The epistemic program in game theory uses formal models of interactive reasoning to provide foundations for various game-theoretic solution concepts. Much of this work is based around the (static) Aumann structure model of interactive epistemology, but more recently dynamic models of interactive reasoning have been developed, most notably by Stalnaker (Economics and Philosophy 1996) and Battigalli and Siniscalchi (Journal of Economic Theory 1999), and used to analyze rational play in extensive form games. But while the properties of Aumann structures are well un- derstood, without a formal language in which belief and belief revision statements can be expressed, it is unclear exactly what are the properties of these dynamic models. In chapter 1, "Dynamic In- teractive Epistemology", we investigate this question by defining such a language. A semantics and syntax are presented, with soundness and completeness theorems linking the two. Chapter 2, "Algorithmic Characterization of Ratioalizability in Extensive Form Games", uses the framework of chapter 1 to construct a dynamic epistemic model for extensive form games, which generates a hierarchy of beliefs for each player over her opponents' strategies and beliefs, and tells us how those beliefs will be revised as the game proceeds. We use the model to analyze the implications of the assumption that the players possess common (true) belief in rationality, thus extending the concept of rationalizability to extensive form games. Chapter 3, "The Equivalence of Bayes and Causal Rationality in Games", takes as its starting point a seminal paper of Aumann (Econometrica 1987), which showed how the choices of rational players could be analyzed in a unified state space framework. His innovation was to include the choices of the players in the description of the states, thus abolishing Savage's distinction between acts and consequences. But this simplification comes at a price: Aumann's notion of Bayes ratio­ nality does not allow players to evaluate what would happen were they to deviate from their actual choices. We show how the addition of a causal structure to the framework enables us to analyze such counterfactual statements, and use it to introduce a notion of causal rationality. Under a plausible causal independence condition, the two notions are shown to be equivalent. If we are prepared to accept this condition we can dispense with the causal apparatus and retain Aumann's original framework. In chapter 4, "The Deception of the Greeks", it is argued that the standard model of an extensive form game rules out an important phenomenon in situations of strategic interaction: deception. Using examples from the world of ancient Greece and from modern-day Wall Street, we show how the model can be generalized to incorporate this phenomenon. Deception takes place when the action observed by a player is different from the action actually taken. The standard model does allow imperfect information (modeled by non-singleton information sets), but not deception: the actual action taken is never ruled out. Our extension of extensive form games relaxes the assumption that the information sets partition the set of nodes, so that the set of nodes considered possible after a certain action is taken might not include the actual node. We discuss the implications of this relaxation, and show that in certain games deception is inconsistent with common knowledge of rationality even along the backward induction path.

One way to create a champion level poker agent is to compute a Nash Equilibrium in an abstract version of the poker game. The resulting strategy is then used to play in the full game. With this approach, translation is required between the full and abstract games in order to use the abstract strategy. In limit poker this translation step is defined when the abstraction is chosen. However, when considering no-limit poker the translation process becomes more complicated. We formally describe the process of translation and investigate its consequences. We examine how the current method, hard translation, can result in exploitable agents and introduce a new probabilistic method, soft translation, that produces more robust players. We also investigate how switching between strategies with different underlying abstractions affects the performance of an agent.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wyoming, 2005. / Title from PDF title page (viewed on Nov. 5, 2007). Includes bibliographical references (p. 125-129).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1982. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 175-179).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 1999. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 207-214). Available also in a digital version from Dissertation Abstracts.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wyoming, 1999. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 86-97).

Thesis (M.A. in Security Studies (Homeland Security and Defense))--Naval Postgraduate School, March 2010. / Thesis Advisor(s): Morag, Nadav ; Strindberg, Anders. "March 2010." Description based on title screen as viewed on April 26, 2010. Author(s) subject terms: Risk, Rational Deterrence Theory, Subjective Expected Utility, Prospect Utility Theory, Japan, USSR, Pearl Harbor, Cuban Missile Crisis, North Korea, Iran, Game Theory, Strategic Environment, Capabilities, Strategic Culture. Includes bibliographical references (p. 171-178). Also available in print.

Thesis (M.Phil.)--Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 68-69). Also available in electronic version.

The thesis considers the effects of public policy with respect to disclosure on rivalrous competition in duopolies. Principal contributions to the stochastic oligopoly theories of information sharing include imbedding an investment stage in the standard noncooperative two-stage information sharing/output (pricing) games under a wide range of assumptions about effects of investment or distributions of returns, and investigating the extent to which altering the usual preference assumption to allow risk aversion may affect information choice. At an information sharing level, it is established that, besides being sensitive to the type of competition and the nature of information asymmetries, as previously reported in the literature, private incentives to disclose also depend importantly on both the impact of investment and risk preferences. In this regard, equilibrium levels of investment are shown to be affected nontrivially by variance effects from investment, risk attitude of decision makers, as well as the type of industry rivalry. Also characterized are the welfare orderings obtained as a consequence of these varying disclosure effects on the decisions and hence profits of competing firms. If alternative accounting practices are distinguishable along the informativeness dimension, then, at an abstract level, the analysis can be seen as approaching the study of many accounting issues from a distinctly different perspective than the familiar tax or wealth transfer viewpoints. The principal contributions to the accounting literature include identifying the impact of disclosure rules or rule changes on industry, consumers, and society as a whole, and offering insights to the accounting policy makers concerning the results of disclosure regulation. / Business, Sauder School of / Graduate

This dissertation examines the role of negotiations in different institutional settings. In chapter one, I study how voluntary disclosure of information affects outcomes in plea bargaining. A prosecutor negotiates a sentence with a defendant who is privately informed about whether he is guilty or innocent. During negotiations, the prosecutor can investigate for evidence regarding the defendant’s type. If prosecutor and defendant do not reach an agreement, they go to trial and obtain payoffs that depend on the prosecutor’s evidence. Voluntary disclosure gives rise to endogenous second-order belief uncertainty. A purely sentence-motivated prosecutor might disclose exculpatory evidence. Voluntary disclosure leads to inefficient outcomes as parties might fail to reach an agreement. Mandatory disclosure is socially preferable: there is always agreement, and the defendant is better off if he is innocent and worse off if he is guilty. Furthermore, the prosecutor is better off under mandatory disclosure. In chapter two, I study how bargaining power affects bargaining outcomes between an entrepreneur and a venture capitalist who provides funds. Entrepreneur and venture capitalist openly disagree about noncontractible future decisions. The contract specifies control rights and cash-flow rights for each party. Noncontractible decisions are made by the party with control rights. When the entrepreneur has greater bargaining power and the investment value is large, she optimally relinquishes control rights. When the venture capitalist has more bargaining power, she always retains control rights. In general, greater disagreement makes the entrepreneur less likely to retain control rights. In chapter three, I study a bilateral bargaining model with endogenous recognition probabilities and endogenous surplus. At each period, players exert two types of costly effort: productive effort, which increases the surplus size, and unproductive effort, which affects the probability of being recognized as the proposer. I characterize how differences in the cost of exerting efforts affects outcomes. Advantages in unproductive effort affect the provision of both types of effort, but advantages in productive effort only affect the provision of that effort. Differences in time preferences only affect productive efforts when the probability of recognition is not persistent.