IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jetheo/v146y2011i1p248-274.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knightian games and robustness to ambiguity

Author

Listed:
  • Stauber, Ronald

Abstract

This paper introduces a notion of robustness to ambiguous beliefs for Bayesian Nash equilibria. An equilibrium is robust if the corresponding strategies remain approximately optimal for a class of games with ambiguous beliefs that results from an appropriately defined perturbation of the belief structure of the original non-ambiguous belief game. The robustness definition is based on a novel definition of equilibrium for games with ambiguous beliefs that requires equilibrium strategies to be approximate best responses for all measures that define a player's belief. Conditions are derived under which robustness is characterized by a newly defined strategic continuity property, which can be verified without reference to perturbations and corresponding ambiguous belief games.

Suggested Citation

  • Stauber, Ronald, 2011. "Knightian games and robustness to ambiguity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 248-274, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:146:y:2011:i:1:p:248-274
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022-0531(10)00120-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Neeman, Zvika, 2004. "The relevance of private information in mechanism design," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 55-77, July.
    2. Dekel, Eddie & Fudenberg, Drew & Morris, Stephen, 2006. "Topologies on types," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 1(3), pages 275-309, September.
    3. Adam Brandenburger & Eddie Dekel, 2014. "Hierarchies of Beliefs and Common Knowledge," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: The Language of Game Theory Putting Epistemics into the Mathematics of Games, chapter 2, pages 31-41 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Dirk Bergemann & Stephen Morris, 2005. "Robust Mechanism Design," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1771-1813, November.
    5. Ahn, David S., 2007. "Hierarchies of ambiguous beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 286-301, September.
    6. Luca Rigotti & Chris Shannon, 2005. "Uncertainty and Risk in Financial Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(1), pages 203-243, January.
    7. Jonathan Weinstein & Muhamet Yildiz, 2007. "A Structure Theorem for Rationalizability with Application to Robust Predictions of Refinements," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 365-400, March.
    8. Daniel Ellsberg, 2000. "Risk, Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7605, David K. Levine.
    9. Paolo Ghirardato & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Marciano Siniscalchi, 2003. "A Subjective Spin on Roulette Wheels," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1897-1908, November.
    10. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    11. Atsushi Kajii & Takashi Ui, 2005. "Incomplete Information Games With Multiple Priors," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 56(3), pages 332-351.
    12. John Geanakoplos, 2003. "Nash and Walras equilibrium via Brouwer," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 21(2), pages 585-603, March.
    13. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    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. Frank Riedel & Linda Sass, 2014. "Ellsberg games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 469-509, April.
    2. Giuseppe De Marco & Maria Romaniello, 2014. "Variational Preferences and Equilibria in Games under Ambiguous Beliefs Correspondences," CSEF Working Papers 363, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    3. Muraviev, Igor & Riedel, Frank & Sass, Linda, 2017. "Kuhn’s Theorem for extensive form Ellsberg games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 26-41.
    4. repec:spr:etbull:v:2:y:2014:i:2:d:10.1007_s40505-014-0037-5 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Giuseppe De Marco & Maria Romaniello, 2013. "Games Equilibria and the Variational Representation of Preferences," CSEF Working Papers 336, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    6. Ronald Stauber, 2014. "A framework for robustness to ambiguity of higher-order beliefs," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(3), pages 525-550, August.
    7. Giuseppe De Marco & Maria Romaniello, 2013. "On the Stability of Equilibria in Incomplete Information Games under Ambiguity," CSEF Working Papers 332, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    8. Alex Boulatov & Dan Bernhardt, 2015. "Robustness of equilibrium in the Kyle model of informed speculation," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 297-318, November.
    9. Gaurab Aryal & Ronald Stauber, 2014. "Trembles in extensive games with ambiguity averse players," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 57(1), pages 1-40, September.
    10. Stauber, Ronald, 2017. "Irrationality and ambiguity in extensive games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 409-432.
    11. Ronald Stauber, 2013. "A Framework for Robustness to Ambiguity of Higher-Order Beliefs," ANU Working Papers in Economics and Econometrics 2013-602, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics.

    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:jetheo:v:146:y:2011:i:1:p:248-274. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622869 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.