Advertisement

Purification and disambiguation of Ellsberg equilibria

  • Benoit DecerfEmail author
  • Frank Riedel
Research Article
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

Recently, the use of Knightian (uncertain) strategies in normal form games has received increasing attention. The use of uncertain acts in games leads to new (Ellsberg) equilibria. We provide a foundation of the new equilibrium concept in the spirit of Harsanyi by proving an extension of the Purification Theorem for \(2\times 2\) normal form games. Our result implies that Ellsberg equilibria are limits of equilibria in slightly perturbed games with private information. In such equilibria, players use pure or maxmin strategies only.

Keywords

Knightian uncertainty Ellsberg games Ambiguity aversion Purification Disambiguation 

JEL Classification

C72 D81 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Claude d’Aspremont, Jan-Henrik Steg, Francois Maniquet, John Weymark, Igor Muraviev, Nikoleta Ŝćekić and Martin Van der Linden for the comments provided on previous versions of this document.

References

  1. Aryal, G., Stauber, R.: Trembles in extensive games with ambiguity averse players. Econ. Theory 57(1), 1–40 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-014-0828-9 Google Scholar
  2. Bade, S.: Ambiguous act equilibria. Games Econ. Behav. 72(2), 246–260 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. Bose, S., Renou, L.: Mechanism design with ambiguous communication devices. Econometrica 82(5), 1853–1872 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. Di Tillio, A., Kos, N., Messner, M.: The design of ambiguous mechanisms. Rev. Econ. Stud. 84(1), 237–276 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. Eichberger, J., Kelsey, D.: Non-additive beliefs and strategic equilibria. Games Econ. Behav. 30(2), 183–215 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. Fudenberg, D., Tirole, J.: Game Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  7. Gajdos, T., Hayashi, T., Tallon, J.-M., Vergnaud, J.-C.: Attitude toward imprecise information. J. Econ. Theory 140(1), 27–65 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. Goeree, J., Holt, C.: Ten little treasures of game theory and ten intuitive contradictions. Am. Econ. Rev. 91(5), 1402–1422 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. Greenberg, J.: The right to remain silent. Theory Decis. 48(2), 193–204 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. Harsanyi, J.C.: Games with randomly disturbed payoffs: a new rationale for mixed-strategy equilibrium points. Int. J. Game Theory 2(1), 1–23 (1973)Google Scholar
  11. Huber, P.J.: Robust Statistics. Wiley, New-York (1981)Google Scholar
  12. Maccheroni, F., Marinacci, M., Rustichini, A.: Ambiguity aversion, robustness, and the variational representation of preferences. Econometrica 74(6), 1447–1498 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. Neumann, J.V.: Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele. Math. Ann. 100(1), 295–320 (1928)Google Scholar
  14. Riedel, F.: Uncertain acts in games. Homo Oeconomicus 34(4), 275–292 (2017)Google Scholar
  15. Riedel, F., Sass, L.: Ellsberg games. Theory Decis. 76(4), 469–509 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. Schelling, T.C.: The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1980)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DEFIPPUniversity of NamurNamurBelgium
  2. 2.Center for Mathematical EconomicsBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  3. 3.Faculty of Economic and Financial SciencesUniversity of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations