pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.09104 · v1 · pith:RHKD5FO2new · submitted 2019-07-22 · 💻 cs.GT · cs.LO· cs.MA

On the Consistency among Prior, Posteriors, and Information Sets (Extended Abstract)

Satoshi Fukuda (Department of Decision Sciences , IGIER , Bocconi University) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 18:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.GT cs.LOcs.MA
keywords consistencypriorposteriorinformation setsqualitative beliefintrospectionknowledgeBayes updating
0
0 comments X

The pith

Consistency conditions among prior, posteriors, and information sets force information sets to form a partition almost surely and make each posterior equal to the Bayes conditional on its set.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines the logical consequences of requiring that a prior probability measure, a collection of information sets, and state-dependent posteriors are mutually consistent. It establishes that these conditions are equivalent to two statements that hold almost surely: the information sets constitute a partition of the state space, and each posterior is exactly the conditional probability given the information set that contains the true state. This equivalence immediately yields uniqueness of the posteriors, reduces qualitative belief to fully introspective knowledge under standard assumptions, determines a unique compatible information partition from the posteriors alone, and ensures that both qualitative belief and probability-one belief satisfy the truth axiom almost surely.

Core claim

The consistency conditions among prior, posteriors, and information sets reformulate as: (i) the information sets, without any assumption, almost surely form a partition; and (ii) the posterior at a state is equal to the Bayes conditional probability given the corresponding information set.

What carries the argument

The consistency conditions that link a prior probability measure, a family of information sets, and state-dependent posteriors.

If this is right

  • Each posterior is uniquely determined by the consistency conditions.
  • Qualitative belief reduces to fully introspective knowledge in a standard environment.
  • An information partition compatible with the consistency conditions is uniquely determined by the posteriors.
  • Qualitative and probability-one beliefs satisfy the truth axiom almost surely.
  • Additivity of the posteriors produces negative introspective properties of beliefs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Models that aim to represent non-introspective knowledge must relax at least one of the consistency requirements.
  • The uniqueness result allows the underlying information structure to be recovered directly from observed posteriors.
  • The almost-sure partition property limits the range of admissible belief models in environments where agents are assumed to update consistently.

Load-bearing premise

The derivations start from a probability space equipped with a prior measure, information sets, and posteriors that are required to satisfy the consistency conditions.

What would settle it

A concrete probability space together with information sets that fail to form a partition on a set of positive prior measure, yet still produce posteriors that are consistent with the prior.

read the original abstract

This paper studies implications of the consistency conditions among prior, posteriors, and information sets on introspective properties of qualitative belief induced from information sets. The main result reformulates the consistency conditions as: (i) the information sets, without any assumption, almost surely form a partition; and (ii) the posterior at a state is equal to the Bayes conditional probability given the corresponding information set. Implications are as follows. First, each posterior is uniquely determined. Second, qualitative belief reduces to fully introspective knowledge in a ``standard'' environment. Thus, a care must be taken when one studies non-veridical belief or non-introspective knowledge. Third, an information partition compatible with the consistency conditions is uniquely determined by the posteriors. Fourth, qualitative and probability-one beliefs satisfy truth axiom almost surely. The paper also sheds light on how the additivity of the posteriors yields negative introspective properties of beliefs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. This extended abstract examines implications of consistency conditions among a prior, posteriors, and information sets for introspective properties of qualitative beliefs induced by information sets. The main result reformulates the consistency conditions to establish that (i) information sets almost surely form a partition with no additional assumptions and (ii) the posterior at each state equals the Bayes conditional probability given the corresponding information set. Four implications follow: posteriors are uniquely determined; qualitative belief reduces to fully introspective knowledge in a standard environment (with a caution for non-veridical or non-introspective cases); an information partition compatible with consistency is uniquely determined by the posteriors; and qualitative and probability-one beliefs satisfy the truth axiom almost surely. The paper also notes that additivity of posteriors produces negative introspective properties of beliefs.

