Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:19:25.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PLAUSIBILITY ORDERINGS IN DYNAMIC GAMES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2014

Andrés Perea
Andrés Perea*
Affiliation:
Maastricht University, Holland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we explore game-theoretic reasoning in dynamic games within the framework of belief revision theory. More precisely, we focus on the forward induction concept of ‘common strong belief in rationality’ (Battigalli and Siniscalchi (2002) and the backward induction concept of ‘common belief in future rationality’ (Baltag et al. 2009; Perea 2014). For both concepts we investigate whether the entire collection of selected belief revision policies for a player can be characterized by a unique plausibility ordering. We find that this is indeed possible for ‘common strong belief in rationality’, whereas this may be impossible in some games for ‘common belief in future rationality’.

Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , November 2014 , pp. 331 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P. and Makinson, D.. 1985. On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50: 510–530.Google Scholar
Baltag, A., Smets, S. and Zvesper, J.A.. 2009. Keep ‘hoping’ for rationality: a solution to the backward induction paradox. Synthese 169: 301–333 (Knowledge, Rationality and Action: 705–737).Google Scholar
Battigalli, P. 1997. On rationalizability in extensive games. Journal of Economic Theory 74: 40–61.Google Scholar
Battigalli, P. and Siniscalchi, M.. 1999. Hierarchies of conditional beliefs and interactive epistemology in dynamic games. Journal of Economic Theory 88: 188–230.Google Scholar
Battigalli, P. and Siniscalchi, M.. 2002. Strong belief and forward induction reasoning. Journal of Economic Theory 106: 356–391.Google Scholar
Bonanno, G. 2009. Revealed preference, iterated belief revision and dynamic games. In Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 09351, Information processing, rational belief change and social interaction.Google Scholar
Bonanno, G. 2011. AGM-belief revision in dynamic games, In Proceedings of Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK) XIII.Google Scholar
Bonanno, G. 2013. AGM-consistency and perfect Bayesian equilibrium. Part I: definition and properties. International Journal of Game Theory 42: 567–592.Google Scholar
Brandenburger, A. 2003. On the existence of a ‘complete’ possibility structure. In Cognitive Processes and Economic Behavior, ed. Dimitri, N., Basili, M. and Gilboa, I.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grove, A. 1988. Two modellings for theory change. Journal of Philosophical Logic 17: 157–170.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C. 1967–1968. Games with incomplete information played by ‘Bayesian’ players, I–III. Management Science 14: 159–182, 320–334, 486–502.Google Scholar
Levi, I. 2013. How infallible but corrigible full belief is possible. In A Formal Epistemology Reader, ed. Arló-Costa, H., Hendricks, V. F. and van Benthem, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. K. 1973. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pearce, D. 1984. Rationalizable strategic behavior and the problem of perfection. Econometrica 52: 1029–1050.Google Scholar
Perea, A. 2014. Belief in the opponents’ future rationality. Games and Economic Behavior 84: 231–254.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, A. 1991. Comments on the interpretation of game theory. Econometrica 59: 909–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. 1968. A theory of conditionals. Studies in Logical Theory: 98–112.Google Scholar