Proper rationalizability in lexicographic beliefs

Proper consistency is defined by the property that each player takes all opponent strategies into account (is cautious) and deems one opponent strategy to be infinitely more likely than another if the opponent prefers the one to the other (respects preferences). When there is common certain belief of proper consistency, a most preferred strategy is properly rationalizable. Any strategy used with positive probability in a proper equilibrium is properly rationalizable. Only strategies that lead to the backward induction outcome are properly rationalizable in the strategic form of a generic perfect information game. Proper rationalizability can test the robustness of inductive procedures. Final version: December 2001     

Proper rationalizability and backward induction

This paper introduces a new normal form rationalizability concept, which in reduced normal form games corresponding to generic finite extensive games of perfect information yields the unique backward induction outcome. The basic assumption is that every player trembles “more or less rationally” as in the definition of a ε-proper equilibrium by Myerson (1978). In the same way that proper equilibrium refines Nash and perfect equilibrium, our model strengthens the normal form rationalizability concepts by Bernheim (1984), B?rgers (1994) and Pearce (1984). Common knowledge of trembling implies the iterated elimination of strategies that are strictly dominated at an information set. The elimination process starts at the end of the game tree and goes backwards to the beginning. Received: October 1996/Final version: May 1999     

On pure conjectural equilibrium with non-manipulable information

An information structure in a non-cooperative game determines the signal that each player observes as a function of the strategy profile. Such information structure is called non-manipulable if no player can gain new information by changing his strategy. A Conjectural Equilibrium (CE) (Battigalli in Unpublished undergraduate dissertation, 1987; Battigalli and Guaitoli 1988; Decisions, games and markets, 1997) with respect to a given information structure is a strategy profile in which each player plays a best response to his conjecture about his opponents’ play and his conjecture is not contradicted by the signal he observes. We provide a sufficient condition for the existence of pure CE in games with a non-manipulable information structure. We then apply this condition to prove existence of pure CE in two classes of games when the information that players have is the distribution of strategies in the population. This work is based on a chapter from my Ph.D. dissertation written at the School of Mathematical Sciences of Tel-Aviv University under the supervision of Prof. Ehud Lehrer. I am grateful to Ehud Lehrer as well as to Pierpaolo Battigalli, Yuval Heller, two anonymous referees, an Associate Editor and the Editor for very helpful comments and references.     

Semidefinite complementarity reformulation for robust Nash equilibrium problems with Euclidean uncertainty sets

Consider the N-person non-cooperative game in which each player’s cost function and the opponents’ strategies are uncertain. For such an incomplete information game, the new solution concept called a robust Nash equilibrium has attracted much attention over the past several years. The robust Nash equilibrium results from each player’s decision-making based on the robust optimization policy. In this paper, we focus on the robust Nash equilibrium problem in which each player’s cost function is quadratic, and the uncertainty sets for the opponents’ strategies and the cost matrices are represented by means of Euclidean and Frobenius norms, respectively. Then, we show that the robust Nash equilibrium problem can be reformulated as a semidefinite complementarity problem (SDCP), by utilizing the semidefinite programming (SDP) reformulation technique in robust optimization. We also give some numerical example to illustrate the behavior of robust Nash equilibria.     

Quitting games – An example

Quitting games are multi-player sequential games in which, at every stage, each player has the choice between continuing and quitting. The game ends as soon as at least one player chooses to quit; each player i then receives a payoff r _S ⁱ, which depends on the set S of players that did choose to quit. If the game never ends, the payoff to each player is zero.? We exhibit a four-player quitting game, where the “simplest” equilibrium is periodic with period two. We argue that this implies that all known methods to prove existence of an equilibrium payoff in multi-player stochastic games are therefore bound to fail in general, and provide some geometric intuition for this phenomenon. Received: October 2001     

Non-additive anonymous games

This paper introduces a class of non-additive anonymous games where agents are assumed to be uncertain (in the sense of Knight) about opponents’ strategies and about the initial distribution over players’ characteristics in the game. We model uncertainty by non-additive measures or capacities and prove the Cournot–Nash equilibrium existence theorem for this class of games. Equilibrium distribution can be symmetrized under milder conditions than in the case of additive games. In particular, it is not required for the space characteristics to be atomless under capacities. The set-valued map of the Cournot–Nash equilibria is upper-semicontinuous as a function of initial beliefs of the players for non-additive anonymous games.     