Significance. If the reformulation holds, the result clarifies the tight link between probabilistic consistency and qualitative belief properties in epistemic models used in game theory. It shows that standard consistency forces strong introspective features, providing a precise warning against casual use of non-introspective or non-veridical belief without violating the maintained conditions. The direct, assumption-light character of the partition and Bayes-update reformulation is a strength, as is the derivation of uniqueness and truth-axiom consequences from the same primitives.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract, line beginning 'Thus, a care must be taken': the phrasing is ungrammatical and should read 'Thus, care must be taken'.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'in a ``standard'' environment' appears in quotation marks but receives no definition or reference to a prior definition; a one-sentence clarification of what 'standard' means in this context would improve readability.
  3. The manuscript is labeled an extended abstract. If the journal expects full proofs, the authors should either expand the submission or explicitly state which results are proved in the full version and which remain at the level of the abstract.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive and accurate summary of our extended abstract, as well as the recommendation for minor revision. The report correctly identifies the main reformulation result and its implications for introspective properties of beliefs. No major comments are provided in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper's central result is a direct reformulation of explicitly assumed consistency conditions (prior, posteriors, and information sets on a probability space) into the statements that information sets form an a.s. partition and posteriors equal Bayes conditionals. This follows by standard measure-theoretic arguments from the given primitives without any self-definitional loops, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. All listed implications (unique posteriors, introspective properties, truth axiom a.s.) are derived consequences rather than inputs smuggled back in. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is a theoretical derivation relying on standard axioms of probability theory and set theory in the context of epistemic models; no free parameters or new postulated entities are indicated in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Axioms of probability theory, including definition of conditional probability and almost-sure properties
    Underlie the Bayes update and the almost-sure partition formation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5698 in / 1329 out tokens · 32170 ms · 2026-05-24T18:08:22.035480+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aumann (1976): Agreeing to Disagree

    Robert J. Aumann (1976): Agreeing to Disagree . The Annals of Statistics 4(6), pp. 1236–1239, doi:10.1214/aos/1176343654

    work page doi:10.1214/aos/1176343654 1976

  2. [2]

    Aumann (1999): Interactive Epistemology I, II

    Robert J. Aumann (1999): Interactive Epistemology I, II. International Journal of Game Theory 28(3), pp. 263–300, 301–314. doi:10.1007/s001820050111, doi:10.1007/s001820050112

    work page doi:10.1007/s001820050111 1999

  3. [3]

    Journal of Economic Theory 37(1), pp

    Michael Bacharach (1985): Some Extensions of a Claim of Aumann in an Axiomatic Model of Knowledge . Journal of Economic Theory 37(1), pp. 167–190, doi:10.1016/0022-0531(85)90035-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-0531(85)90035-3 1985

  4. [4]

    Research in Economics 53(2), pp

    Pierpaolo Battigalli & Giacomo Bonanno (1999): Recent Results on Belief, Knowledge and the Epistemic Foundations of Game Theory. Research in Economics 53(2), pp. 149–225, doi:10.1006/reec.1999.0187

    work page doi:10.1006/reec.1999.0187 1999

  5. [5]

    Bulletin of Economic Research 54(1), pp

    Giacomo Bonanno (2002): Information, Knowledge and Belief . Bulletin of Economic Research 54(1), pp. 47–67, doi:10.1111/1467-8586.00139

    work page doi:10.1111/1467-8586.00139 2002

  6. [6]

    In Hans van Ditmarsch, Joseph Y

    Giacomo Bonanno (2015): Epistemic Foundations of Game Theory . In Hans van Ditmarsch, Joseph Y . Halpern, Wiebe van der Hoek & Barteld Pieter Kooi, editors: Handbook of Epistemic Logic, College Publi- cations, pp. 443–487

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    International Journal of Game Theory 28(3), pp

    Giacomo Bonanno & Klaus Nehring (1999): How to Make Sense of the Common Prior Assump- tion under Incomplete Information . International Journal of Game Theory 28(3), pp. 409–434, doi:10.1007/s001820050117

    work page doi:10.1007/s001820050117 1999

  8. [8]

    Games and Economic Behavior 112, pp

    Giacomo Bonanno & Elias Tsakas (2018): Common Belief of Weak-dominance Rationality in Strategic-form Games: A Qualitative Analysis . Games and Economic Behavior 112, pp. 231–241, doi:10.1016/j.geb.2018.09.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.geb.2018.09.003 2018

