ at an unmodelled later stage
(``then'').\footnote{As will be described in the following, in
some of the works to be reviewed the elements of choice at stage
``then'' can be more complex objects than simply elements $b \in
\boldsymbol{B}$.} Hence, two kinds of (weak) binary preference
orders need to be introduced: an ``ex ante preference''
(preference ``now'') over the set $\boldsymbol{X}$, $\succeq
\subset \boldsymbol{X} \times \boldsymbol{X}$, and an ``ex post
preference'' (preference ``then'') over $\boldsymbol{B}$
contingent on a realised state $\omega$,
$\succeq^{*}_{\omega} \subset \boldsymbol{B} \times
\boldsymbol{B}$; cf.~Dekel {\em et al\/} (2001) \cite{deketal2001}.
Generally, authors then proceed to formulate
minimal sets of axioms for the ex ante preference order $\succeq$,
on the basis of which they prove  representation theorems for
modelling an agent's choice behaviour
under conditions of uncertainty in the sense that the agent is
unaware of some future subjective contingencies. A particularly
interesting feature of some of the works to be discussed in the
sequel is the possibility to derive in principle an agent's
subjective state space regarding future subjective contingencies
from observed choice behaviour, given some form of
EU representation of the agent's preference relation is
employed. This aspect is key to a meaningful representation of
non-knowledge in economic theory. It is also seen as an
intermediate step towards derivation of an agent's subjective
probability measure regarding choice behaviour under conditions of
uncertainty on the basis of empirical data.

\medskip
Kreps (1979) \cite{kre1979}, in his pioneering paper, considers an
agent with a ``desire for flexibility'' as regards
decision-making, the choice behaviour of which, however, may {\em
not\/} satisfy ``revealed preference''. He formalises these
properties of an agent's envisaged choice behaviour in terms of
the following two axioms: for all $x, x^{\prime}, x^{\prime\prime} \in
\boldsymbol{X}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:flexibility}
x \supseteq x^{\prime}
\quad\Rightarrow\quad
x \succeq x^{\prime} \ ,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:revpref}
x \sim x \cup x^{\prime}
\quad\Rightarrow\quad
x \cup x^{\prime\prime} \sim x \cup x^{\prime} \cup
x^{\prime\prime} \ ,
\end{equation}
with $\sim$ denoting the indifference relation on $\boldsymbol{X}$.
Note that in the literature the axiom (\ref{eq:flexibility}) is
often referred to as the monotonicity axiom. Kreps, in his
discussion, does {\em not\/} make explicit an agent's uncertainty
regarding unawareness of (some) future subjective contingencies.
Rather, it is implied by the agent's ``desire for flexibility''.
He continues to prove that, given a ``dominance relation'' on
$\boldsymbol{X}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
x \geq x^{\prime}
\quad\text{if}\quad
x \sim x \cup x^{\prime} \ ,
\end{equation}
and the axioms stated before, an agent's
preferences on $\boldsymbol{X}$ can be sensibly described as if
they were ``maximizing a `state dependent utility function of
subsequent consumption'{}'' in terms of a formal real-valued
preference function $V: \boldsymbol{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$,
defined by
\begin{equation}
V(x) := \sum_{s \in \boldsymbol{S}}\max_{b \in x} U(b,s) \ .
\end{equation}
Here $\boldsymbol{S}$ denotes the unobservable finite subjective
state space of an agent's personal tastes, with generic element
$s$, and $U: \boldsymbol{B} \times \boldsymbol{S} \rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$ is the agent's unobservable state-dependent
real-valued utility function of alternative opportunities
available in the finite set $\boldsymbol{B}$. Kreps points out
that this representation is principally ordinal in character.
The bottom-line of Kreps' approach is that the set of
state-dependent ex post utilities $\{U(\cdot,s)|s \in
\boldsymbol{S}\}$, expressing the agent's beliefs on potential
future pay-offs, can be interpreted as an agent's implicitly
given coherent subjective state space which describes their
uncertainty regarding ex post choices over the set
$\boldsymbol{B}$, and so can be legitimately used as a model of
unforeseen contingencies (cf.~Kreps (1992)~\cite{kre1992}).

