Pairwise epistemic conditions for Nash equilibrium

We introduce a framework for modeling pairwise interactive beliefs and provide an epistemic foundation for Nash equilibrium in terms of pairwise epistemic conditions locally imposed on only some pairs of players. Our main result considerably weakens not only the standard sufficient conditions by Aumann and Brandenburger (1995), but also the subsequent generalization by Barelli (2009). Surprisingly, our conditions do not require nor imply mutual belief in rationality.     

Consistency of beliefs and epistemic conditions for Nash and correlated equilibria

A consistency condition (action-consistency) on the interim beliefs of players in a game is introduced. Action-consistency is weaker than common priors and, unlike common priors, is characterized by a “no-bets” condition on verifiable events. Using action-consistency, we provide epistemic conditions to Nash and correlated equilibria weakening the common knowledge restrictions in Aumann and Brandenburger [Aumann, R., Brandenburger, A., 1995. Epistemic conditions for Nash equilibrium. Econometrica 63, 1161–1180] and Aumann [Aumann, R., 1987. Correlated equilibrium as an expression of Bayesian rationality. Econometrica 55, 1–18].     

Common belief of rationality in games of perfect information

Aumann (1995) showed that for games with perfect information common knowledge of substantive rationality implies backward induction. Substantive rationality is defined in epistemic terms, that is, in terms of knowledge. We show that when substantive rationality is defined in doxastic terms, that is, in terms of belief, then common belief of substantive rationality implies backward induction. Aumann (1998) showed that material rationality implies backward induction in the centipede game. This result does not hold when rationality is defined doxastically. However, if beliefs are interpersonally consistent then common belief of material rationality in the centipede game implies common belief of backward induction.     

Self-admissible sets

Best-response sets (Pearce, 1984 [28]) characterize the epistemic condition of “rationality and common belief of rationality.” When rationality incorporates a weak-dominance (admissibility) requirement, the self-admissible set (SAS) concept (Brandenburger, Friedenberg, and Keisler, 2008 [17]) characterizes “rationality and common assumption of rationality.” We analyze the behavior of SAS's in some games of interest—Centipede, the Finitely Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma, and Chain Store. We then establish some general properties of SAS's, including a characterization in perfect-information games.     

Hierarchies of ambiguous beliefs

We present a theory of interactive beliefs analogous to Mertens and Zamir [Formulation of Bayesian analysis for games with incomplete information, Int. J. Game Theory 14 (1985) 1-29] and Brandenburger and Dekel [Hierarchies of beliefs and common knowledge, J. Econ. Theory 59 (1993) 189-198] that allows for hierarchies of ambiguity. Each agent is allowed a compact set of beliefs at each level, rather than just a single belief as in the standard model. We propose appropriate definitions of coherency and common knowledge for our types. Common knowledge of coherency closes the model, in the sense that each type homeomorphically encodes a compact set of beliefs over the others’ types. This space universally embeds every implicit type space of ambiguous beliefs in a beliefs-preserving manner. An extension to ambiguous conditional probability systems [P. Battigalli, M. Siniscalchi, Hierarchies of conditional beliefs and interactive epistemology in dynamic games, J. Econ. Theory 88 (1999) 188-230] is presented. The standard universal type space and the universal space of compact continuous possibility structures are epistemically identified as subsets.     

Belief in the opponentsʼ future rationality

For dynamic games we consider the idea that a player, at every stage of the game, will always believe that his opponents will choose rationally in the future. This is the basis for the concept of common belief in future rationality, which we formalize within an epistemic model. We present an iterative procedure, backward dominance, that proceeds by eliminating strategies from the game, based on strict dominance arguments. We show that the backward dominance procedure selects precisely those strategies that can rationally be chosen under common belief in future rationality if we would not impose (common belief in) Bayesian updating.     