  9. [9]

    Journal of Mathemat- ical Economics 16(3), pp

    Adam Brandenburger & Eddie Dekel (1987): Common Knowledge with Probability 1. Journal of Mathemat- ical Economics 16(3), pp. 237–245, doi:10.1016/0304-4068(87)90010-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0304-4068(87)90010-3 1987

  10. [10]

    Games and Economic Behavior 4(2), pp

    Adam Brandenburger, Eddie Dekel & John Geanakoplos (1992): Correlated Equilibrium with Gener- alized Information Structures . Games and Economic Behavior 4(2), pp. 182–201, doi:10.1016/0899- 8256(92)90014-J

    work page doi:10.1016/0899- 1992

  11. [11]

    In David M

    Eddie Dekel & Faruk Gul (1997): Rationality and Knowledge in Game Theory . In David M. Kreps & Kenneth F. Wallis, editors: Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications, Seventh World Congress, 1, Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–172, doi:10.1017/CCOL521580110.005. 204 On the Consistency among Prior, Posteriors, and Information Sets

    work page doi:10.1017/ccol521580110.005 1997

  12. [12]

    Lipman & Aldo Rustichini (1998): Standard State-Space Models Preclude Unaware- ness

    Eddie Dekel, Barton L. Lipman & Aldo Rustichini (1998): Standard State-Space Models Preclude Unaware- ness. Econometrica 66(1), pp. 159–173, doi:10.2307/2998545

    work page doi:10.2307/2998545 1998

  13. [13]

    In Petyon Young & Shmuel Zamir, ed- itors: Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, 4, Elsevier, pp

    Eddie Dekel & Marciano Siniscalchi (2015): Epistemic Game Theory. In Petyon Young & Shmuel Zamir, ed- itors: Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, 4, Elsevier, pp. 619–702, doi:10.1016/B978- 0-444-53766-9.00012-4

    work page doi:10.1016/b978- 2015

  14. [14]

    Journal of Economic Theory 91(2), pp

    Yossi Feinberg (2000): Characterizing Common Priors in the Form of Posteriors . Journal of Economic Theory 91(2), pp. 127–179, doi:10.1006/jeth.1999.2592

    work page doi:10.1006/jeth.1999.2592 2000

  15. [15]

    Satoshi Fukuda (2019): Epistemic Foundations for Set-algebraic Representations of Knowledge

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Satoshi Fukuda (2019): The Existence of Universal Qualitative Belief Spaces

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Satoshi Fukuda (2019): Formalizing Common Belief with No Underlying Assumption on Individual Beliefs

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    In Brian Skyrms & William Harper, editors: Causation, Chance, and Credence, Kluwer, pp

    Haim Gaifman (1988): A Theory of Higher Order Probabilities. In Brian Skyrms & William Harper, editors: Causation, Chance, and Credence, Kluwer, pp. 191–219, doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2863-3 11

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2863-3 1988

  19. [19]

    Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No

    John Geanakoplos (1989): Games Theory without Partitions, and Applications to Speculation and Consensus. Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 914

    work page 1989

  20. [20]

    Economic Theory 17(2), pp

    Paolo Ghirardato (2001): Coping with Ignorance: Unforeseen Contingencies and Non-additive Uncertainty. Economic Theory 17(2), pp. 247–276, doi:10.1007/PL00004108

    work page doi:10.1007/pl00004108 2001

  21. [21]

    Benjamin Golub & Stephen Morris (2017): Higher-Order Expectations, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2979089

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.2979089 2017

  22. [22]

    Halpern (1991): The Relationship between Knowledge, Belief, and Certainty

    Joseph Y . Halpern (1991): The Relationship between Knowledge, Belief, and Certainty . Annals of Mathe- matics and Artificial Intelligence 4(3-4), pp. 301–322, doi:10.1007/BF01531062

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01531062 1991

  23. [23]

    Halpern (1996): Should Knowledge Entail Belief? Journal of Philosphical Logic 25, pp

    Joseph Y . Halpern (1996): Should Knowledge Entail Belief? Journal of Philosphical Logic 25, pp. 483–494, doi:10.1007/BF00257382