\medskip
However, as Dekel {\em et al\/} (2001) \cite[p~892,
p~896f]{deketal2001} emphasise, Kreps' implied subjective state
space $\{U(\cdot,s)|s \in \boldsymbol{S}\}$ of an  agent is far
from being determined uniquely, since
the axioms he proposed prove not to be sufficiently restrictive
for this purpose. It is this  feature in particular, which these
authors set out to overcome in their own work. To accomplish this
goal, Dekel {\em et al\/} (2001) \cite{deketal2001} extend Kreps'
analysis in two respects. On the one-hand side, here the agent's
objects of choice are, in the spirit of von Neumann
and Morgenstern (1944) \cite{neumor1944}, sets of lotteries
$\Delta(\boldsymbol{B})$ defined over finite sets of future
alternative opportunities $\boldsymbol{B}$, on the other, the
assumption of an agent's strict preference for flexibility is
relaxed to also allow for a preference for commitment in instances
when this appears valuable. The latter feature introduces the
possibility of an agent's view ``ex ante'' to differ from their
view ``ex post''. To continue with the primitives: Dekel
{\em et al\/} take the set $\Delta(\boldsymbol{B})$ to correspond
to a set of probability measures over $\boldsymbol{B}$; a generic
lottery in $\Delta(\boldsymbol{B})$ is denoted by $\beta$. Subsets
of $\Delta(\boldsymbol{B})$ are referred to as menus $x$, with
$\boldsymbol{X}$ denoting the set of all non-empty subsets of
$\Delta(\boldsymbol{B})$. $\boldsymbol{X}$ is endowed with a
Hausdorff topology and constitutes the formal basis of an agent's
binary ex ante preference order, $\succeq \subset
\boldsymbol{X} \times \boldsymbol{X}$. The two-stage choice
process of Kreps (1979) \cite{kre1979} remains qualitatively
unchanged: the agent chooses a menu $x \in \boldsymbol{X}$
``now'', and a lottery $\beta \in x$ ``then''.

Dekel {\em et al\/}'s different kinds of representations of an
agent's ex ante preference order $\succeq$ over menus $x$ of
lotteries correspond to triplets $(\boldsymbol{\Omega},U,u)$,
comprising the following three common elements: a non-empty
(exogenous) state space $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$
serving merely as an index set to label ex post preferences
over $\Delta(\boldsymbol{B})$, a state-dependent real-valued
personal utility function $U: \Delta(\boldsymbol{B}) \times
\boldsymbol{\Omega} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, and a real-valued
personal aggregator function $u: \mathbb{R}^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}
\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. The aggregator function is a rather
special feature in Dekel {\em et al\/}'s analysis. It is given the
role of translating an agent's ex post utility levels of menus
$x$ into corresponding ex ante
values, making the strong assumption that, in the model proposed,
an agent has a coherent view of all future utility possibilities
of menus $x$ available to them. The ex post preference order
$\succeq^{*}_{\omega}$ over $\Delta(\boldsymbol{B})$, given a
state $\omega \in \boldsymbol{\Omega}$, can be viewed as being
encoded in the utility function $U(\cdot,\omega)$. In consequence,
Dekel {\em et al\/} define an agent's subjective state space as
the set $\boldsymbol{P}(\boldsymbol{\Omega},U) :=
\{U(\cdot,\omega)|\omega \in \boldsymbol{\Omega}\}$.

