Coalitional Rationalizability
نویسندگان
چکیده
This paper investigates how groups or coalitions of players can act in their collective interest in non-cooperative normal form games even if equilibrium play is not assumed. The main idea is that each member of a coalition will confine play to a subset of their strategies if it is in their mutual interest to do so. An iterative procedure of restrictions is used to define a non-cooperative solution concept, the set of coalitionally rationalizable strategies. The procedure is analogous to iterative deletion of never best response strategies, but operates on implicit agreements by different coalitions. The solution set is a nonempty subset of the rationalizable strategies. ∗I thank Dilip Abreu for support and extremely valuable comments at all stages of writing this paper. I would also like to thank Drew Fudenberg, Faruk Gul, Wolfgang Pesendorfer, Ariel Rubinstein and Marciano Siniscalchi for useful comments and discussions. Finally, I would like to thank Eddie Dekel, Haluk Ergin, Erica Field, Jozsef Molnar, Wojciech Oszlewski, Hugo Sonnenschein, Andrea Wilson, seminar participants at various universities for useful comments.
منابع مشابه
Dynamic Coalitional Agreements - coalitional rationalizability in multi-stage games
This paper extends the concept of coalitional rationalizability of Ambrus(01) to incorporate sequential rationality in multi-stage games with observable actions and incomplete information. Agreements among players are implicit, it is assumed that players cannot communicate with each other during the game. They re°ect a reasoning procedure which entails restricting strategies in a mutually advan...
متن کاملBayesian coalitional rationalizability
We extend Ambrus’s [QJE, 2006] concept of “coalitional rationalizability (c-rationalizability)” to situations where, in seeking mutual beneficial interests, players in groups (i) make use of Bayes rule in expectation calculations and (ii) contemplate various deviations — i.e. the validity of deviation is checked against any arbitrary sets of strategies, not only against restricted subsets of st...
متن کاملTheories of coalitional rationality
This paper generalizes the concept of best response to coalitions of players and offers epistemic definitions of coalitional rationalizability in normal form games. The (best) response of a coalition is defined to be an operator from sets of conjectures to sets of strategies. A strategy is epistemic coalitionally rationalizable if it is consistent with rationality and common certainty that ever...
متن کاملSocial Rationalizability
Social environments constitute a framework in which it is possible to study how groups of agents interact in a society. The framework is general enough to analyse both noncooperative and cooperative games. We identify a number of shortcomings of existing solution concepts that are used for social environments and propose a new concept called social rationalizability. The concept aims to identif...
متن کاملRationalizability for social environments
Social environments constitute a framework in which it is possible to study how groups of agents interact in a society. The framework is general enough to analyze both non-cooperative and cooperative games. In order to remedy the shortcomings of existing solution concepts and to identify the consequences of common knowledge of rationality and farsightedness, we propose to apply extensive-form r...
متن کاملCOALITIONAL GAME WITH FUZZY PAYOFFS AND CREDIBILISTIC SHAPLEY VALUE
Coalitional game deals with situations that involve cooperations among players, and there are different solution concepts such as the core,the Shapley value and the kernel. In many situations, there is no way to predict the payoff functions except for the expert experiencesand subjective intuitions, which leads to the coalitional game with fuzzy payoffs. Within the framework of credibility theo...
متن کامل