Abstract
AbstractWhile game theory has been transformative for decision making, the assumptions made can be overly restrictive in certain instances. In this work, we investigate some of the underlying assumptions of rationality, such as mutual consistency and best response, and consider ways to relax these assumptions using concepts from level-k reasoning and quantal response equilibrium (QRE) respectively. Specifically, we propose an information-theoretic two-parameter model called the quantal hierarchy model, which can relax both mutual consistency and best response while still approximating level-k, QRE, or typical Nash equilibrium behavior in the limiting cases. The model is based on a recursive form of the variational free energy principle, representing higher-order reasoning as (pseudo) sequential decision-making in extensive-form game tree. This representation enables us to treat simultaneous games in a similar manner to sequential games, where reasoning resources deplete throughout the game-tree. Bounds in player processing abilities are captured as information costs, where future branches of reasoning are discounted, implying a hierarchy of players where lower-level players have fewer processing resources. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the quantal hierarchy model in several canonical economic games, both simultaneous and sequential, using out-of-sample modelling.
Funder
Australian Research Council
University of Sydney
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Computer Science Applications,General Economics, Econometrics and Finance,General Social Sciences,Applied Psychology,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,General Decision Sciences
Reference98 articles.
1. Alaoui, L., & Penta, A. (2016). Endogenous depth of reasoning. The Review of Economic Studies, 83(4), 1297–1333.
2. Alaoui, L., & Penta, A. (2022). Cost-benefit analysis in reasoning. Journal of Political Economy, 130(4), 881–925.
3. Anufriev, M., Duffy, J., & Panchenko, V. (2022). Learning in two-dimensional beauty contest games: Theory and experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Theory, 201, 105417.
4. Arthur, W. B. (1994). Inductive reasoning and bounded rationality. The American Economic Review, 84(2), 406–411.
5. Aumann, R. J. (1992). Irrationality in game theory. Economic Analysis of Markets and Games, 214–227.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献