On the basis of an ex ante preference-characterising minimal
set of seven axioms (A1 to A7), referred to as weak order,
continuity, non-triviality, indifference to randomisation (IR),
independence, weak independence and monotonicity, resp., Dekel
{\em et al\/} (2001) \cite{deketal2001} prove existence
theorems for three kinds of EU representations,
all of which can be cast in the form of a real-valued preference
function $V: \boldsymbol{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
V(x) := u\left(\left(\sup_{\beta \in x}
U(\beta,\omega)\right)_{\omega \in \boldsymbol{\Omega}}\right) \ ,
\end{equation}
with $U(\cdot,\omega)$ an EU affine function in line with von
Neumann and Morgenstern (1944) \cite{neumor1944}, i.e.,
for all $\beta \in \Delta(\boldsymbol{B})$ and $\omega \in
\boldsymbol{\Omega}$,
\begin{equation}
U(\beta,\omega) := \sum_{b \in \boldsymbol{B}}\beta(b)
U(b,\omega) \ .
\end{equation}
The main results following from the proofs of the EU
representation theorems for the binary ex ante preference
order $\succeq$ are: (i)~uniqueness of an agent's subjective state
space $\boldsymbol{P}(\boldsymbol{\Omega},U)$ related to
their binary ex post preference order, as well as essential
uniqueness of the associated aggregator function $u$, (ii)~the
size of an agent's subjective state space
$\boldsymbol{P}(\boldsymbol{\Omega},U)$ can be interpreted as a
measure of their uncertainty about future subjective
contingencies, while the associated aggregator $u$ indicates
whether such contingencies trigger a preference for commitment
or rather for flexibility, (iii)~ordinal EU representations offer
the smallest subjective state space
$\boldsymbol{P}(\boldsymbol{\Omega},U)$ possible for any ordinal
representation, and (iv)~existence of an additive EU
representation when in particular the standard independence axiom
due to von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944) \cite{neumor1944} holds;
the former is given by a real-valued preference function
$V: \boldsymbol{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that (up to
monotone transformations)
\begin{equation}
V(x) = \int_{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\sup_{\beta \in x}
U(\beta,\omega)\,\mu({\rm d}\omega) \ ,
\end{equation}
with $\mu$ a (non-unique) finitely additive probability measure on
$(\boldsymbol{\Omega}, 2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})$.
This last result, providing a representation in line with
``standard'' approaches, raises ideas on the possibility of
identification of an agent's probability measure over their
subjective state space $\boldsymbol{P}(\boldsymbol{\Omega},U)$,
analogous to one of the central outcomes of Savage's (1954)
\cite{sav1954} SEU model. However, it is the state-dependence of an
agent's ex post preference which renders this objective
currently quite unrealistic.

Dekel {\em et al\/}'s (2001) \cite[p~894]{deketal2001} approach
contains an inherent interpretational difficulty, which these
authors briefly address: the model represents an agent with an
at least partially incomplete concept of future subjective
contingencies ``now'' with an agent with complete knowledge
of all utility possibilities of menus ``then''; does the
model, nevertheless, deal consistently with an agent's
non-knowledge of (some) future subjective contingencies? Dekel
{\em et al\/} do not see a need for full commitment to this issue,
but leave this point by resorting to the idea of an ``{\em as
if\/}'' representation of their model. However, to put their model
to the test, they call for the identification of a concrete
Ellsberg-type example of an agent's choice behaviour which is in
contradiction with (some of) their axioms; cf.~Dekel {\em et al\/}
(2001) \cite[p~920]{deketal2001}.

\medskip
This challenge was met in the work by Epstein {\em et al\/}
(2007) \cite{epsetal2007}, in which they focus on criticising Dekel
{\em et al\/}'s additive EU representation in particular. The main
argument Epstein {\em et al\/} give states that an economic agent
who is aware of their incomplete knowledge of future subjective
contingencies, and in particular is averse to this personal state
of affairs, will feel a need to hedge against this uncertainty by
randomisation over options available to them, thus providing a
case of violation of Dekel {\em et al\/}'s independence axiom. In
addition, these authors argue that the impossibility of fully
describing all future contingencies relevant to an agent may lead
to the failure of quantifying an agent's uncertainty about
utilities
``then'' in terms of just a single probability measure, as Dekel
{\em et al\/} do in their additive EU representation. In Epstein
{\em et al\/}'s (2007) \cite[p~359]{epsetal2007} view, Dekel
{\em et al\/}'s model therefore precludes a consistent
representation of incompletely known future subjective
contingencies and ambiguity about an agent's preferences ``then''.

