Proper rationalizability in lexicographic beliefs
AbstractProper consistency is defined by the property that each player takes all opponent strategies into account (is cautious) and deems one opponent strategy to be infinitely more likely than another if the opponent prefers the one to the other (respects preferences). When there is common certain belief of proper consistency, a most preferred strategy is properly rationalizable. Any strategy used with positive probability in a proper equilibrium is properly rationalizable. Only strategies that lead to the backward induction outcome are properly rationalizable in the strategic form of a generic perfect information game. Proper rationalizability can test the robustness of inductive procedures.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer in its journal International Journal of Game Theory.
Volume (Year): 30 (2002)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00182/index.htm
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Brandenburger, Adam & Friedenberg, Amanda, 2010. "Self-admissible sets," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 785-811, March.
- Perea,Andrés, 2003. "Proper Rationalizability and Belief Revision in Dynamic Games," Research Memorandum 048, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
- Adam Brandenburger, 2007. "The power of paradox: some recent developments in interactive epistemology," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 465-492, April.
- Asheim,G.B., 1999.
"On the epistemic foundation for backward induction,"
30/1999, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
- Asheim, Geir B., 2002. "On the epistemic foundation for backward induction," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 121-144, November.
- Perea,Andrés, 2003. "Rationalizability and Minimal Complexity in Dynamic Games," Research Memorandum 047, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
- Asheim,G.B. & Dufwenberg,M., 2000.
"Admissibility and common belief,"
07/2000, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
- Yves Breitmoser & Jonathan H.W. Tan & Daniel John Zizzo, 2010.
"On the Beliefs off the Path: Equilibrium Refinement due to Quantal Response and Level-k,"
ICBBR Working Papers
9, International Centre for Behavioural Business Research.
- Yves Breitmoser & Jonathan H. W. Tan & Daniel John Zizzo, 2010. "On the beliefs off the path: Equilibrium refinement due to quantal response and level-k," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 10-05, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
- Perea, Andres, 2007. "Proper belief revision and equilibrium in dynamic games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 572-586, September.
- Perea, Andrés, 2011. "An algorithm for proper rationalizability," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 510-525, June.
- Oikonomou, V.K. & Jost, J, 2013. "Periodic strategies and rationalizability in perfect information 2-Player strategic form games," MPRA Paper 48117, University Library of Munich, Germany.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.