Epistemic logics and their game theoretic applications: Introduction

Summary. This paper is written as an introduction to epistemic logics and their game theoretic applications. It starts with both semantics and syntax of classical logic, and goes to the Hilbert-style proof-theory and Kripke-style model theory of epistemic logics. In these theories, we discuss individual decision making in some simple game examples. In particular, we will discuss the distinction between beliefs and knowledge, and how false beliefs play roles in game theoretic decision making. Finally, we discuss extensions of epistemic logics to incorporate common knowledge. In the extension, we discuss also false beliefs on common knowledge. Received: July 1, 2000; revised version: April 19, 2001     

Belief and higher-order belief in the centipede games: An experimental investigation

This paper experimentally explores the epistemic conditions behind people's non-equilibrium behaviour in the centipede games. We propose a novel design of laboratory experiment to elicit people's first- and second-order beliefs regarding their opponents' choices and beliefs. The measured beliefs, together with the choice data, help us to estimate people's level of rationality, belief of rationality and second-order belief of rationality. To examine how these epistemic variables are affected by the social-efficiency property of the classic increasing-sum centipede game, we revisit the constant-sum centipede and compare the measured epistemic conditions from the constant-sum with those from the classic centipede. We find that people's non-backward induction behaviour may be attributed to the diffusion of beliefs and higher-order beliefs in the increasing-sum centipede. We consider a behavioural model in which people's preferences for social efficiency are incorporated into the extended utility maximization problem. Our analytical and estimation results indicate that the presence of efficiency-oriented players and people's belief towards the uncertain portion of such type of players may play a part in the non-backward-induction outcomes in experimental centipede games.     

Universal type structures with unawareness

Infinite hierarchies of awareness and beliefs arise in games with unawareness, similarly to belief hierarchies in standard games. A natural question is whether each hierarchy describes the playerʼs awareness of the hierarchies of other players and beliefs over these, or whether the reasoning can continue indefinitely. This paper constructs the universal type structure with unawareness where each type has an awareness level and a belief over types. Countable hierarchies are therefore sufficient to describe all uncertainty in games with unawareness.     

What do uncertainty-averse decision-makers believe?

Summary. This paper introduces the concept of firm belief, which is proposed as a new epistemic model for a wide class of preferences. In particular, firm beliefs are shown to have the following desirable properties: (i) they are derived from preferences according to a plausible rule of epistemic inference; (ii) they satisfy standard logical properties; and (iii) tractable representations of firm belief are available for all (suitably continuous) biseparable preferences [13, 14], including the Choquet expected utility [30] and maxmin expected utility [16] classes. We also use firm belief to construct a generalization of Nash equilibrium for (two-player) normal form games. Received: December 14, 1999; revised version: February 26, 2001     

Epistemic Conditions for Equilibrium in Beliefs without Independence

Aumann and Brandenburger [Econometrica63(1995), 1161–1180.] provide sufficient conditions on the knowledge of the players in a game for their beliefs to constitute a Nash equilibrium. They assume, among other things, mutual knowledge of rationality. By rationality of a player, it is meant that the action chosen by him maximizes his expected utility, given his beliefs. There is, however, no need to restrict the notion of rationality to expected utility maximization. This paper shows that their result can be generalized to the case where players' preferences over uncertain outcomes belong to a large class of non-expected utility preferences.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers: C72, D81.     

Strong Belief and Forward Induction Reasoning

We provide a unified epistemic analysis of some forward-induction solution concepts in games with complete and incomplete information. We suggest that forward induction reasoning may be usefully interpreted as a set of assumptions governing the players' belief revision processes, and define a notion of strong belief to formalize these assumptions. Building on the notion of strong belief, we provide an epistemic characterization of extensive-form rationalizability and the intuitive criterion, as well as sufficient epistemic conditions for the backward induction outcome in generic games with perfect information. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C72, D82.     

