IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/osloec/2017_010.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Algorithms for cautious reasoning in games

Author

Listed:

Abstract

We provide comparable algorithms for the Dekel-Fudenberg procedure, iterated admissibility, proper rationalizability and full permissibility by means of the concepts of preference restrictions and likelihood orderings. We apply the algorithms for comparing iterated admissibility, proper rationalizability and full permissibility, and provide a sufficient condition under which iterated admissibility does not rule out properly rationalizable strategies. Finally, we use the algorithms to examine an economically relevant strategic situation, namely a bilateral commitment bargaining game.

Suggested Citation

  • Asheim, Geir B. & Perea, Andrés, 2017. "Algorithms for cautious reasoning in games," Memorandum 10/2017, Oslo University, Department of Economics, revised 19 Nov 2018.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:osloec:2017_010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sv.uio.no/econ/english/research/unpublished-works/working-papers/pdf-files/2017/memo-10-2017.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.sv.uio.no/econ/english/research/unpublished-works/working-papers/pdf-files/2017/memo-10-2017-2.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Perea, Andrés, 2011. "An algorithm for proper rationalizability," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 510-525, June.
    2. Lawrence Blume & Adam Brandenburger & Eddie Dekel, 2014. "Lexicographic Probabilities and Choice Under Uncertainty," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Language of Game Theory Putting Epistemics into the Mathematics of Games, chapter 6, pages 137-160, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Dekel, Eddie & Fudenberg, Drew, 1990. "Rational behavior with payoff uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 243-267, December.
    4. Yang, Chih-Chun, 2015. "Weak assumption and iterative admissibility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 158(PA), pages 87-101.
    5. Asheim, Geir B. & Sovik, Ylva, 2005. "Preference-based belief operators," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 61-82, July.
    6. Asheim, Geir B. & Dufwenberg, Martin, 2003. "Admissibility and common belief," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 208-234, February.
    7. 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..
    8. Lee, Byung Soo, 2016. "Admissibility and assumption," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 42-72.
    9. Barelli, Paulo & Galanis, Spyros, 2013. "Admissibility and event-rationality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 21-40.
    10. Cubitt, Robin P. & Sugden, Robert, 2011. "The reasoning-based expected utility procedure," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 328-338, March.
    11. Frank Schuhmacher, 1999. "Proper rationalizability and backward induction," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 28(4), pages 599-615.
    12. Samuelson, Larry, 1992. "Dominated strategies and common knowledge," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 284-313, April.
    13. Dekel, Eddie & Friedenberg, Amanda & Siniscalchi, Marciano, 2016. "Lexicographic beliefs and assumption," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 955-985.
    14. Battigalli, Pierpaolo, 1997. "On Rationalizability in Extensive Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 40-61, May.
    15. Crawford, Vincent P, 1982. "A Theory of Disagreement in Bargaining," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 607-637, May.
    16. Tore Ellingsen & Topi Miettinen, 2008. "Commitment and Conflict in Bilateral Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1629-1635, September.
    17. Pearce, David G, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1029-1050, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Non-cooperative games; proper rationalizability; iterated admissibility; bargaining;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory

    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:hhs:osloec:2017_010. 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: (Mari Strønstad Øverås). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/souiono.html .

    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.