A dynamic Cournot–Nash game: a representation of a finitely repeated feedback game

This paper studies market outcome equivalence of two dynamic production-capital investment games under uncertainty. One is played under complete information, while the other, feedback (FB) game, is played under incomplete information about the opponents’ costs and market demand. The FB game structure may be observed in some newly initiated industries, in which a homogeneous good is exchanged via an auction mechanism. In that case, the FB game setting may predict the complete information equilibrium market outcomes.      

Value and perfection in stochastic games

A stochastic game isvalued if for every playerk there is a functionr ^k:S→R from the state spaceS to the real numbers such that for every ε>0 there is an ε equilibrium such that with probability at least 1−ε no states is reached where the future expected payoff for any playerk differs fromr ^k(s) by more than ε. We call a stochastic gamenormal if the state space is at most countable, there are finitely many players, at every state every player has only finitely many actions, and the payoffs are uniformly bounded and Borel measurable as functions on the histories of play. We demonstrate an example of a recursive two-person non-zero-sum normal stochastic game with only three non-absorbing states and limit average payoffs that is not valued (but does have ε equilibria for every positive ε). In this respect two-person non-zero-sum stochastic games are very different from their zero-sum varieties. N. Vieille proved that all such non-zero-sum games with finitely many states have an ε equilibrium for every positive ε, and our example shows that any proof of this result must be qualitatively different from the existence proofs for zero-sum games. To show that our example is not valued we need that the existence of ε equilibria for all positive ε implies a “perfection” property. Should there exist a normal stochastic game without an ε equilibrium for some ε>0, this perfection property may be useful for demonstrating this fact. Furthermore, our example sews some doubt concerning the existence of ε equilibria for two-person non-zero-sum recursive normal stochastic games with countably many states. This research was supported financially by the German Science Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) and the Center for High Performance Computing (Technical University, Dresden). The author thanks Ulrich Krengel and Heinrich Hering for their support of his habilitation at the University of Goettingen, of which this paper is a part.     

Epistemic characterizations of iterated deletion of inferior strategy profiles in preference-based type spaces

Bonanno (Logics and the foundations of game and decision theory, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2008) provides an epistemic characterization for the solution concept of iterated deletion of inferior strategy profiles (IDIP) by embedding strategic-form games with ordinal payoffs in non-probabilistic epistemic models which are built on Kripke frames. In this paper, we will follow the event-based approach to epistemic game theory and supplement strategic games with type space models, where each type is associated with a preference relation on the state space. In such a framework, IDIP can be characterized by the conditions that at least one player has correct beliefs about the state of the world and that there is common belief that every player is rational, has correct beliefs about the state of the world and has strictly monotone preferences. Moreover, we shall compare the epistemic motivations for IDIP and its mixed strategy variant known as strong rationalizability (SR). Presuppose the above conditions. Whenever there is also common belief that players’ preferences are representable by some expected utility function IDIP still applies. But if there is common belief that players’ preferences are representable by some expected payoff function, then SR results.     

Repeated Games with Bonuses

This paper deals with 2-player zero-sum repeated games in which player 1 receives a bonus at stage t if he repeats the action he played at stage t−1. We investigate the optimality of simple strategies for player 1. A simple strategy for player 1 consists of playing the same mixed action at every stage, irrespective of past play. Furthermore, for games in which player 1 has a simple optimal strategy, we characterize the set of stationary optimal strategies for player 2.     

A taxonomy of best-reply multifunctions in 2×2×2 trimatrix games

This paper provides an overview of the various shapes the best-reply multifunctions can take in 2×2×2 trimatrix games. It is shown that, unlike in 2×2 bimatrix games, the best replies to the opponents’ pure strategies do not completely determine the structure of the Nash equilibrium set.      

Analyzing n-player impartial games

Combinatorial game theory is the study of two player perfect information games. While work has been done in the past on expanding this field to include n-player games we present a unique method which guarantees a single winner. Specifically our goal is to derive a function which, given an n-player game, is able to determine the winning player (assuming all n players play optimally). Once this is accomplished we use this function in analyzing a certain family of three player subtraction games along with a complete analysis of three player, three row Chomp. Furthermore we make use of our new function in producing alternative proofs to various well known two player Chomp games. Finally the paper presents a possible method of analyzing a two player game where one of the players plays a completely random game. As it turns out this slight twist to the rules of combinatorial game theory produces rather interesting results and is certainly worth the time to study further.     

