Five legitimate definitions of correlated equilibrium in games with incomplete information

Aumann's (1987) theorem shows that correlated equilibrium is an expression of Bayesian rationality. We extend this result to games with incomplete information.First, we rely on Harsanyi's (1967) model and represent the underlying multiperson decision problem as a fixed game with imperfect information. We survey four definitions of correlated equilibrium which have appeared in the literature. We show that these definitions are not equivalent to each other. We prove that one of them fits Aumann's framework; the agents normal form correlated equilibrium is an expression of Bayesian rationality in games with incomplete information.We also follow a universal Bayesian approach based on Mertens and Zamir's (1985) construction of the universal beliefs space. Hierarchies of beliefs over independent variables (states of nature) and dependent variables (actions) are then constructed simultaneously. We establish that the universal set of Bayesian solutions satisfies another extension of Aumann's theorem.We get the following corollary: once the types of the players are not fixed by the model, the various definitions of correlated equilibrium previously considered are equivalent.     

Why I am not an objective Bayesian; some reflections prompted by Rosenkrantz

Summary The objective Bayesian program has as its fundamental tenet (in addition to the three Bayesian postulates) the requirement that, from a given knowledge base a particular probability function is uniquely appropriate. This amounts to fixing initial probabilities, based on relatively little information, because Bayes' theorem (conditionalization) then determines the posterior probabilities when the belief state is altered by enlarging the knowledge base. Moreover, in order to reconstruct orthodox statistical procedures within a Bayesian framework, only privileged ignorance probability functions will work.To serve all these ends objective Bayesianism seeks additional principles for specifying ignorance and partial information probabilities. H. Jeffreys' method of invariance (or Jaynes' modification thereof) is used to solve the former problem, and E. Jaynes' rule of maximizing entropy (subject to invariance for continuous distributions) has recently been thought to solve the latter. I have argued that neither policy is acceptable to a Bayesian since each is inconsistent with conditionalization. Invariance fails to give a consistent representation to the state of ignorance professed. The difficulties here parallel familiar weaknesses in the old Laplacean principle of insufficient reason. Maximizing entropy is unsatisfactory because the partial information it works with fails to capture the effect of uncertainty about related nuisance factors. The result is a probability function that represents a state richer in empirical content than the belief state targeted for representation. Alternatively, by conditionalizing on information about a nuisance parameter one may move from a distribution of lower to higher entropy, despite the obvious increase in information available.Each of these two complaints appear to me to be symptoms of the program's inability to formulate rules for picking privileged probability distributions that serve to represent ignorance or near ignorance. Certainly the methods advocated by Jeffreys, Jaynes and Rosenkrantz are mathematically convenient idealizations wherein specified distributions are elevated to the roles of ignorance and partial information distributions. But the cost that goes with the idealization is a violation of conditionalization, and if that is the ante that we must put up to back objective Bayesianism then I propose we look for a different candidate to earn our support.³¹     

Can we rationally learn to coordinate?

In this paper we examine the issue whether individual rationality considerations are sufficient to guarantee that individuals will learn to coordinate. This question is central in any discussion of whether social phenomena (read: conventions) can be explained in terms of a purely individualistic approach. We argue that the positive answers to this general question that have been obtained in some recent work require assumptions which incorporate some convention. This conclusion may be seen as supporting the viewpoint of institutional individualism in contrast to psychological individualism.     

On Playing Fair: Professor Binmore on Game Theory and the Social Contract

This paper critically reviews Ken Binmores non- utilitarian and game theoretic solution to the Arrow problem. Binmores solution belongs to the same family as Rawls maximin criterion and requires the use of Nash bargaining theory, empathetic preferences, and results in evolutionary game theory. Harsanyi has earlier presented a solution that relies on utilitarianism, which requires some exogenous valuation criterion and is therefore incompatible with liberalism. Binmores rigorous demonstration of the maximin principle for the first time presents a real alternative to a utilitarian solution.     

Notes on the so-called incompleteness problem and on the proposed alternative concept of rational behavior

In reply to McClennen, the paper argues that his criticism is based on a mistaken assumption about the meaning of rationality postulates, to be called the Implication Principle. Once we realize that the Implication Principle has no validity, McClennen's criticisms of what he calls the Reductio Argument and what he calls the Incentive Argument fall to the ground. The rest of the paper criticizes the rationality concept McClennen proposes in lieu of that used by orthodox game theory. It is argued that McClennen's concept is inconsistent with the behavior of real-life intelligent egoists; it is incompatible with the way payoffs are defined in game theory; and it would be highly dangerous as a practical guide to human behavior.The author is indebted to the National Science Foundation for financial support trough Grant GS-3222, administered through the Center for Research in Management Science, University of California, Berkeley.     

