Abstract: We present a new class of models of players’ reasoning in non-cooperative games, inspired by David Lewis’s account of common knowledge. We argue that the models in this class formalise common knowledge of rationality in a way that is distinctive, in virtue of modelling steps of reasoning; and attractive, in virtue of being able to represent coherently common knowledge of any consistent standard of individual decision-theoretic rationality. We contrast our approach with that of Robert Aumann (1987), arguing that the former avoids and diagnoses certain paradoxes to which the latter may give rise when extended in particular ways
We outline a mathematical model of rational decision-making based on standard game-theoretical assum...
How do people reason about their opponent in turn-taking games? Often, people do not make the decisi...
This paper investigates static games with unawareness, where players may be unaware of some of the c...
Abstract: We present a new class of models of players’ reasoning in non-cooperative games, inspire...
There are games which have a solution only if some of the assumptions of the theory of the game are ...
An increasingly popular, but of course not uncontroversial1, view is that “the fundamental insight o...
When evaluating the rationality of a player in a game one has to examine counterfactuals such as wh...
In order to succeed, agents playing games must reason about the mechanics of the game, the strategie...
We study the strategic impact of players’ higher-order uncertainty over the observability of actions...
In this paper I present conditions, not involving common knowledge of rationality, that lead to (cor...
This paper substitutes the standard rationality assumption with approximate rationality in normal fo...
This paper substitutes the standard rationality assumption with approximate rationality in normal fo...
Rational decisions depend on what players know, hence an appropriate epistemic analysis is an integr...
How do people reason about their opponent in turn-taking games? Often, people do not make the decisi...
We study the strategic advantages of following rules of thumb that bundle different games together (...
We outline a mathematical model of rational decision-making based on standard game-theoretical assum...
How do people reason about their opponent in turn-taking games? Often, people do not make the decisi...
This paper investigates static games with unawareness, where players may be unaware of some of the c...
Abstract: We present a new class of models of players’ reasoning in non-cooperative games, inspire...
There are games which have a solution only if some of the assumptions of the theory of the game are ...
An increasingly popular, but of course not uncontroversial1, view is that “the fundamental insight o...
When evaluating the rationality of a player in a game one has to examine counterfactuals such as wh...
In order to succeed, agents playing games must reason about the mechanics of the game, the strategie...
We study the strategic impact of players’ higher-order uncertainty over the observability of actions...
In this paper I present conditions, not involving common knowledge of rationality, that lead to (cor...
This paper substitutes the standard rationality assumption with approximate rationality in normal fo...
This paper substitutes the standard rationality assumption with approximate rationality in normal fo...
Rational decisions depend on what players know, hence an appropriate epistemic analysis is an integr...
How do people reason about their opponent in turn-taking games? Often, people do not make the decisi...
We study the strategic advantages of following rules of thumb that bundle different games together (...
We outline a mathematical model of rational decision-making based on standard game-theoretical assum...
How do people reason about their opponent in turn-taking games? Often, people do not make the decisi...
This paper investigates static games with unawareness, where players may be unaware of some of the c...