IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v116y2019icp1-37.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the equivalence between iterated application of choice rules and common belief of applying these rules

Author

Listed:
  • Trost, Michael

Abstract

In this paper, we detect meaningful properties of choice rules ensuring that the solution generated by iterated application of choice rules specifies the strategy profiles that might be realized by players who follow these rules and commonly believe this. Our main result is based on four substantial assumptions on choice rules. Whenever the players' choices rules satisfy - besides the technical assumption of regularity - the properties of reflexivity, monotonicity, Aizerman's property, and the independence of payoff equivalent conditions, then such coincidence occurs. This result proves to be strict in the following sense. None of the four substantial properties can be omitted without eliminating the coincidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Trost, Michael, 2019. "On the equivalence between iterated application of choice rules and common belief of applying these rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 1-37.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:116:y:2019:i:c:p:1-37
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2019.03.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825619300508
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.geb.2019.03.015?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin Dufwenberg & Mark Stegeman, 2002. "Existence and Uniqueness of Maximal Reductions Under Iterated Strict Dominance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(5), pages 2007-2023, September.
    2. Tan, Tommy Chin-Chiu & da Costa Werlang, Sergio Ribeiro, 1988. "The Bayesian foundations of solution concepts of games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 370-391, August.
    3. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2005:i:7:p:1-6 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Adam Brandenburger & Eddie Dekel, 2014. "Rationalizability and Correlated Equilibria," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Language of Game Theory Putting Epistemics into the Mathematics of Games, chapter 3, pages 43-57, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Bernheim, B Douglas, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1007-1028, July.
    6. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    7. Chen, Yi-Chun & Long, Ngo Van & Luo, Xiao, 2007. "Iterated strict dominance in general games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 299-315, November.
    8. Adam Brandenburger & Amanda Friedenberg & H. Jerome Keisler, 2014. "Admissibility in Games," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Language of Game Theory Putting Epistemics into the Mathematics of Games, chapter 7, pages 161-212, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Alexander Zimper, 2005. "Equivalence between best responses and undominated strategies: a generalization from finite to compact strategy sets," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(7), pages 1-6.
    10. Jürg Niehans, 1948. "Zur Preisbildungen bei ungewissen Erwartungen," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 84(V), pages 433-456.
    11. Pearce, David G, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1029-1050, July.
    12. Mounir, Angie & Perea, Andrés & Tsakas, Elias, 2018. "Common belief in approximate rationality," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 6-16.
    13. Borgers, Tilman, 1993. "Pure Strategy Dominance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(2), pages 423-430, March.
    14. Schwartz, Thomas, 1976. "Choice functions, "rationality" conditions, and variations on the weak axiom of revealed preference," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 414-427, December.
    15. Zimper, Alexander, 2005. "Equivalence between best responses and undominated," Papers 05-08, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    16. Michael Trost, 2014. "An Epistemic Rationale For Order Independence," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(01), pages 1-37.
    17. Yi-Chun Chen & Xiao Luo, 2012. "An indistinguishability result on rationalizability under general preferences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 51(1), pages 1-12, September.
    18. John C. Harsanyi, 1967. "Games with Incomplete Information Played by "Bayesian" Players, I-III Part I. The Basic Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 159-182, November.
    19. Mariotti, Thomas & Meier, Martin & Piccione, Michele, 2005. "Hierarchies of beliefs for compact possibility models," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 303-324, April.
    20. 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.
    21. Krzysztof R. Apt & Jonathan A. Zvesper, 2010. "The Role of Monotonicity in the Epistemic Analysis of Strategic Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 1(4), pages 1-14, October.
    22. Halpern, Joseph Y. & Pass, Rafael, 2012. "Iterated regret minimization: A new solution concept," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 184-207.
    23. Mariotti, Thomas, 2003. "Hierarchies of compact beliefs and rationalizable behavior," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 199-204, May.
    24. Adam Brandenburger, 2014. "The Language of Game Theory:Putting Epistemics into the Mathematics of Games," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number 8844, October.
    25. Charalambos D. Aliprantis & Kim C. Border, 2006. "Infinite Dimensional Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 0, number 978-3-540-29587-7, January.
    26. Epstein, Larry G., 1997. "Preference, Rationalizability and Equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 1-29, March.
    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. Paolo Galeazzi & Johannes Marti, 2023. "Choice Structures in Games," Papers 2304.11575, arXiv.org.
    2. Galeazzi, Paolo & Marti, Johannes, 2023. "Choice structures in games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 431-455.

    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. Michael Trost, 2014. "On the Equivalence between Iterated Application of Choice Rules and Common Belief of Applying these Rules," Jena Economics Research Papers 2014-032, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    2. Yi-Chun Chen & Xiao Luo & Chen Qu, 2016. "Rationalizability in general situations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 61(1), pages 147-167, January.
    3. Dekel, Eddie & Siniscalchi, Marciano, 2015. "Epistemic Game Theory," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    4. Guarino, Pierfrancesco & Ziegler, Gabriel, 2022. "Optimism and pessimism in strategic interactions under ignorance," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 559-585.
    5. Chen, Yi-Chun & Long, Ngo Van & Luo, Xiao, 2007. "Iterated strict dominance in general games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 299-315, November.
    6. Amanda Friedenberg & H. Jerome Keisler, 2021. "Iterated dominance revisited," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(2), pages 377-421, September.
    7. Xiao Luo & Xuewen Qian & Chen Qu, 2020. "Iterated elimination procedures," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(2), pages 437-465, September.
    8. Bulat Gafarov & Bruno Salcedo, 2015. "Ordinal dominance and risk aversion," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 3(2), pages 287-298, October.
    9. Jara-Moroni, Pedro, 2012. "Rationalizability in games with a continuum of players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 668-684.
    10. Xiao Luo & Yi-Chun Chen, 2004. "A Unified Approach to Information, Knowledge, and Stability," Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings 472, Econometric Society.
    11. Yi-Chun Chen & Xiao Luo, 2012. "An indistinguishability result on rationalizability under general preferences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 51(1), pages 1-12, September.
    12. Michael Trost, 2012. "An Epistemic Rationale for Order-Independence," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-010, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    13. Calford, Evan M., 2021. "Mixed strategies and preference for randomization in games with ambiguity averse agents," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    14. Jagau, Stephan & Perea, Andrés, 2022. "Common belief in rationality in psychological games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    15. Giacomo Bonanno & Elias Tsakas, 2017. "Qualitative analysis of common belief of rationality in strategic-form games," Working Papers 181, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    16. Hillas, John & Samet, Dov, 2022. "Non-Bayesian correlated equilibrium as an expression of non-Bayesian rationality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 1-15.
    17. Haomiao Yu, 2014. "Rationalizability in large games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 55(2), pages 457-479, February.
    18. Manili, Julien, 2024. "Order independence for rationalizability," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 152-160.
    19. Christian Bach & Jérémie Cabessa, 2012. "Common knowledge and limit knowledge," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 423-440, September.
    20. Robin Cubitt & Robert Sugden, 2005. "Common reasoning in games: a resolution of the paradoxes of ‘common knowledge of rationality’," Discussion Papers 2005-17, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Iterative deletion procedure; Common belief; Choice rule; Epistemic game theory;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    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:eee:gamebe:v:116:y:2019:i:c:p:1-37. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    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.