Theories of coalitional rationality

This paper generalizes the concept of best response to coalitions of players and offers epistemic definitions of coalitional rationalizability in normal form games. The (best) response of a coalition is defined to be an operator from sets of conjectures to sets of strategies. A strategy is epistemic coalitionally rationalizable if it is consistent with rationality and common certainty that every coalition is rational. A characterization of this solution set is provided for operators satisfying four basic properties. Special attention is devoted to an operator that leads to a solution concept that is generically equivalent to the iteratively defined concept of coalitional rationalizability.     

Beliefs and rationalizability in games with complementarities

We propose two characteristics of beliefs and study their role in shaping the set of rationalizable strategy profiles in games with incomplete information. The first characteristic, type-sensitivity, is related to how informative a player thinks his type is. The second characteristic, optimism, is related to how “favorable” a player expects the outcome of the game to be. The paper has two main results: the first result provides an upper bound on the size of the set of rationalizable strategy profiles; the second gives a lower bound on the change of location of this set. These bounds are explicit expressions that involve type-sensitivity, optimism, and payoff characteristics. Our results generalize and clarify the well-known uniqueness result of global games (Carlsson and van Damme, 1993). They also imply new uniqueness results and allow us to study rationalizability in new environments. We provide applications to supermodular mechanism design (Mathevet, 2010b) and information processing errors.     

Rationalizability in large games

This paper characterizes both point-rationalizability and rationalizability in large games when societal responses are formulated as distributions or averages of individual actions. The sets of point-rationalizable and rationalizable societal responses are defined and shown to be convex, compact and equivalent to those outcomes that survive iterative elimination of never best responses, under point-beliefs and probabilistic beliefs, respectively. Given the introspection and mentalizing that rationalizability notions presuppose, one motivation behind the work is to examine their viability in situations where the terms rationality and full information can be given a more parsimonious, and thereby a more analytically viable, expression.     

Public Information, Private Information, and the Multiplicity of Equilibria in Coordination Games

I study coordination games with incomplete public and private information and relate equilibrium convergence to convergence of higher-order beliefs. As the players' signals become more and more precise, the equilibrium manifold converges to the correspondence of common knowledge equilibria, whenever the variance of the public signal converges to 0 at a rate faster than one half the rate of convergence of the variance of private signals. The same condition also determines the convergence of common p-belief to common knowledge, which leads to a simple intuition for its origin and an immediate generalization of the former results about equilibrium convergence. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C72, D82.     

An indistinguishability result on rationalizability under general preferences

In this paper, we show that, in the class of games where each player??s strategy space is compact Hausdorff and each player??s payoff function is continuous and ??concave-like,?? rationalizability in a variety of general preference models yields the unique set of outcomes of iterated strict dominance. The result implies that rationalizable strategic behavior in these preference models is observationally indistinguishable from that in the subjective expected utility model, in this class of games. Our indistinguishability result can be applied not only to mixed extensions of finite games, but also to other important applications in economics, for example, the Cournot?Coligopoly model.     

Universality of Nash components

We show that Nash equilibrium components are universal for the collection of connected polyhedral sets. More precisely for every polyhedral set we construct a so-called binary game—a game where all players have two pure strategies and a common utility function with values either zero or one—whose success set (the set of strategy profiles where the maximal payoff of one is indeed achieved) is homeomorphic to the given polyhedral set. Since compact semi-algebraic sets can be triangulated, a similar result follows for the collection of connected compact semi-algebraic sets.We discuss implications of our results for the strategic stability of success sets, and use the results to construct a Nash component with index k for any fixed integer k.     

Epistemic conditions for rationalizability

In this paper I present conditions, not involving common knowledge of rationality, that lead to (correlated) rationalizability. The basic observation is that, if the actual world belongs to a set of states where the set Z of action profiles is played, everyone is rational and it is mutual knowledge that the action profiles played are in Z, then the actions played at the actual world are rationalizable actions. Alternatively, if at the actual world the support of the conjecture of player i is Dⁱ, there is mutual knowledge of: (i) the game being played, (ii) that the players are rational, and (iii) that for every i the support of the conjecture of player i is contained in Dⁱ, then every strategy in the support of the conjectures is rationalizable. The results do not require common knowledge of anything and are valid for games with any number of players.     

Robust equilibria under non-common priors

This paper considers the robustness of equilibria to a small amount of incomplete information, where players are allowed to have heterogeneous priors. An equilibrium of a complete information game is robust to incomplete information under non-common priors if for every incomplete information game where each player's prior assigns high probability on the event that the players know at arbitrarily high order that the payoffs are given by the complete information game, there exists a Bayesian Nash equilibrium that generates behavior close to the equilibrium in consideration. It is shown that for generic games, an equilibrium is robust under non-common priors if and only if it is the unique rationalizable action profile. Set-valued concepts are also introduced, and for generic games, a smallest robust set is shown to exist and coincide with the set of a posteriori equilibria.     

Iterated strict dominance in general games

We offer a definition of iterated elimination of strictly dominated strategies (IESDS^*) for games with (in)finite players, (non)compact strategy sets, and (dis)continuous payoff functions. IESDS^* is always a well-defined order independent procedure that can be used to solve Nash equilibrium in dominance-solvable games. We characterize IESDS^* by means of a “stability” criterion, and offer a sufficient and necessary epistemic condition for IESDS^*. We show by an example that IESDS^* may generate spurious Nash equilibria in the class of Reny's better-reply secure games. We provide sufficient/necessary conditions under which IESDS^* preserves the set of Nash equilibria.     

