Cooperation in Games and Epistemic Readings of Independence-Friendly Sentences

In the literature on logics of imperfect information it is often stated, incorrectly, that the Game-Theoretical Semantics of Independence-Friendly (IF) quantifiers captures the idea that the players of semantical games are forced to make some moves without knowledge of the moves of other players. We survey here the alternative semantics for IF logic that have been suggested in order to enforce this "epistemic reading" of sentences. We introduce some new proposals, and a more general logical language which distinguishes between "independence from actions" and "independence from strategies". New semantics for IF logic can be obtained by choosing embeddings of the set of IF sentences into this larger language. We compare all the semantics proposed and their purported game-theoretical justifications, and disprove a few claims that have been made in the literature.Peer reviewe

Rational coordination with no communication or conventions

We study pure coordination games where in every outcome, all players have identical payoffs, 'win' or 'lose'. We identify and discuss a range of 'purely rational principles' guiding the reasoning of rational players in such games and compare the classes of coordination games that can be solved by such players with no preplay communication or conventions. We observe that it is highly nontrivial to delineate a boundary between purely rational principles and other decision methods, such as conventions, for solving such coordination games.Peer reviewe