Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:57:29.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dependency Equilibria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Wolfgang Spohn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper introduces a new equilibrium concept for normal form games called dependency equilibrium; it is defined, exemplified, and compared with Nash and correlated equilibria in Sections 2–4. Its philosophical motive is to rationalize cooperation in the one shot prisoners’ dilemma. A brief discussion of its meaningfulness in Section 5 concludes the paper.

Type
Decision and Game Theory
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 74 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers. Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander , December 2007 , pp. 775 - 789
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albert, M., and Heiner, R. A. (2003), “An Indirect-Evolution Approach to Newcomb’s Problem”, An Indirect-Evolution Approach to Newcomb’s Problem 20:161–194.Google Scholar
Aumann, R. (1974), “Subjectivity and Correlation in Randomized Strategies”, Subjectivity and Correlation in Randomized Strategies 1:67–96.Google Scholar
Aumann, R. (1987), “Correlated Equilibrium as an Expression of Bayesian Rationality”, Correlated Equilibrium as an Expression of Bayesian Rationality 55:1–18.Google Scholar
Aumann, R. (1995), “Backward Induction and Common Knowledge of Rationality”, Backward Induction and Common Knowledge of Rationality 8:6–19.Google Scholar
Davis, L. (1977), “Prisoners, Paradox, and Rationality”, Prisoners, Paradox, and Rationality 114:319–327.Google Scholar
Eells, E. (1982), Rational Decision and Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishburn, P. C. (1964), Decision and Value Theory. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Friedman, J. W. (1983), Oligopoly Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C., and Selten, R. (1988), A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heiner, R. A., Albert, M., and Schmidtchen, D. (2000), “Rational Contingent Cooperation in the One-Shot Prisoner’s Dilemma”, manuscript.Google Scholar
McClennen, E. F. (1990), Rationality and Dynamic Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myerson, R. B. (1991), Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Osborne, M. J., and Rubinstein, A. (1994), A Course in Game Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. (2000), “Backward Induction in Games: On an Attempt at Logical Reconstruction”, in Rabinowicz, W. (ed.), Value and Choice—Some Common Themes in Decision Theory and Moral Philosophy, Lund University Reports 2000:1. Lund: Lund University, 243–256.Google Scholar
Savage, L. J. (1954), The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Sorensen, R. A. (1985), “The Iterated Versions of Newcomb’s Problem and the Prisoner’s Dilemma”, The Iterated Versions of Newcomb’s Problem and the Prisoner’s Dilemma 63:157–166.Google Scholar
Spohn, W. (1982), “How to Make Sense of Game Theory”, in Stegmüller, W., Balzer, W., and Spohn, W. (eds.), Philosophy of Economics. Berlin: Springer, 239–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spohn, W. (2003), “Dependency Equilibria and the Causal Structure of Decision and Game Situations”, Dependency Equilibria and the Causal Structure of Decision and Game Situations 20:195–255.Google Scholar