-
Cautious Belief and Iterated Admissibility
Authors:
Emiliano Catonini,
Nicodemo De Vito
Abstract:
We define notions of cautiousness and cautious belief to provide epistemic conditions for iterated admissibility in finite games. We show that iterated admissibility characterizes the behavioral implications of "cautious rationality and common cautious belief in cautious rationality" in a terminal lexicographic type structure. For arbitrary type structures, the behavioral implications of these epi…
▽ More
We define notions of cautiousness and cautious belief to provide epistemic conditions for iterated admissibility in finite games. We show that iterated admissibility characterizes the behavioral implications of "cautious rationality and common cautious belief in cautious rationality" in a terminal lexicographic type structure. For arbitrary type structures, the behavioral implications of these epistemic assumptions are characterized by the solution concept of self-admissible set (Brandenburger, Friedenberg and Keisler 2008). We also show that analogous conclusions hold under alternative epistemic assumptions, in particular if cautiousness is "transparent" to the players.
KEYWORDS: Epistemic game theory, iterated admissibility, weak dominance, lexicographic probability systems. JEL: C72.
△ Less
Submitted 24 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
A Dutch-Book Trap for Misspecification
Authors:
Emiliano Catonini,
Giacomo Lanzani
Abstract:
We provide Dutch-book arguments against two forms of misspecified Bayesian learning. An agent progressively learns about a state and is offered a bet after every new discovery. We say the agent is Dutch-booked when they are willing to accept all bets, but their payoff is negative under each state either ex-post, or in expectation given the objective conditional probabilities of the discoveries (i.…
▽ More
We provide Dutch-book arguments against two forms of misspecified Bayesian learning. An agent progressively learns about a state and is offered a bet after every new discovery. We say the agent is Dutch-booked when they are willing to accept all bets, but their payoff is negative under each state either ex-post, or in expectation given the objective conditional probabilities of the discoveries (i.e., the correct data-generating process, DGP). Respectively, an agent cannot be Dutch-booked if and only if they update their beliefs with Bayes rule either from the previous belief, even using misspecified likelihood functions, or from one lexicographic prior, using the correct data-generating process. Under a large population interpretation of the DGP, this means that a population can suffer aggregate losses under all states when different individuals update their beliefs from different (lexicographic) priors, or using misspecified likelihoods. Thus, the Dutch-book argument offers a general characterization of the perils of misspecification.
△ Less
Submitted 4 July, 2025; v1 submitted 21 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
-
On the optimality of full disclosure
Authors:
Emiliano Catonini,
Sergey Stepanov
Abstract:
A privately-informed sender can commit to any disclosure policy towards a receiver. We show that full disclosure is optimal under a sufficient condition with some desirable properties. First, it speaks directly to the utility functions of the parties, as opposed to the indirect utility function of the sender; this makes it easily interpretable and verifiable. Second, it does not require the sender…
▽ More
A privately-informed sender can commit to any disclosure policy towards a receiver. We show that full disclosure is optimal under a sufficient condition with some desirable properties. First, it speaks directly to the utility functions of the parties, as opposed to the indirect utility function of the sender; this makes it easily interpretable and verifiable. Second, it does not require the sender's payoff to be a function of the posterior mean. Third, it is weaker than the known conditions for some special cases. With this, we show that full disclosure is optimal under modeling assumptions commonly used in principal-agent papers.
△ Less
Submitted 13 February, 2023; v1 submitted 16 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
-
Local Dominance
Authors:
Emiliano Catonini,
Jingyi Xue
Abstract:
We define notions of dominance between two actions in a dynamic game. Local dominance considers players who have a blurred view of the future and compare the two actions by first focusing on the outcomes that may realize at the current stage. When considering the possibility that the game may continue, they can only check that the local comparison is not overturned under the assumption of "continu…
▽ More
We define notions of dominance between two actions in a dynamic game. Local dominance considers players who have a blurred view of the future and compare the two actions by first focusing on the outcomes that may realize at the current stage. When considering the possibility that the game may continue, they can only check that the local comparison is not overturned under the assumption of "continuing in the same way" after the two actions (in a newly defined sense). Despite the lack of forward planning, local dominance solves dynamic mechanisms that were found easy to play and implements social choice functions that cannot be implemented in obviously-dominant strategies.
△ Less
Submitted 11 April, 2023; v1 submitted 28 December, 2020;
originally announced December 2020.