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00257382 1996

  24. [24]

    Bayesian

    John C. Harsanyi (1967-1968): Games with Incomplete Information Played by “Bayesian” Play- ers, I-III . Management Science 14, pp. 159–182, 320–334, 486–502. doi:10.1287/mnsc.14.3.159, doi:10.1287/mnsc.14.5.320, doi:10.1287/mnsc.14.7.486

    work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.14.3.159 1967

  25. [25]

    Games and Economic Behavior 56(1), pp

    Aviad Heifetz (2006): The Positive Foundation of the Common Prior Assumption . Games and Economic Behavior 56(1), pp. 105–120, doi:10.1016/j.geb.2005.06.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.geb.2005.06.002 2006

  26. [26]

    Schipper (2013): Unawareness, Beliefs, and Speculative Trade

    Aviad Heifetz, Martin Meier & Burkhard C. Schipper (2013): Unawareness, Beliefs, and Speculative Trade. Games and Economic Behavior 77(1), pp. 100–121, doi:10.1016/j.geb.2012.09.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.geb.2012.09.003 2013

  27. [27]

    Games and Economic Behavior 22(2), pp

    Aviad Heifetz & Dov Samet (1998): Knowledge Spaces with Arbitrarily High Rank. Games and Economic Behavior 22(2), pp. 260–273, doi:10.1006/game.1997.0591

    work page doi:10.1006/game.1997.0591 1998

  28. [28]

    Games and Economic Behavior 72(1), pp

    Ziv Hellman (2011): Iterated Expectations, Compact Spaces, and Common Priors . Games and Economic Behavior 72(1), pp. 163–171, doi:10.1016/j.geb.2010.06.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.geb.2010.06.012 2011

  29. [29]

    Cornell University Press

    Jaakko Hintikka (1962): Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions . Cornell University Press

    work page 1962

  30. [30]

    Acta Philosophica Fennica 30(2), pp

    Wolfgang Lenzen (1978): Recent Work in Epistemic Logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica 30(2), pp. 1–219

    work page 1978

  31. [31]

    Lipman (1995): Information Processing and Bounded Rationality: A Survey

    Barton L. Lipman (1995): Information Processing and Bounded Rationality: A Survey. Canadian Journal of Economics 28(1), pp. 42–67, doi:10.2307/136022

    work page doi:10.2307/136022 1995

  32. [32]

    Journal of Economic Theory 122(1), pp

    Martin Meier (2005): On the Nonexistence of Universal Information Structures. Journal of Economic Theory 122(1), pp. 132–139, doi:10.1016/j.jet.2003.07.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jet.2003.07.003 2005

  33. [33]

    Games and Economic Behavior 62(1), pp

    Martin Meier (2008): Universal Knowledge-Belief Structures . Games and Economic Behavior 62(1), pp. 53–66, doi:10.1016/j.geb.2007.03.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.geb.2007.03.001 2008

  34. [34]

    International Journal of Game Theory 14(1), pp

    Jean Franc ¸ois Mertens & Shmuel Zamir (1985): Formulation of Bayesian Analysis for Games with Incom- plete Information. International Journal of Game Theory 14(1), pp. 1–29, doi:10.1007/BF01770224

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01770224 1985

  35. [35]

    Theory and Decision 37(1), pp

    Salvatore Modica & Aldo Rustichini (1994): Awareness and Partitional Information Structures. Theory and Decision 37(1), pp. 107–124, doi:10.1007/BF01079207. S. Fukuda 205

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01079207 1994

  36. [36]

    Games and Economic Behavior 27(2), pp

    Salvatore Modica & Aldo Rustichini (1999): Unawareness and Partitional Information Structures. Games and Economic Behavior 27(2), pp. 265–298, doi:10.1006/game.1998.0666

    work page doi:10.1006/game.1998.0666 1999

  37. [37]

    Games and Economic Behavior 1(2), pp

    Dov Monderer & Dov Samet (1989): Approximating Common Knowledge with Common Beliefs. Games and Economic Behavior 1(2), pp. 170–190, doi:10.1016/0899-8256(89)90017-1

    work page doi:10.1016/0899-8256(89)90017-1 1989

  38. [38]

    Econometrica 62(6), pp

    Stephen Morris (1994): Trade with Heterogeneous Prior Beliefs and Asymmetric Information. Econometrica 62(6), pp. 1327–1347, doi:10.2307/2951751

    work page doi:10.2307/2951751 1994

  39. [39]

    Journal of Economic Theory 69(1), pp

    Stephen Morris (1996): The Logic of Belief and Belief Change: A Decision Theoretic Approach . Journal of Economic Theory 69(1), pp. 1–23, doi:10.1006/jeth.1996.0035

    work page doi:10.1006/jeth.1996.0035 1996

  40. [40]

    Economic Theory 9(1), pp

    Sujoy Mukerji (1997): Understanding the Nonadditive Probability Decision Model. Economic Theory 9(1), pp. 23–46, doi:10.1007/BF01213441

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01213441 1997

  41. [41]

    Games and Economic Behavior 12(1), pp

    Zvika Neeman (1996): Approximating Agreeing to Disagree Results with Common p-Beliefs . Games and Economic Behavior 12(1), pp. 162–164, doi:10.1006/game.1996.0011

    work page doi:10.1006/game.1996.0011 1996

  42. [42]

    Economic Theory 18(3), pp

    Klaus Nehring (2001): Common Priors under Incomplete Information: a Unification . Economic Theory 18(3), pp. 535–553, doi:10.1007/PL00004199

    work page doi:10.1007/pl00004199 2001

  43. [43]

    Journal of Economic Theory 52(1), pp

    Dov Samet (1990): Ignoring Ignorance and Agreeing to Disagree. Journal of Economic Theory 52(1), pp. 190 – 207, doi:10.1016/0022-0531(90)90074-T

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-0531(90)90074-t 1990

  44. [44]

    International Journal of Game Theory 21(2), pp

    Dov Samet (1992): Agreeing to Disagree in Infinite Information Structures . International Journal of Game Theory 21(2), pp. 213–218, doi:10.1007/BF01245462

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01245462 1992

  45. [45]

    Games and Economic Behavior 24(1-2), pp

    Dov Samet (1998): Iterated Expectations and Common Priors. Games and Economic Behavior 24(1-2), pp. 131–141, doi:10.1006/game.1997.0616

    work page doi:10.1006/game.1997.0616 1998

  46. [46]

    Research in Economics 53(2), pp

    Dov Samet (1999): Bayesianism without Learning . Research in Economics 53(2), pp. 227–242, doi:10.1006/reec.1999.0186

    work page doi:10.1006/reec.1999.0186 1999

  47. [47]

    Journal of Economic Theory95, pp

    Dov Samet (2000): Quantified Beliefs and Believed Quantities. Journal of Economic Theory95, pp. 169–185, doi:10.1006/jeth.2000.2670

    work page doi:10.1006/jeth.2000.2670 2000

  48. [48]

    Journal of Economic Theory 60(1), pp

    Hyun Song Shin (1993): Logical Structure of Common Knowledge. Journal of Economic Theory 60(1), pp. 1–13, doi:10.1006/jeth.1993.1032

    work page doi:10.1006/jeth.1993.1032 1993

  49. [49]

    Theory and Decision 37(1), pp

    Robert Stalnaker (1994): On the Evaluation of Solution Concepts . Theory and Decision 37(1), pp. 49–73, doi:10.1007/BF01079205

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01079205 1994

  50. [50]

    Journal of Economic Theory 45(2), pp

    Tommy Chin-Chiu Tan & S ´ergio Ribeiro da Costa Werlang (1988): The Bayesian Foundations of Solution Concepts of Games. Journal of Economic Theory 45(2), pp. 370–391, doi:10.1016/0022-0531(88)90276-1

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-0531(88)90276-1 1988

  51. [51]

    Journal of Mathemat- ical Economics 22(5), pp

    Spyros Vassilakis & Shmuel Zamir (1993): Common Belief and Common Knowledge. Journal of Mathemat- ical Economics 22(5), pp. 495–505, doi:10.1016/0304-4068(93)90039-N

    work page doi:10.1016/0304-4068(93)90039-n 1993