Joint Beliefs in Conflictual Coordination Games

The traditional solution concept for noncooperative game theory is the Nash equilibrium, which contains an implicit assumption that players probability distributions satisfy t probabilistic independence. However, in games with more than two players, relaxing this assumption results in a more general equilibrium concept based on joint beliefs (Vanderschraaf, 1995). This article explores the implications of this joint-beliefs equilibrium concept for two kinds of conflictual coordination games: crisis bargaining and public goods provision. We find that, using updating consistent with Bayes rule, players beliefs converge to equilibria in joint beliefs which do not satisfy probabilistic independence. In addition, joint beliefs greatly expand the set of mixed equilibria. On the face of it, allowing for joint beliefs might be expected to increase the prospects for coordination. However, we show that if players use joint beliefs, which may be more likely as the number of players increases, then the prospects for coordination in these games declines vis-à-vis independent beliefs.     

Utility theory and the Bayesian paradigm

In this paper, a problem for utility theory - that it would have an agent who was compelled to play Russian Roulette with one revolver or another, to pay as much to have a six-shooter with four bullets relieved of one bullet before playing with it, as he would be willing to pay to have a six-shooter with two bullets emptied - is reviewed. A less demanding Bayesian theory is described, that would have an agent maximize expected values of possible total consequence of his actions. And utility theory is located within that theory as valid for agents who satisfy certain formal conditions, that is, for agents who are, in terms of that more general theory, indifferent to certain dimensions of risk. Raiffa- and Savage-style arguments for its more general validity are then resisted. Addenda are concerned with implications for game theory, and relations between utilities and values.     

Statistical analysis for negotiation support

In this paper we provide an overview of the issues involved in using statistical analysis to support the process of international negotiation. We will illustrate how the approach can contribute to a negotiator's understanding and control of the interactions that occur during the course of a negotiation. The techniques are suited to the analysis of data collected from ongoing discussions and moves made by the parties. The analyses are used to illuminate influences and processes as they operate in particular cases or in negotiations in general. They do not identify a best strategy or outcome from among alternatives suggested either from theoretical assumptions about rationality and information-processing (see Munier and Rullière's paper in this issue), from personal preference structures (see Spector's paper in this issue), or from a rule-based modeling system (see Kersten's paper in this issue). This distinction should be evident in the discussion to follow, organized into several sections: From Empirical to Normative Analysis; Statistical Analysis for Situational Diagnosis; Time-Series Analysis of Cases, and Knowledge as Leverage Over the Negotiation Process. In a final section, we consider the challenge posed by attempts to implement these techniques with practitioners.     

On the foundations of mean-variance analyses

Let (, ) and (, ) be mean-standard deviation pairs of two probability distributions on the real line. Mean-variance analyses presume that the preferred distribution depends solely on these pairs, with primary preference given to larger mean and smaller variance. This presumption, in conjunction with the assumption that one distribution is better than a second distribution if the mass of the first is completely to the right of the mass of the second, implies that (, ) is preferred to (, ) if and only if either > or ( = and < ), provided that the set of distributions is sufficiently rich. The latter provision fails if the outcomes of all distributions lie in a finite interval, but then it is still possible to arrive at more liberal dominance conclusions between (, ) and (, ).This research was supported by the Office of Naval Research.     

The general relevance of the impossibility teorem in smooth social choice

A complete classification theorem for voting processes on a smooth choice spaceW of dimensionw is presented. Any voting process is classified by two integersv ^* () andw(), in terms of the existence or otherwise of the optima set, IO(), and the cycle set IC().In dimension belowv ^* () the cycle set is always empty, and in dimension abovew() the optima set is nearly always empty while the cycle set is open dense and path con nected. In the latter case agenda manipulation results in any outcome.For admissible (compact, convex) choice spaces, the two sets are related by the general equilibrium result that IO() union IC() is non-empty. This in turn implies existence of optima in low dimensions. The equilibrium theorem is used to examine voting games with an infinite electorate, and the nature ofstructure induced equilibria, induced by jurisdictional restrictions.This material is based on work supported by a Nuffield Foundation grant.     

Rational preference: Decision theory as a theory of practical rationality

In general, the technical apparatus of decision theory is well developed. It has loads of theorems, and they can be proved from axioms. Many of the theorems are interesting, and useful both from a philosophical and a practical perspective. But decision theory does not have a well agreed upon interpretation. Its technical terms, in particular, utility and preference do not have a single clear and uncontroversial meaning.How to interpret these terms depends, of course, on what purposes in pursuit of which one wants to put decision theory to use. One might want to use it as a model of economic decision-making, in order to predict the behavior of corporations or of the stock market. In that case, it might be useful to interpret the technical term utility as meaning money profit. Decision theory would then be an empirical theory. I want to look into the question of what utility could mean, if we want decision theory to function as a theory of practical rationality. I want to know whether it makes good sense to think of practical rationality as fully or even partly accounted for by decision theory. I shall lay my cards on the table: I hope it does make good sense to think of it that way. For, I think, if Humeans are right about practical rationality, then decision theory must play a very large part in their account. And I think Humeanism has very strong attractions.     

Rational choice and economic behavior

This paper discusses several concepts that can be used to provide a foundation for a unified, theory of rational, economic behavior. First, decision-making is defined to be a process that takes place with reference to both subjective and objective time, that distinguishes between plans and actions, between information and states and that explicitly incorporates the collection and processing of information. This conception of decision making is then related to several important aspects of behavioral economics, the dependence of values on experience, the use of behavioral rules, the occurrence of multiple goals and environmental feedback.Our conclusions are (1) the non-transitivity of observed or revealed preferences is a characteristic of learning and hence is to be expected of rational decision-makers; (2) the learning of values through experience suggests the sensibleness of short time horizons and the making of choices according to flexible utility; (3) certain rules of thumb used to allow for risk are closely related to principles of Safety-First and can also be based directly on the hypothesis that the feeling of risk (the probability of disaster) is identified with extreme departures from recently executed decisions. (4) The maximization of a hierarchy of goals, or of a lexicographical utility function, is closely related to the search for feasibility and the practice of satisficing. (5) When the dim perception of environmental feedback and the effect of learning on values are acknowledged the intertemporal optimality of planned decision trajectories is seen to be a characteristic of subjective not objective time. This explains why decision making is so often best characterized by rolling plans. In short, we find that economic man - like any other - is an existential being whose plans are based on hopes and fears and whose every act involves a leap of faith.This paper is based on a talk presented at the Conference, New Beginnings in Economics, Akron, Ohio, March 15, 1969. Work on this paper was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation.     

Practical reason or metapreferences? an undogmatic defense of kantian morality

This article presents the thesis that a critique of decisions is not necessarily (except in the trivial sense) a critique of preferences. This thesis runs contrary to the fundamental assumption in economic theory that a critique of decisions will always simultaneously be a critique of (subjective) preferences, since decision behavior is after all a manifestation of preferences. If this thesis is right, then the paradigm of so-called instrumental rationality is in serious trouble, not for external reasons but because of imminent inconsistencies. The thesis is developed in five parts: I. A preliminary remark to the economic theory of rationality in general. II. The cooperation problem as a challenge to the economic theory of rationality. III. An account of the most interesting attempt to save the theory. IV. A critique of that attempt. V. And the conclusion: practical reason is concerned with actions and not with preferences.     

Experiments with cooperative 2 × 2 games

Nash's solution of a two-person cooperative game prescribes a coordinated mixed strategy solution involving Pareto-optimal outcomes of the game. Testing this normative solution experimentally presents problems in as much as rather detailed explanations must be given to the subjects of the meaning of threat strategy, strategy mixture, expected payoff, etc. To the extent that it is desired to test the solution using naive subjects, the problem arises of imparting to them a minimal level of understanding about the issue involved in the game without actually suggesting the solution.Experiments were performed to test the properties of the solution of a cooperative two-person game as these are embodied in three of Nash's four axioms: Symmetry, Pareto-optimality, and Invariance with respect to positive linear transformations. Of these, the last was definitely discorroborated, suggesting that interpersonal comparison of utilities plays an important part in the negotiations.Some evidence was also found for a conjecture generated by previous experiments, namely that an externally imposed threat (penalty for non-cooperation) tends to bring the players closer together than the threats generated by the subjects themselves in the process of negotiation.     

