Rational Play in Extensive-Form Games

IF 0.6 Q4 ECONOMICS
Games Pub Date : 2022-10-30 DOI:10.3390/g13060072
G. Bonanno
{"title":"Rational Play in Extensive-Form Games","authors":"G. Bonanno","doi":"10.3390/g13060072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We argue in favor of a departure from the equilibrium approach in game theory towards the less ambitious goal of describing only the actual behavior of rational players. The notions of Nash equilibrium and its refinements require a specification of the players’ choices and beliefs not only along the equilibrium play but also at counterfactual histories. We discuss an alternative—counterfactual-free—approach that focuses on choices and beliefs along the actual play, while being silent on choices and beliefs at unreached histories. Such an approach was introduced in an earlier paper that considered only perfect-information games. Here we extend the analysis to general extensive-form games (allowing for imperfect information) and put forward a behavioral notion of self-confirming play, which is close in spirit to the literature on self-confirming equilibrium. We also extend, to general extensive-form games, the characterization of rational play that is compatible with pure-strategy Nash equilibrium.","PeriodicalId":35065,"journal":{"name":"Games","volume":"13 1","pages":"72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Games","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/g13060072","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

We argue in favor of a departure from the equilibrium approach in game theory towards the less ambitious goal of describing only the actual behavior of rational players. The notions of Nash equilibrium and its refinements require a specification of the players’ choices and beliefs not only along the equilibrium play but also at counterfactual histories. We discuss an alternative—counterfactual-free—approach that focuses on choices and beliefs along the actual play, while being silent on choices and beliefs at unreached histories. Such an approach was introduced in an earlier paper that considered only perfect-information games. Here we extend the analysis to general extensive-form games (allowing for imperfect information) and put forward a behavioral notion of self-confirming play, which is close in spirit to the literature on self-confirming equilibrium. We also extend, to general extensive-form games, the characterization of rational play that is compatible with pure-strategy Nash equilibrium.
宽泛形式游戏中的理性玩法
我们主张从博弈论的均衡方法转向只描述理性参与者的实际行为这一不那么雄心勃勃的目标。纳什均衡的概念及其改进要求对参与者的选择和信念进行详细说明,不仅在均衡过程中,而且在反事实历史中。我们讨论了另一种反事实自由的方法,即关注实际游戏中的选择和信念,而对未达到的历史中的选择和信念保持沉默。这种方法在之前的一篇论文中被引入,该论文只考虑了完全信息博弈。在这里,我们将分析扩展到一般的广泛形式游戏(允许不完全信息),并提出了自我确认游戏的行为概念,这在精神上接近于自我确认均衡的文献。我们还将与纯策略纳什均衡相容的理性博弈特征扩展到一般的广义博弈。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Games
Games Decision Sciences-Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
65
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Games (ISSN 2073-4336) is an international, peer-reviewed, quick-refereeing open access journal (free for readers), which provides an advanced forum for studies related to strategic interaction, game theory and its applications, and decision making. The aim is to provide an interdisciplinary forum for all behavioral sciences and related fields, including economics, psychology, political science, mathematics, computer science, and biology (including animal behavior). To guarantee a rapid refereeing and editorial process, Games follows standard publication practices in the natural sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信