Iterated strict dominance in general games

We offer a definition of iterated elimination of strictly dominated strategies (IESDS^*) for games with (in)finite players, (non)compact strategy sets, and (dis)continuous payoff functions. IESDS^* is always a well-defined order independent procedure that can be used to solve Nash equilibrium in dominance-solvable games. We characterize IESDS^* by means of a “stability” criterion, and offer a sufficient and necessary epistemic condition for IESDS^*. We show by an example that IESDS^* may generate spurious Nash equilibria in the class of Reny's better-reply secure games. We provide sufficient/necessary conditions under which IESDS^* preserves the set of Nash equilibria.     

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.     

On the existence of subgame-perfect equilibrium in infinite-action games of perfect information

We study infinite-action games of perfect information with finitely or countably many players. It is assumed that payoff functions are continuous, strategy sets are compact, and constraint correspondences are continuous. Under these assumptions we prove the existence of subgame-perfect equilibria in pure strategies which are measurable functions. If for any date t, the subgame that is played from date t on depends on the history up to t only as this history affects some vector of “state” variables, then equilibrium strategies admit a “closed-loop” representation as measurable functions of the “state” trajectories.     

Bayesian and consistent assessments

In a Bayesian assessment, beliefs are computed from the strategy profile applying Bayes rule at positive probability information sets. A consistent assessment is the limit point of a sequence of completely mixed Bayesian assessments. We characterize the set of extensive forms for which the sets of Bayesian and consistent assessments coincide. As an illustration of the results, we characterize consistency in some multi-period games with simultaneous actions.     

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.     

Monotonicity and Rationalizability in a Large First Price Auction

This paper proves that the monotonicity of bidding strategies together with the rationality of bidders implies that the winning bid in a first price auction converges to the competitive equilibrium price as the number of bidders increases ( Wilson, 1977 ). Instead of analysing the symmetric Nash equilibrium, we examine rationalizable strategies ( Bernheim (1984) , Pearce (1984) ) among the set of monotonic bidding strategies to prove that any monotonic rationalizable bidding strategy must be within a small neighbourhood of the „truthful” valuation of the object, conditioned on the signal received by the bidder. We obtain an information aggregation result similar to that of Wilson (1977) , while dispensing with almost all symmetric assumptions and using a milder solution concept than the Nash equilibrium. In particular, if every bidder is ex ante identical, then any rationalizable bidding strategy must be within a small neighbourhood of the symmetric Nash equilibrium. In a symmetric first price auction, the symmetry of outcomes is implied rather than assumed.     

Essential equilibria in normal-form games

A Nash equilibrium x of a normal-form game G is essential if any perturbation of G has an equilibrium close to x. Using payoff perturbations, we show that for games that are generic in the set of compact, quasiconcave, and generalized payoff secure games with upper semicontinuous sum of payoffs, all equilibria are essential. Some variants of this result are also established.     

A general structure theorem for the Nash equilibrium correspondence

I consider n-person normal form games where the strategy set of each player is a non-empty compact convex subset of an Euclidean space, and the payoff function of player i is continuous in joint strategies and continuously differentiable and concave in the player i's strategy. No further restrictions (such as multilinearity of the payoff functions or the requirement that the strategy sets be polyhedral) are imposed. I demonstrate that the graph of the Nash equilibrium correspondence on this domain is homeomorphic to the space of games. This result generalizes a well-known structure theorem in [Kohlberg, E., Mertens, J.-F., 1986. On the strategic stability of equilibria. Econometrica 54, 1003–1037]. It is supplemented by an extension analogous to the unknottedness theorems in [Demichelis S., Germano, F., 2000. Some consequences of the unknottedness of the Walras correspondence. J. Math. Econ. 34, 537–545; Demichelis S., Germano, F., 2002. On (un)knots and dynamics in games. Games Econ. Behav. 41, 46–60]: the graph of the Nash equilibrium correspondence is ambient isotopic to a trivial copy of the space of games.     

Uniform payoff security and Nash equilibrium in compact games

We introduce a condition, uniform payoff security, for games with compact Hausdorff strategy spaces and payoffs bounded and measurable in players’ strategies. We show that if any such compact game G is uniformly payoff secure, then its mixed extension is payoff secure. We also establish that if a uniformly payoff secure compact game G has a mixed extension with reciprocally upper semicontinuous payoffs, then G has a Nash equilibrium in mixed strategies. We provide several economic examples of compact games satisfying uniform payoff security.     

On the Existence of Undominated Nash Equilibria in Normal Form Games

In this paper the existence problem of undominated Nash equilibrium in normal form games is analyzed. It is shown that an undominated Nash equilibrium exists, if (a) strategy sets are convex polytopes inRⁿand (b) utility functions are affine with respect to each player's own strategy. It is shown by counterexamples that, first, it is not sufficient to have concave utility functions instead of affine under condition (b) even when condition (a) is satisfied, and, second, it is not sufficient to have just compact and convex strategy sets instead of polytopes in condition (a) even when condition (b) is satisfied.     

Strategic approximations of discontinuous games

An infinite game is approximated by restricting the players to finite subsets of their pure strategy spaces. A strategic approximationof an infinite game is a countable subset of pure strategies with the property that limits of all equilibria of all sequences of approximating games whose finite strategy sets eventually include each member of the countable set must be equilibria of the infinite game. We provide conditions under which infinite games admit strategic approximations.