IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kea/keappr/ker-20230701-39-2-04.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Proposing New Equilibrium Concepts in Dynamic Games with Noisy Signals

Author

Listed:
  • Jeong-Yoo Kim

    (Kyung Hee University)

Abstract

In this study, we consider dynamic games with noisy signals in which any signal is possible in equilibrium due to noises in observations. We argue that in games with noisy signals, the consistency condition of beliefs required by the perfect Bayesian equilibrium or sequential equilibrium is too strong to comprehend reasonable outcomes. Accordingly, we propose alternative solution concepts called e -perfect Bayesian equilibrium and limit perfect Bayesian equilibrium. The two equilibrium concepts rely on a weaker consistency condition that requires beliefs to be updated by Bayes’ law only if the likelihood that a signal occurs given that the equilibrium action was played exceeds e > 0 . Our concepts are consistent with empirical observations that show higher deviations from Bayes’ law for rare events. We show that under some conditions, both e -PBE and limit PBE can fully recover the first-mover advantage that disappears with even a slight noise in observing the first mover’s strategy.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeong-Yoo Kim, 2023. "Proposing New Equilibrium Concepts in Dynamic Games with Noisy Signals," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 39, pages 413-443.
  • Handle: RePEc:kea:keappr:ker-20230701-39-2-04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://keapaper.kea.ne.kr/RePEc/kea/keappr/KER-20230701-39-2-04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384, December.
    2. Bagwell, Kyle, 1995. "Commitment and observability in games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 271-280.
    3. Giacomo Bonanno, 2013. "AGM-consistency and perfect Bayesian equilibrium. Part I: definition and properties," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 42(3), pages 567-592, August.
    4. Grether, David M., 1992. "Testing bayes rule and the representativeness heuristic: Some experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 31-57, January.
    5. Holt, Charles A. & Smith, Angela M., 2009. "An update on Bayesian updating," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 125-134, February.
    6. Pietro Ortoleva, 2012. "Modeling the Change of Paradigm: Non-Bayesian Reactions to Unexpected News," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2410-2436, October.
    7. Sun, Lan, 2019. "Hypothesis testing equilibrium in signalling games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 29-34.
    8. Jeahan Jung & Jeong-Yoo Kim, 2019. "Cheap Talk by Two Senders in the Presence of Network Externalities," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 35, pages 249-274.
    9. 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.
    10. Matthews, Steven A & Mirman, Leonard J, 1983. "Equilibrium Limit Pricing: The Effects of Private Information and Stochastic Demand," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(4), pages 981-996, July.
    11. Giovanni Maggi, 1999. "The Value of Commitment with Imperfect Observability and Private Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(4), pages 555-574, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Cheng, Ing-Haw & Hsiaw, Alice, 2022. "Distrust in experts and the origins of disagreement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    2. Sinkey, Michael, 2015. "How do experts update beliefs? Lessons from a non-market environment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 55-63.
    3. de Haan, Thomas & Offerman, Theo & Sloof, Randolph, 2011. "Noisy signaling: Theory and experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 402-428.
    4. Vardy, Felix, 2004. "The value of commitment in Stackelberg games with observation costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 374-400, November.
    5. Jackson, Matthew O. & Rodriguez-Barraquer, Tomas & Tan, Xu, 2012. "Epsilon-equilibria of perturbed games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 198-216.
    6. Mostafa Beshkar & Jee-Hyeong Park, 2017. "Dispute Settlement with Second-Order Uncertainty: The Case of International Trade Disputes," CAEPR Working Papers 2017-010, Center for Applied Economics and Policy Research, Department of Economics, Indiana University Bloomington.
    7. Ricardo F. Reis & Phillip C. Stocken, 2007. "Strategic Consequences of Historical Cost and Fair Value Measurements," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 557-584, June.
    8. Sven Fischer & Werner Güth & Wieland Müller & Andreas Stiehler, 2006. "From ultimatum to Nash bargaining: Theory and experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(1), pages 17-33, April.
    9. Vega-Redondo, Fernando, 1997. "Shaping long-run expectations in problems of coordination," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 783-806, December.
    10. Matthias Kräkel, 2004. "R&D spillovers and strategic delegation in oligopolistic contests," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(3), pages 147-156.
    11. Hajdu, Gergely & Krusper, Balázs, 2023. "Choice-induced Sticky Learning," Department of Economics Working Paper Series 349, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    12. Luigi Brighi & Marcello D'Amato, 2014. "Limit pricing and secret barriers to entry," Center for Economic Research (RECent) 106, University of Modena and Reggio E., Dept. of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    13. Mostafa Beshkar & Jee‐Hyeong Park, 2021. "Dispute Settlement With Second‐Order Uncertainty," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 62(4), pages 1433-1452, November.
    14. Cuihong Fan & Byoung Heon Jun & Elmar G. Wolfstetter, 2019. "Induced Price Leadership and (Counter-)Spying Rivals' Play under Incomplete Information," CESifo Working Paper Series 7476, CESifo.
    15. David G. Pearce, 1991. "Repeated Games: Cooperation and Rationality," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 983, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    16. Chung-Hui Chou, 2023. "An analysis of managerial delegation in a market with vertically-integrated producer owning an essential input monopolistically," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(1), pages 247-265, February.
    17. Jacopo Bizzotto & Toomas Hinnosaar & Adrien Vigier, 2022. "The Limits of Commitment," Papers 2205.05546, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2022.
    18. Christophe Bisière & Jean-Paul Décamps & Stefano Lovo, 2015. "Risk Attitude, Beliefs Updating, and the Information Content of Trades: An Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1378-1397, June.
    19. Kai Barron, 2021. "Belief updating: does the ‘good-news, bad-news’ asymmetry extend to purely financial domains?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 31-58, March.
    20. van Damme, Eric & Hurkens, Sjaak, 1997. "Games with Imperfectly Observable Commitment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 21(1-2), pages 282-308, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Dynamic Games with Noisy Signals; e -likelihood Consistency; e -perfect Bayesian Equilibrium; Limit Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium; Simple Likelihood Test;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games

    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:kea:keappr:ker-20230701-39-2-04. 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: KEA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/keaaaea.html .

    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.