Search type Search syntax
Tags [tag]
Exact "words here"
Author user:1234
user:me (yours)
Score score:3 (3+)
score:0 (none)
Answers answers:3 (3+)
answers:0 (none)
isaccepted:yes
hasaccepted:no
inquestion:1234
Views views:250
Sections title:apples
body:"apples oranges"
URL url:"*.example.com"
Favorites infavorites:mine
infavorites:1234
Status closed:yes
duplicate:no
migrated:no
wiki:no
Types is:question
is:answer
Exclude -[tag]
-apples
For more details on advanced search visit our help page
Results tagged with Search options user 42

For questions about Bayesian games. These are strategic interactions when one or more players have incomplete information about other players. General topics of games with asymmetric information may use this tag.

5
votes
While it is a bit unusual to describe a strategy profile as being Pareto optimal, especially in the context of Bayesian games, I guess you can still define Pareto optimality in different stages of suc …
answered Feb 14 by Herr K.
3
votes
In some ways, beliefs are a more natural way of interpreting solution concepts like Nash equilibrium and its refinements. For example, consider a simple simultaneous-move coordination game as follows …
answered Feb 9 '18 by Herr K.
4
votes
Yes, a whole book has been written on Behavioral Game Theory. More specifically, standard solution concept such as Nash equilibrium requires that players best respond to a correct belief about other …
answered Nov 29 '17 by Herr K.
4
votes
If $10^{10}$ pure strategies is too large for Gambit, it'll likely be too large for any other software as well. In the comments, I suggested that you could first compute the expected payoffs for each …
answered Feb 18 by Herr K.
7
votes
Epistemic game theory would be the closest (sub-)field that deals with questions involving higher order beliefs among interacting agents. The introductory article by Dekel and Siniscalchi is a good …
answered Mar 8 by Herr K.
0
votes
Modeling the game as four separate matrices does not capture the fact that each general knows his army strength but not the strength of the other army. Given the small action space, it may help if y …
answered Mar 27 by Herr K.
1
vote
The calculations look correct. For the PSNE, I would just say since there is no mutual BRs in pure strategy, there is no PSNE, and leave it at that. In the MSNE, A would play $-1$ with probability …
answered Oct 22 '17 by Herr K.
1
vote
I don't have a copy of Gibbons handy, so I cannot speak to the specific model presented there, but only generally. The intuition of the conclusion is based on the combination of the following factors: …
answered Apr 11 by Herr K.