Correlated equilibrium payoffs and public signalling in absorbing games

An absorbing game is a repeated game where some action combinations are absorbing, in the sense that whenever they are played, there is a positive probability that the game terminates, and the players receive some terminal payoff at every future stage.  We prove that every multi-player absorbing game admits a correlated equilibrium payoff. In other words, for every ε>0 there exists a probability distribution p _ε over the space of pure strategy profiles that satisfies the following. With probability at least 1−ε, if a pure strategy profile is chosen according to p _ε and each player is informed of his pure strategy, no player can profit more than ε in any sufficiently long game by deviating from the recommended strategy. Received: April 2001/Revised: June 4, 2002     

On the existence of good stationary strategies for nonleavable stochastic games

This paper discusses the problem regarding the existence of optimal or nearly optimal stationary strategies for a player engaged in a nonleavable stochastic game. It is known that, for these games, player I need not have an -optimal stationary strategy even when the state space of the game is finite. On the contrary, we show that uniformly -optimal stationary strategies are available to player II for nonleavable stochastic games with finite state space. Our methods will also yield sufficient conditions for the existence of optimal and -optimal stationary strategies for player II for games with countably infinite state space. With the purpose of introducing and explaining the main results of the paper, special consideration is given to a particular class of nonleavable games whose utility is equal to the indicator of a subset of the state space of the game.     

Approachability of Convex Sets in Games with Partial Monitoring

We provide a necessary and sufficient condition under which a convex set is approachable in a game with partial monitoring, i.e. where players do not observe their opponents’ moves but receive random signals. This condition is an extension of Blackwell’s Criterion in the full monitoring framework, where players observe at least their payoffs. When our condition is fulfilled, we construct explicitly an approachability strategy, derived from a strategy satisfying some internal consistency property in an auxiliary game.     

Advertising coordination games of a manufacturer and a retailer while introducing a new product

Two kinds of vertical cooperative advertising program are considered in a distribution channel constituted by a manufacturer and a retailer, where the manufacturer pays part of the retailer’s advertising costs. In the first participation scheme, the manufacturer chooses his/her advertising participation rate in the retailer’s advertising effort and then each player determines the advertising effort that maximizes his/her profit. In the second scheme, the retailer chooses the manufacturer’s participation rate and then the manufacturer determines the advertising efforts of both players with the objective of maximizing the manufacturer’s profit. Each participation scheme corresponds to a special Stackelberg game: the manufacturer is the leader of the first, while the retailer is the leader of the second. The Stackelberg equilibrium advertising efforts and participation rate in both games are provided. Then the equilibrium strategies of the two players in the analyzed scenarios are compared with the Nash equilibrium in the competitive framework. Finally, the conditions which suggest a special kind of agreement to a player are analyzed. This work was supported by the Italian Ministry of University and Research and the University of Padua.     

Refinements of rationalizability for normal-form games

There exist three equivalent definitions of perfect Nash equilibria which differ in the way “best responses against small perturbations” are defined. It is shown that applying the spirit of these definitions to rationalizability leads to three different refinements of rationalizable strategies which are termed perfect (Bernheim, 1984), weakly perfect and trembling-hand perfect rationalizability, respectively. We prove that weakly perfect rationalizability is weaker than both perfect and proper (Schuhmacher, 1995) rationalizability and in two-player games it is weaker than trembling-hand perfect rationalizability. By means of examples, it is shown that no other relationships can be found. Received: January 1997/final version: August 1998     

A unifying model for matrix-based pairing situations

We present a unifying framework for transferable utility coalitional games that are derived from a non-negative matrix in which every entry represents the value obtained by combining the corresponding row and column. We assume that every row and every column is associated with a player, and that every player is associated with at most one row and at most one column. The instances arising from this framework are called pairing games, and they encompass assignment games and permutation games as two polar cases. We show that the core of a pairing game is always non-empty by proving that the set of pairing games coincides with the set of permutation games. Then we exploit the wide range of situations comprised in our framework to investigate the relationship between pairing games that have different player sets, but are defined by the same underlying matrix. We show that the core and the set of extreme core allocations are immune to the merging of a row player with a column player. Moreover, the core is also immune to the reverse manipulation, i.e., to the splitting of a player into a row player and a column player. Other common solution concepts fail to be either merging-proof or splitting-proof in general.     

Zero-sum sequential games with incomplete information

Repeated zero-sum two-person games of incomplete information on one side are considered. If the one-shot game is played sequentially, the informed player moving first, it is proved that the value of then-shot game is constant inn and is equal to the concavification of the game in which the informed player disregards his extra information. This is a strengthening ofAumann andMaschler's results for simultaneous games. Optimal strategies for both players are constructed explicitly.