Common knowledge and quantification

Summary. The paper consists of two parts. The first one is a concise introduction to epistemic (both propositional and predicate) logic with common knowledge operator. As the full predicate logics of common knowledge are not even recursively enumerable, in the second part we introduce and investigate the monodic fragment of these logics which allows applications of the epistemic operators to formulas with at most one free variable. We provide the monodic fragments of the most important common knowledge predicate logics with finite Hilbert-style axiomatizations, prove their completeness, and single out a number of decidable subfragments. On the other hand, we show that the addition of equality to the monodic fragment makes it not recursively enumerable. Received: March 7, 2001; revised version: April 4, 2001     

Belief consistency and trade consistency

Interpersonal consistency can be described in epistemic terms as a property of beliefs, or in economic terms as the impossibility of certain trades. The existence of a common prior from which all agentsʼ beliefs are derived is of the first kind. The non-existence of an agreeable bet, that is, a contingent zero-sum trade which is always favorable to all agents, is of the second kind. It is well established that these two notions of consistency are equivalent for finite type spaces but not for countable ones. We present three equivalences of epistemic consistency and economic consistency conditions for countable type spaces, defining in this way three levels of consistency of type spaces: weak consistency, consistency, and strong consistency. These three levels coincide in the finite case. We fully analyze the level of consistency of type spaces based on the knowledge structure of Rubinsteinʼs email game. The new notion of belief consistency introduced here helps to justify the requirement of boundedness of payoff functions in countable type spaces by showing that in a large class of spaces there exists an agreeable unbounded bet even when a common prior exists.     

On redundant types and Bayesian formulation of incomplete information

A type structure is non-redundant if no two types of a player represent the same hierarchy of beliefs over the given set of basic uncertainties, and it is redundant otherwise. Under a mild necessary and sufficient condition termed separativity, we show that any redundant structure can be identified with a non-redundant structure with an extended space of basic uncertainties. The belief hierarchies induced by the latter structure, when “marginalized,” coincide with those induced by the former. We argue that redundant structures can provide different Bayesian equilibrium predictions only because they reflect a richer set of uncertainties entertained by players but unspecified by the analyst. The analyst shall make use of a non-redundant structure, unless he believes that he misspecified the players' space of basic uncertainties. We also consider bounding the extra uncertainties by the action space for Bayesian equilibrium predictions.     

Efficient allocations under ambiguity

Important implications of the expected utility hypothesis and risk aversion are that if agents have the same probability belief, then consumption plans in every efficient allocation of resources under uncertainty are comonotone with the aggregate endowment, and if their beliefs are concordant, then the consumption plans are measurable with respect to the aggregate endowment. We study these two properties of efficient allocations for models of preferences that exhibit ambiguity aversion using the concept of conditional beliefs, which we introduce in this paper. We provide characterizations of such conditional beliefs for the standard models of preferences used in applications.     

Conservative belief and rationality

Playersʼ beliefs may be incompatible, in the sense that player i can assign probability 1 to an event E to which player j assigns probability 0. One way to block incompatibility is to assume a common prior. We consider here a different approach: we require playersʼ beliefs to be conservative, in the sense that all players must ascribe the actual world positive probability. We show that common conservative belief of rationality (CCBR) characterizes strategies in the support of a subjective correlated equilibrium where all playersʼ beliefs have common support. We also define a notion of strong rationalizability, and show that it is characterized by CCBR.     

The α-beauty contest: Choosing numbers,thinking intervals

We present a model for the α-beauty contest that explains common patterns in experimental data of one-shot and iterative games. The approach is based on two basic assumptions. First, players iteratively update their recent guesses. Second, players estimate intervals rather than exact numbers to cope with incomplete knowledge of other players' rationality. Under these assumptions we extend the cognitive hierarchy model of Camerer et al. [Camerer, C., Ho, T., Chong, J., 2003b. A cognitive hierarchy model of one-shot games. Quart. J. Econ. 119, 861–898]. The extended model is estimated on experimental data from a newspaper experiment.