To overcome the conceptual problems of Dekel {\em et al\/}'s
model --- in particular, to capture the ambiguity due to an
agent's incomplete knowledge of future subjective contingencies,
and their induced tendency for hedging against it ---, Epstein
{\em et al\/} (2007) \cite{epsetal2007} propose two alternative
axiomatic models of an agent's ex ante choice behaviour. These can
be considered modifications of Dekel {\em et al\/}'s approach in
the following sense. The first model maintains the assumption of
the IR axiom to hold, while the independence axiom is
being relaxed; in the second model both the IR and the
independence axioms are dropped, and the primitives of the model
are extended to include random menus. The two models exhibit a
qualitative difference as regards the status of ex post ambiguity
that an agent finds themself exposed to ``then''. In the first
model, an agent ``now'' expects to gain complete knowledge
``then'' of a state realised in the meantime, i.e., before they
choose a lottery $\beta$ from the ex-ante-preferred menu $x$;
hence, ex post ambiguity is resolved. However, ``now'' the agent
is uncertain about their actual preferences ``then''. In the
second model, on the other hand, an agent ``now'' reckons that
even ``then'' their knowledge of all relevant contingencies will
remain incomplete, leaving their preferences ``then'' somewhat
vague due to the lack of a complete view of all of the options
available to them. In the present work this circumstance is
modelled in terms of a restricted set of utility functions (over
lotteries) with unknown likelihoods. Ex post ambiguity persists,
making hedging against uncertainty ``then'' (and related
potentially unfavourable outcomes) a valuable tool.

In model I, Epstein {\em et al\/} (2007) \cite{epsetal2007}
implement an agent's need for
hedging by following the ideas of Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989)
\cite{gilsch1989} on uncertainty aversion in that, via introducing a
mixing operation defined over menus, an axiomatisation
of a multiple-priors utility representation of an agent's ex ante
preferences is proposed. Starting from a minimal set of eight
axioms requiring (weak) order, monotonicity, IR, non-degeneracy,\footnote{In the literature the
names non-degeneracy and non-triviality are used synonymously for
one of the axioms.} preference convexity, worst,
certainty-independence, and mild continuity, the corresponding
representation theorem states that an agent's ex ante choice
behaviour amounts to maximising a real-valued preference
functional $V_{MP}: \boldsymbol{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, given
by
\begin{equation}
V_{MP}(x) := \min_{\pi \in \Pi}
\int_{\boldsymbol{N}}\max_{\beta \in x}
U(\beta)\,{\rm d}\pi(U) \ ,
\end{equation}
with $\Pi$ a (non-unique) convex and compact set of Borel
probability measures on the space $\boldsymbol{N}$ of
specifically normalised ex post utility functions; cf. Epstein
{\em et al\/} (2007) \cite[p~365]{epsetal2007}.

For their model II, in order to provide a formal basis for dealing
with persistent coarseness ``then'' of an agent's perception of
future subjective contingencies, Epstein {\em et al\/} (2007)
\cite{epsetal2007} enlarge the set of an agent's objects of choice
to also include random menus of lotteries. This thus yields a set
of Borel probability measures $\Delta(\boldsymbol{X})$ defined
over menus in $\boldsymbol{X}$. A generic element in
$\Delta(\boldsymbol{X})$ is denoted by $P$. Proposing a minimal
set of six axioms comprising (weak) order, continuity,
non-degeneracy, first-stage independence, dominance,
and certainty reversal of order to hold, a representation theorem
is proved for an agent's binary ex ante preference order $\succeq$
over random menus in $\Delta(\boldsymbol{X})$ to the extent that,
in this model, an agent's choice behaviour corresponds to
maximising a real-valued preference functional ${\cal V}_{PC}:
\Delta(\boldsymbol{X}) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal V}_{PC}(P) := \int_{\boldsymbol{X}}\left[\,
\int_{{\cal K}^{cc}(\boldsymbol{N}^{*})}\max_{\beta \in x}\min_{U
\in {\cal U}}U(\beta)\,\mu({\rm d}U)\,\right]\,{\rm d}P(x) \ ,
\end{equation}
with $\mu \in \Delta({\cal K}^{cc}(\boldsymbol{N}^{*}))$ a Borel
probability measure over the set ${\cal K}^{cc}(N^{*})$ of closed,
convex and comprehensive Hausdorff-topology subsets of the compact
space of specifically normalised ex post utility functions
$\boldsymbol{N}^{*}$ (cf. Epstein {\em et al\/} (2007)
\cite[p~366]{epsetal2007}), which is unique up to linear
transformations. ${\cal U} \subset \boldsymbol{N}^{*}$
denotes the subset of normalised ex post utility functions
conceived of by an agent ``now'', which, however, to them in that
instance have unknown likelihoods as regards realisation ``then''.
In this respect, $\boldsymbol{N}^{*} \backslash {\cal U}$ may
be interpreted as relating to an agent's unawareness (or
non-knowledge) ``now'' of possible subjective contingencies
``then''.