A Note on the Computation of the Mean Random Consistency Index of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (Ahp)

In this paper, we use Saaty's Eigenvector Method and the Power Method as well as =1, 2, , 9, 1/2, 1/3, , 1/9} and -={1,2, ,9,1, 1/2, ,1/9} as the sets from which the pairwise comparison judgments are assigned at random to examine the variation in the values determined for the mean random consistency index. By extensive simulation analysis, we found that both methods produce the same values for the mean random consistency random index. Also, we found that the reason for producing two different sets of values is the use of vs. - and not the selection of the Power Method vs. Saaty's Eigenvector Method.     

A strategic foundation for the cooperator's advantage

Orbell and Dawes develop a non-game theoretic heuristic that yields a cooperator's advantage by allowing players to project their own cooperate-defect choices onto potential partners (1991, p. 515). With appropriate parameter values their heuristic yields a cooperative environment, but the cooperation depends, simply, on optimism about others' behavior (1991, p. 526). In earlier work, Dawes (1989) established a statistical foundation for such optimism. In this paper, I adapt some of the concerns of Dawes (1989) and develop a game theoretic model based on a modification of the Harsanyi structure of games with incomplete information (1967–1968). I show that the commonly made conjecture that strategic play is incompatible with cooperation and the cooperator's advantage is false.     

How can an expert system help in choosing the optimal decision?

We introduce a rationality principle for a preference relation on an arbitrary set of lotteries. Such a principle is a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of an expected utility agreeing with . The same principle also guarantees a rational extension of the preference relation to any larger set of lotteries. When the extended relation is unique with respect to the alternatives under consideration, the decision maker does not need a numerical evaluation in order to make a choice. Such a rationality condition needs little information in order to be applied, and its verification amounts to solving a linear system.The present research is supported by the Research Contract of CNR (Research National Council) 1989 and 1990 Decision Models under uncertainty and risk, for expert systems with incomplete and revisable information.     

Fairness,Public Good,and Emotional Aspects of Punishment Behavior

We report an experiment on two treatments of an ultimatum minigame. In one treatment, responders reactions are hidden to proposers. We observe high rejection rates reflecting responders intrinsic resistance to unfairness. In the second treatment, proposers are informed, allowing for dynamic effects over eight rounds of play. The higher rejection rates can be attributed to responders provision of a public good: Punishment creates a group reputation for being tough and effectively educate proposers. Since rejection rates with informed proposers drop to the level of the treatment with non-informed proposers, the hypothesis of responders enjoyment of overt punishment is not supported.     

Hopes and Fears: the Conflicting Effects of Risk Ambiguity

The Ellsberg Paradox documented the aversion to ambiguity in the probability of winning a prize. Using an original sample of 266 business owners and managers facing risks from climate change, this paper documents the presence of departures from rationality in both directions. Both ambiguity-seeking behavior and ambiguity-averse behavior are evident. People exhibit fear effects of ambiguity for small probabilities of suffering a loss and hope effects for large probabilities. Estimates of the crossover point from ambiguity aversion (fear) to ambiguity seeking (hope) place this value between 0.3 and 0.7 for the risk per decade lotteries considered, with empirical estimates indicating a crossover mean risk of about 0.5. Attitudes toward the degree of ambiguity also reverse at the crossover point.     

Objective knowledge out of ignorance: Popper on body,mind, and the third world

In the fifties, Popper defended an interactionistic version of body-mind dualism. It distinguished between the world of physical bodies and states and the world of mental states. Later he added a third world of objective thought contents. He claims the assumption that there is the third world is a necessary presupposition of problem-solving in general and of his philosophy of science in particular. The present article contains separate reasonings to the effect that this presupposition is neither necessary nor even possible. It is further argued that postulating the existence of entities makes sense only relative to a criterion of ontological commitment, which Popper does not mention and obviously does not have, and that in addition it presupposes a theory, which is tentatively accepted as true and which according to the criterion implies the existence of the entities. But as yet there is no testable theory involving terms like mind, intention etc., which made the notion that itself or its terms are essentially different from what is already known in the empirical sciences at least plausible. Therefore the body-mind controversy is still pointless. Popper's stand on it seems to be but a reflex of his anti-behavioristic and anti-psychologistic attitude.