Rationalizability and Minimal Complexity in Dynamic Games

This paper presents a formal epistemic framework for dynamic games in which players, during the course of the game, may revise their beliefs about the opponents'' utility functions. We impose three key conditions upon the players'' beliefs: (a) throughout the game, every move by the opponent should be interpreted as being part of a rational strategy, (b) the belief about the opponents'' relative ranking of two strategies should not be revised unless one is certain that the opponent has decided not to choose one of these strategies, and (c) the players'' initial beliefs about the opponents'' utility functions should agree on a given profile u of utility functions. Types that, throughout the game, respect common belief about these three events, are called persistently rationalizable for the profile u of utility functions. It is shown that persistent rationalizability implies the backward induction procedure in generic games with perfect information. We next focus on persistently rationalizable types for u that hold a theory about the opponents of ``minimal complexity'''', resulting in the concept of minimal rationalizability. For two-player simultaneous move games, minimal rationalizability is equivalent to the concept of Nash equilibrium strategy. In every outside option game, as defined by van Damme (1989), minimal rationalizability uniquely selects the forward induction outcome.microeconomics ;

Refined best-response correspondence and dynamics

We characterize the smallest faces of the polyhedron of strategy profiles that could possibly be made asymptotically stable under some reasonable deterministic dynamics. These faces are Kalai and Samet's (1984) persistent retracts and are spanned by Basu and Weibull's (1991) CURB sets based on a natural (and, in a well-defined sense, minimal) refinement of the best-reply correspondence. We show that such a correspondence satisfying basic properties such as existence, upper hemi-continuity, and convex-valuedness exists and is unique in most games. We introduce a notion of rationalizability based on this correspondence and its relation to other such concepts. We study its fixed-points and their relations to equilibrium refinements. We find, for instance, that a fixed point of the refined best reply correspondence in the agent normal form of any extensive form game constitutes a perfect Bayesian equilibrium, which is weak perfect Bayesian in every subgame. Finally, we study the index of its fixed point components.Evolutionary game theory, best response dynamics, CURB sets, persistent retracts, asymptotic stability, Nash equilibrium refinements, learning

A Note on the Equivalence of Rationalizability Concepts in Generalized Nice Games

Moulin (1984) describes the class of nice games for which the solution concept of point-rationalizability coincides with iterated elimination of strongly dominated strategies. As a consequence nice games have the desirable property that all rationalizability concepts determine the same strategic solution. However, nice games are characterized by rather strong assumptions. For example, only single-valued best responses are admitted and the individual strategy sets have to be convex and compact subsets of the real line R1. This note shows that equivalence of all rationalizability concepts can be extended to multi-valued best response correspondences. The surprising finding is that equivalence does not hold for individual strategy sets that are compact and convex subsets of Rn with n>1.

Proper Rationalizability and Belief Revision in Dynamic Games

In this paper we develop an epistemic model for dynamic games in which players may revise their beliefs about the opponents'' preferences (including the opponents'' utility functions) as the game proceeds. Within this framework, we propose a rationalizability concept that is based upon the following three principles: (1) at every instance of the game, a player should believe that his opponents are carrying out optimal strategies, (2) a player should only revise his belief about an opponent''s relative ranking of two strategies if he is certain that the opponent has decided not to choose one of these strategies, and (3) the players'' initial beliefs about the opponents'' utility functions should agree on a given profile u of utility functions. Common belief about these events leads to the concept of persistent rationalizability for the profile u of utility functions. It is shown that for a given profile u of utility functions, every properly rationalizable strategy for ``types with non-increasing type supports'''' is a persistently rationalizable strategy for u. This result implies that persistently rationalizable strategies always exist for all game trees and all profiles of utility functions.mathematical economics;

Dynamic Unawareness and Rationalizable Behavior

We define generalized extensive-form games which allow for mutual unawareness of actions. We extend Pearce's (1984) notion of extensive-form (correlated) rationalizability to this setting, explore its properties and prove existence. We define also a new variant of this solution concept, prudent rationalizability, which refines the set of outcomes induced by extensive-form rationalizable strategies. Finally, we define the normal form of a generalized extensive-form game, and characterize in it extensive-form rationalizability by iterative conditional dominance.Unawareness, extensive-form games, extensive-form rationalizability, prudent rationalizability, iterative conditional dominance

Strongly Rational Sets for Normal-Form Games

Curb sets [Basu and Weibull, Econ. Letters 36 (1991), 141-146] are product sets of pure strategies containing all individual best-responses against beliefs restricted to the recommendations to the remaining players. The concept of minimal curb sets is a set-theoretic coarsening of the notion of strict Nash equilibrium. We introduce the concept of minimal strong curb sets which is a set-theoretic coarsening of the notion of strong Nash equilibrium. Strong curb sets are product sets of pure strategies such that each player.s set of recommended strategies must contain all coalitional best-responses of each coalition to whatever belief each coalition member may have that is consistent with the recommendations to the other players. Minimal strong curb sets are shown to exist and are compared with other well known solution concepts. We also provide a dynamic learning process leading the players to playing strategies from a minimal strong curb set.mathematical economics;