\section{Discussion and outlook}
\label{sec5}
Now, having discussed the state of the art in the literature, we
should question if the formal representation of non-knowledge in
economic theory has been satisfactory so far. Moreover, in what
follows we sketch some promising directions of research which we
did not address in detail in this paper.

As highlighted in section \ref{sec2}, true uncertainty and,
thus, genuine non-knowledge about the future, are features of
the situation in which an agent is unaware of all future
contingencies, not (just) due to their limited ability to
calculate, or to search for information, but due to the very
nature of any economic system. The major insight of Knight,
Keynes, Shackle, and
some Post-Keynesians, was that economic systems are open and
organic unities that are genuinely indeterminate; every decision
situation is incomplete because it undergoes a constant change
{\em while\/} people decide and act and, by doing so, influence
the set of relevant variables; hence, the major characteristics of
the decision situation --- first of all, the future states that
are possible and conceivable --- cannot be sufficiently
determined; they are unknown.

We already mentioned the following concrete reasons for the
indeterminacy of decision situations: (i)~the {\em big world
issue\/} (i.e., the indefinite, non-exhaustive, number of possible
future states), (ii)~the {\em endogeneity\/} of the decision
situations, i.e., the dependence of future outcomes on
decisions which are prepared and made in the present, and
(iii)~the {\em social contingency\/} which is typical for economic
systems, where the indeterminacy increases due to the dependence
of an agent's decisions on what other agents decide. Are those
issues adequately reflected in the {\em ambiguity\/} and {\em
unawareness\/} approaches, which we discussed in this paper?

\subsection{Big world issue}
Savage's (1954) \cite{sav1954} axiomatisation was often criticised
for its restrictive assumption of the ``small'' world: the list of
possible events is presupposed to be exhaustive (though Savage
\cite[p~16]{sav1954} himself referred to such an assumption as
``preposterous''). Some of the follow-up concepts discussed in our
paper differ in their treatment of this issue.

The uncertainty as ambiguity approaches we mentioned continue to
employ Savage-type state spaces as primitives, which are
continuous, compact, and can be partitioned into a finite number
of mutually exclusive events, while there is an uncountable number
of different states. Although in principle no additional structure
is needed, some authors like Epstein and Wang (1994)
\cite[p~206]{epswan1994} assume on the state space the existence of
a metric and a particular (``weak convergence'') topology,
suggesting that one can construct an indefinite
number of different subsets of the state space; the boundaries of
such subsets are not entirely clear. The question arises if, in
the end, such mathematical structures make everything possible and
thinkable, thus offering a loophole for the assumption that
the list of possible events is not exhaustive. It is worthwhile
mentioning here that the formal handling, but even
more so providing compelling interpretations, of a potential
infinitude of possibilities or states regularly proves a delicate
issue in most (if not all) areas of applied mathematics and
statistics; see, e.g., Hawking and Ellis (1973) \cite{hawell1973}.

In the uncertainty as unawareness models, in contrast, the big
world issue, which relates to the state space representing the
exogenous world, is of less importance, since here the focus of
the analyses is on an agent's subjective state space. This
concept, however, does not belong to the set of the primitives of
the theory. This issue is closely related to the exogeneity vs
endogeneity topic which we turn to discuss next.

