IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/amu/wpaper/2010-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Distribution-Valued Solution Concepts

Author

Listed:
  • David H. Wolpert
  • James Bono

Abstract

Under its conventional positive interpretation, game theory predicts that the mixed strategy pro?le of players in a noncooperative game will satisfy some setvalued solution concept. Relative probabilities of pro?les in that set are unspeci?ed, and all pro?les not satisfying it are implicitly assigned probability zero. However the axioms underlying Bayesian rationality say that we should reason about player behavior using a probability density over all mixed strategy pro?les, not using a subset of all such pro?les. Such a density over pro?les can be viewed as a solution concept that is distribution-valued rather than set-valued. A distribution-valued concept provides a best single prediction for any noncooperative game, i.e., a universal re?nement. In addition, regulators can use a distribution-valued solution concept to make Bayes optimal choices of a mechanism, as required by Savage's axioms. In particular, they can do this in strategic situations where conventional mechanism design cannot provide advice. We illustrate all of this on a Cournot duopoly game.

Suggested Citation

  • David H. Wolpert & James Bono, 2010. "Distribution-Valued Solution Concepts," Working Papers 2010-13, American University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:amu:wpaper:2010-13
    DOI: 10.17606/hg60-p937
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.17606/hg60-p937
    File Function: First version, 2010
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17606/hg60-p937?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aguirregabiria, Victor & Mira, Pedro, 2010. "Dynamic discrete choice structural models: A survey," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 156(1), pages 38-67, May.
    2. Vincent P. Crawford & Miguel A. Costa-Gomes, 2006. "Cognition and Behavior in Two-Person Guessing Games: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1737-1768, December.
    3. McKelvey Richard D. & Palfrey Thomas R., 1995. "Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 6-38, July.
    4. Aumann, Robert J., 1974. "Subjectivity and correlation in randomized strategies," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 67-96, March.
    5. Radner, Roy, 1980. "Collusive behavior in noncooperative epsilon-equilibria of oligopolies with long but finite lives," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 136-154, April.
    6. Colin F. Camerer & Teck-Hua Ho & Juin-Kuan Chong, 2004. "A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(3), pages 861-898.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Noe Wiener, 2018. "Measuring Labor Market Segmentation from Incomplete Data," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2018-01, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
    2. David H. Wolpert & James Bono, 2010. "A theory of unstructured bargaining using distribution-valued solution concepts," Working Papers 2010-14, American University, Department of Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James W. Bono & David H. Wolpert, 2009. "How to Use Decision Theory to Choose Among Mechanisms," Working Papers 2009-11, American University, Department of Economics.
    2. García-Pola, Bernardo & Iriberri, Nagore & Kovářík, Jaromír, 2020. "Non-equilibrium play in centipede games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 391-433.
    3. Amos Golan & James Bono, 2010. "Identifying Strategies and Beliefs without Rationality Assumptions," Working Papers 2010-12, American University, Department of Economics.
    4. Ayala Arad & Benjamin Bachi & Amnon Maltz, 2023. "On the relevance of irrelevant strategies," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(5), pages 1142-1184, November.
    5. Philippe Jehiel, 2022. "Analogy-Based Expectation Equilibrium and Related Concepts:Theory, Applications, and Beyond," Working Papers halshs-03735680, HAL.
    6. Vincent P. Crawford & Nagore Iriberri, 2004. "Fatal Attraction: Focality, Naivete, and Sophistication in Experimental Hide-and-Seek Games," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000316, UCLA Department of Economics.
    7. Choo, Lawrence C.Y & Kaplan, Todd R., 2014. "Explaining Behavior in the "11-20" Game," MPRA Paper 52808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Kyle Hyndman & Antoine Terracol & Jonathan Vaksmann, 2022. "Beliefs and (in)stability in normal-form games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1146-1172, September.
    9. Breitmoser, Yves, 2019. "Knowing me, imagining you: Projection and overbidding in auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 423-447.
    10. Miguel A Costa-Gomes & Vincent P Crawford & Nagore Iriberri, 2008. "Comparing Models of Strategic Thinking in Van Huyck, Battalio, and Beil’s Coordination Games," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000002346, David K. Levine.
    11. Vincent P. Crawford & Nagore Iriberri, 2007. "Level-k Auctions: Can a Nonequilibrium Model of Strategic Thinking Explain the Winner's Curse and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(6), pages 1721-1770, November.
    12. Giacomo Rubbini, 2023. "Mechanism Design without Rational Expectations," Papers 2305.07472, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    13. Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Koriyama, Yukio & Sutan, Angela & Willinger, Marc, 2019. "The strategic environment effect in beauty contest games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 587-610.
    14. Nagel, Rosemarie & Bühren, Christoph & Frank, Björn, 2017. "Inspired and inspiring: Hervé Moulin and the discovery of the beauty contest game," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 191-207.
    15. Penczynski, Stefan P., 2017. "The nature of social learning: Experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 148-165.
    16. Wright, James R. & Leyton-Brown, Kevin, 2017. "Predicting human behavior in unrepeated, simultaneous-move games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 16-37.
    17. Crawford, Vincent P., 2018. "“Fatal Attraction” and Level-k thinking in games with Non-neutral frames," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 219-224.
    18. Healy, Paul J. & Park, Hyoeun, 2023. "Model selection accuracy in behavioral game theory: A simulation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    19. Juan D. Carrillo & Thomas R. Palfrey, 2009. "The Compromise Game: Two-Sided Adverse Selection in the Laboratory," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 151-181, February.
    20. Syngjoo Choi, 2012. "A cognitive hierarchy model of learning in networks," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 16(2), pages 215-250, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Quantal Response Equilibrium; Bayesian Statistics; Entropic prior; Maximum entropy JEL Codes: C02; C11; C70; C72;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C02 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - Mathematical Economics
    • C11 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Bayesian Analysis: General
    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:amu:wpaper:2010-13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Meal (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.american.edu/cas/economics/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.