Admissibility and event-rationality

Brandenburger et al. (2008) establish epistemic foundations for rationality and common assumption of rationality (RCAR), where rationality includes admissibility, using lexicographic type structures. Their negative result that RCAR is empty whenever the type structure is complete and continuous suggests that iterated admissibility (IA) requires players to have prior knowledge about each other, and therefore is a strong solution concept, not at the same level as iterated elimination of strongly dominated strategies (IEDS). We follow an alternative approach using standard type structures and show that IA can be generated in a complete and continuous type structure. A strategy is event-rational if it is a best response to a conjecture, as usual, and in addition it passes a “tie-breaking†test based on a set E of strategies of the other player. Event-rationality and common belief in event-rationality (RCBER) is characterized by a solution concept we call hypo-admissible sets and, in a complete structure, generates the strategies that are admissible and survive the iterated elimination of strongly dominated strategies (Dekel and Fudenberg (1990)). Extending event-rationality by adding what a player is certain about the other’s strategies as a tie-breaking set to each round of mutual belief we get common belief of extended event-rationality (RCBeER), which generates a more restrictive solution concept than the SAS (Brandenburger et al. (2008)) and in a complete structure produces the IA strategies. Contrary to the negative result in Brandenburger et al. (2008), we show that RCBER and RCBeER are nonempty in complete, continuous and compact type structures, therefore providing an epistemic criterion for IA <br><br> Keywords; epistemic game theory, admissibility, iterated weak dominance, common knowledge, rationality, completeness

Admissibility and Event-Rationality

We develop an approach to providing epistemic conditions for admissible behavior in games. Instead of using lexicographic beliefs to capture infinitely less likely conjectures, we postulate that players use tie-breaking sets to help decide among strategies that are outcome-equivalent given their conjectures. A player is event-rational if she best responds to a conjecture and uses a list of subsets of the other players' strategies to break ties among outcome-equivalent strategies. Using type spaces to capture interactive beliefs, we show that common belief of event-rationality (RCBER) implies that players play strategies in S1W, that is, admissible strategies that also survive iterated elimination of dominated strategies (Dekel and Fudenberg (1990)). We strengthen standard belief to validated belief and we show that event-rationality and common validated belief of event-rationality (RCvBER) implies that players play iterated admissible strategies (IA). We show that in complete, continuous and compact type structures, RCBER and RCvBER are nonempty, and hence we obtain epistemic criteria for SinfW and IA.

Admissibility and Common Knowledge

The implications of assuming that it is commonly known that players consider only admissible best responses are investigated.Within a states-of-the-world model where a state, for each player, determines a strategy set rather than a strategy the concept of fully permissible sets is defined.General existence is established, and a finite algorithm (eliminating strategy sets instead of strategies) is provided.The concept refines rationalizability as well as the Dekel-Fudenberg procedure, and captures a notion of forward induction.When players consider all best responses, the same framework can be used to define the concept of rationalizable sets, which characterizes rationalizability.game theory

Amissibility and Common Belief

The concept of ‘fully permissible sets ’ is defined by an algorithm that eliminate strategy subset . It is characterized as choice sets when there is common certain belief of the event that each player prefer one strategy to another if and only if the former weakly dominate the latter on the sets of all opponent strategie or on the union of the choice sets that are deemed possible for the opponent. the concept refines the Dekel-Fudenberg procedure and captures aspects of forward induction.Admissibility; Denkel-Fudenberg; common belief;

Reality Check: A Modest Modification to Rationalize Rule 803 Hearsay Exceptions

The Federal Rules of Evidence (or “the Rules”) identify hearsay that is admissible, notwithstanding the classic hearsay prohibition, by delineating categories of hearsay statements that may be admitted into evidence. For example, “dying declarations” of now-unavailable declarants may be admitted in homicide prosecutions or civil cases. “Excited utterances” relating to a startling event also may be admitted for their truth. The purported justification for admitting certain categories of hearsay rests upon the inherent reliability of human statements uttered in certain contexts, as well as litigants’ need for crucial evidence to build cases

Common assumption of rationality

In this paper, we provide an epistemic characterization of iterated admissibility (IA), i.e., iterated elimination of weakly dominated strategies. We show that rationality and common assumption of rationality (RCAR) in complete lexicographic type structures implies IA, and that there exist such structures in which RCAR can be satisfied. Our result is unexpected in light of a negative result in Brandenburger, Friedenberg, and Keisler (2008) (BFK) that shows the impossibility of RCAR in complete continuous structures. We also show that every complete structure with RCAR has the same types and beliefs as some complete continuous structure. This enables us to reconcile and interpret the difference between our results and BFK’s. Finally, we extend BFK’s framework to obtain a single structure that contains a complete structure with an RCAR state for every game. This gives a game-independent epistemic condition for IA.Epistemic game theory; rationality; admissibility; iterated weak dominance; assumption; completeness; Borel Isomorphism Theorem; o-minimality

Reality Check: A Modest Modification to Rationalize Rule 803 Hearsay Exceptions

The Federal Rules of Evidence (or “the Rules”) identify hearsay that is admissible, notwithstanding the classic hearsay prohibition, by delineating categories of hearsay statements that may be admitted into evidence. For example, “dying declarations” of now-unavailable declarants may be admitted in homicide prosecutions or civil cases. “Excited utterances” relating to a startling event also may be admitted for their truth. The purported justification for admitting certain categories of hearsay rests upon the inherent reliability of human statements uttered in certain contexts, as well as litigants’ need for crucial evidence to build cases

A THEORY OF RATIONAL CHOICE UNDER COMPLETE IGNORANCE

This paper contributes to a theory of rational choice under uncertainty for decision-makers whose preferences are exhaustively described by partial orders representing ""limited information."" Specifically, we consider the limiting case of ""Complete Ignorance"" decision problems characterized by maximally incomplete preferences and important primarily as reduced forms of general decision problems under uncertainty. ""Rationality"" is conceptualized in terms of a ""Principle of Preference-Basedness,"" according to which rational choice should be isomorphic to asserted preference. The main result characterizes axiomatically a new choice-rule called ""Simultaneous Expected Utility Maximization"" which in particular satisfies a choice-functional independence and a context-dependent choice-consistency condition; it can be interpreted as the fair agreement in a bargaining game (Kalai-Smorodinsky solution) whose players correspond to the different possible states (respectively extermal priors in the general case).

How to Handle Assumptions in Synthesis

The increased interest in reactive synthesis over the last decade has led to many improved solutions but also to many new questions. In this paper, we discuss the question of how to deal with assumptions on environment behavior. We present four goals that we think should be met and review several different possibilities that have been proposed. We argue that each of them falls short in at least one aspect.Comment: In Proceedings SYNT 2014, arXiv:1407.493