\subsection{Endogeneity of state space}
In our view, the question of Machina (2003) \cite[p~18]{mac2003}:
``Do individuals making choices under uncertainty face
states of nature, or do they create them?'' remains one of the
most crucial and controversial in decision theory. In
Savage's concept, the state space represents nature's
exogenous states, i.e., their emergence cannot be influenced by
agents' decisions and actions; an agent just observes the states
and is not an active part of the decision situation.

In economics, as well as in the social sciences, however, there is
increasing attention being payed to the issue of creation of
economic reality by the actions and decisions of economic agents;
e.g., one considers the notions of exogenous risk, performativity
and reflexivity; cf. Danielsson and Shin (2003) \cite{danshi2003},
Danielson {\em et al\/} (2009) \cite{danetal2009}, Callon (1998)
\cite{cal1998}, MacKenzie (2006) \cite{mac2006}, and Soros (1998)
\cite{sor1998}. There is also an interesting movement in the
direction of constructive decision theory, where decision-relevant
states are not given but ``constructed by the DM
(decision maker) in the course of deliberating about questions
such as `How is choice A different from choice B?' and `In what
circumstances will choice A turn out better than choice B?'''; see
Blume {\em et al\/} (2009) \cite[p~1f]{bluetal2009}.

Concerning the papers discussed in the article at hand, the
works on uncertainty as ambiguity focus on the non-knowledge
of probabilities; here, the state space remains exogenous.
However, the unawareness literature makes an interesting and
important move towards the conceptualisation of an endogenous
state space: future outcomes (``then'') are contingent on
decisions made at present (``now''); the
subjective state space is not directly observable but can be
derived from the only variable observable: an agent's behaviour,
or an agent's preferences (e.g., for flexibility).

However, an important question remains if, in the
unawareness literature, we really deal  with a truly endogenous
state space, as understood in the concepts of endogenous risk,
performativity and reflexivity. There is already raised some
criticism in the literature, e.g. by Sagi (2006) \cite{sag2006}, who
is concerned about the static nature of the theoretical
construction in
the unawareness approaches: ``The decision maker chooses among
menus, uncertainty over her subjective states is assumed to
resolve and then the decision
maker selects from the menu. However, there is no explicit
modelling of ex-post choice and no role for consistency between
realized tastes and tastes inferred from ex-ante preferences'',
see Sagi (2006) \cite[p~307]{sag2006}. We also think that the
representation of true endogeneity --- as a central determinant of
non-knowledge --- should be dynamic: uncertainty cannot be
resolved, as a situation constantly changes, so that the ex-post
choice should not be modelled as a mechanic, or empty
(i.e., predetermined) decision. The other important dynamic aspect
is the modelling of the {\em evolution\/} of the state space
itself (how it expands and changes); the genesis of a decision
situation should be taken into consideration. There are some
interesting ideas aiming at these issues, e.g. by Hayashi (2012)
\cite{hay2012}, and Grant and Quiggin (2007) \cite{graqui2007}. The
latter authors model the notion of discovery of the principally
unknown space states by decision-makers. We consider this issue to
be crucial for making further progress in the unawareness and
non-knowledge literature.

\subsection{Social contingency}
The idea of an endogenous space state (as well as the notions of
endogenous risk, performativity and reflexivity) goes beyond the
subjective level of decision-making: future states are unknown
because they are contingent on thinking, deciding and acting of
all interconnected economic agents. This is an issue which was
neglected in the unawareness papers presented here. However, there
are interesting attempts to account for the social construction of
the (subjectively perceived) state space. Here we refer to the
work on interactive unawareness by Heifetz, Meier and Schipper
(2006, 2008) \cite{heietal2006, heietal2008}, and on epistemic game
theory; cf.~Brandenburger (2008) \cite{bra2008}.

\medskip
Finally, it may be noted that only a small number of authors
proposing theoretical models of agents' choice behaviour under
conditions of uncertainty are committed to making testable
predictions that may be refuted in principle. This state of
affairs conflicts with
logical positivism's view that the falsification of hypotheses by
means of observation and/or experiment is the primary method for
attaining meaningful progress in any empirical scientific
disciplines; see, e.g., Popper (2002) \cite{pop2002}. Ideally,
future research in economics and decision theory will address this
problem more carefully.

\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}