Grappling With the Centipede: Defence of Backward Induction for BI-Terminating Games

Economics and Philosophy 14 (1):95 (1998)
Abstract
According to a standard objection to the use of backward induction in extensive-form games with perfect information, backward induction can only work if the players are confident that each player is resiliently rational - disposed to act rationally at each possible node that the game can reach, even at the nodes that will certainly never be reached in actual play - and also confident that these beliefs in the players’ future resilient rationality are robust, i.e. that they would be kept come what may, whatever evidence of irrationality would by then transpire concerning past performance of the players. Since both resiliency and robustness assumptions are extremely strong and their appropriateness as idealizations is quite problematic, it has been argued that BI is an indefensible procedure. Therefore, we need not be worried that BI can be used to justify seemingly counter-intuitive game solutions. I show, however, that there is a restricted class of extensive-form games in which BI solutions can be defended without assuming resiliency or robustness. For these ”BI-terminating games”, to defend BI solutions, it is enough to make confidence-in-rationality assumptions concerning actual play; stipulations about various counterfactual developments are unnecessary. For this class of games, then, the standard objection to BI is inapplicable. At the same time, however, it will transpire that the class in question contains some well-known games, such as the Centipede in its different versions, in which BI recommends a seemingly unreasonable behaviour
Keywords backward induction  decision theory  centipede  Robert Aumann  Ken Binmore  Philip Renyi  rationality  game theory  extensive-form games  Robert Stalnaker
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0266267100004958
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,122
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Modeling Rational Players: Part I.Ken Binmore - 1987 - Economics and Philosophy 3 (2):179.
On the Evaluation of Solution Concepts.Robert Stalnaker - 1994 - Theory and Decision 37 (1):49-73.
The Backward Induction Paradox.Philip Pettit & Robert Sugden - 1989 - Journal of Philosophy 86 (4):169-182.

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Safeguards of a Disunified Mind.Wlodek Rabinowicz - 2014 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 57 (3):356-383.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Backward Induction Without Common Knowledge.Cristina Bicchieri - 1988 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:329 - 343.
Common Knowledge of Rationality in Extensive Games.Boudewijn de Bruin - 2008 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 49 (3):261-280.
Belief Revision in Games of Perfect Information.Thorsten Clausing - 2004 - Economics and Philosophy 20 (1):89-115.
Doxastic Conditions for Backward Induction.Thorsten Clausing - 2003 - Theory and Decision 54 (4):315-336.
Subjunctive Conditionals and Revealed Preference.Brian Skyrms - 1998 - Philosophy of Science 65 (4):545-574.
Agent Connectedness and Backward Induction.Christian W. Bach & Conrad Heilmann - 2011 - International Game Theory Review 13 (2):195-208.
Added to PP index
2010-09-14

Total downloads
22 ( #233,004 of 2,191,400 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #291,140 of 2,191,400 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature