Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 77 references

Decision making in stochastic extensive form II: Stochastic extensive forms and games

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Stochastic extensive forms strictly generalize classical extensive form theory by representing Brownian motion as noise without a nature agent.

desk verdict Serious, coherent framework, but the Brownian-motion strict-generalization claim is not yet backed by a constructed example. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17587 v1 pith:ZIA7XNQT submitted 2024-11-26 econ.TH math.OCmath.PR

E. Emanuel Rapsch This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.THmath.OCmath.PR MSC 91A1591A1891B06
keywords extensiveformgamesstochasticdynamicdecisionmakingsequentialtheoryprocessesBayesianBrownianmotion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces stochastic extensive forms, a generalization of classical extensive form game theory in which exogenous randomness is modeled by a single lottery draw over decision trees rather than by a nature agent making moves. The framework claims to represent general stochastic processes, including Brownian motion, that cannot be represented by any nature agent while preserving well-posed outcome generation and a dynamic equilibrium concept. If correct, it gives a rigorous decision-theoretic foundation to stochastic differential games and stochastic control problems that currently lack one. The paper also constructs a broad class of action-path stochastic extensive forms and shows when they are well-posed.

What carries the argument

The central object is the stochastic decision forest (sdf): a forest of decision trees indexed by an exogenous scenario space, with a surjective map sending nodes to scenarios and a set of random moves—sections of moves defined on events—together with exogenous information structures (sigma-algebras on random-move domains) and adapted choices. This machinery, imported from the companion paper and combined here with the axioms of a stochastic extensive form, carries the argument: it replaces the nature agent, allows filtrations to model noise, and enables the scenario-wise reduction of well-posedness to classical extensive forms.

What would settle it

Exhibit a classical extensive form with a nature agent that is well-posed and whose induced outcomes are Brownian motion paths; such an example would directly refute the paper's central strict-generalization claim that Brownian noise cannot be nature-represented.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that stochastic extensive forms—decision forests over an exogenous scenario space equipped with filtration-like information structures and partition-refining choices—provide a strict generalization of classical extensive form theory. Section 3.8 argues that while many stochastic forms can be represented by a nature agent, a class of continuous-time noise, paradigmatically Brownian motion, cannot: any nature representation forces perfect endogenous recall on the nature agent, which makes the induced classical extensive form ill-posed. Stochastic extensive forms avoid this by making exogenous information flow through sigma-algebras rather than through a virtual decision maker. The paper proves scenario-wise well-posedness (Theorem 3.11) and defines a dynamic rationality and equilibrium concept that generalizes perfect Bayesian equilibrium, thereby claiming that every well-posed stochastic differential game can in principle be given an extensive form foundation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the stochastic decision forest machinery imported from the companion paper is sound and general enough to represent continuous-time paths; if that foundation has a flaw, the stochastic extensive forms and the strict-generalization claim built on it collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every stochastic extensive form with action-path data and well-ordered time is well-posed (Theorem 3.22), so large classes of discrete-time and long-cheap-talk-like stochastic games receive a rigorous extensive form foundation.
  • Well-posedness of a stochastic extensive form is equivalent to the underlying decision forest being weakly up-discrete, coherent, and regular (Corollary 3.13), a purely order-theoretic test.
  • Dynamic rationality and equilibrium, generalizing perfect Bayesian equilibrium, are defined for all well-posed stochastic extensive forms, covering Bayesian, correlated, and subgame-perfect equilibria as special cases (Remark 3.18).
  • Brownian motion cannot be represented by a nature agent in a well-posed classical extensive form (Section 3.8), so the stochastic extensive form framework is a strict generalization of classical theory.
  • Measurability assumptions on choices in the literature appear as a consequence of adaptedness rather than as an ad hoc technical condition.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The scenario-wise reduction of well-posedness suggests that approximation theory for stochastic differential games can be built by approximating continuous-time decision forests by well-ordered time-indexed forests, at the level of trees and choices rather than payoffs.
  • The framework's independence from nature representations implies that concepts like closed-loop versus open-loop strategies in stochastic differential games could be defined purely in terms of the exogenous information structures attached to random moves.
  • The trade-off the paper identifies between richness of endogenous information and existence of expected-utility preference structures points to a testable design principle: coarse endogenous information partitions make non-trivial expected-utility preference structures easier to construct, supporting an approximation program in which fine information is approached by coarser well-posed forms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a general theory of stochastic extensive forms built on the companion paper's stochastic decision forests. A stochastic extensive form replaces the traditional nature agent with a single lottery draw selecting a decision tree, while personal agents receive dynamic exogenous information through sigma-algebra-valued information structures and make partition-refining adapted choices. The paper defines strategies as Savage acts, characterizes well-posedness scenario-wise (Theorem 3.11), gives an order-theoretic characterization (Corollary 3.13), constructs action-path stochastic extensive forms (Section 2, Theorem 2.6), proves well-posedness for well-ordered time (Theorem 3.22), and argues that Brownian noise cannot be represented through a nature agent but can be accommodated by the new framework (Section 3.8). It then defines expected-utility preferences, dynamic consistency, dynamic rationality, and a generalized perfect Bayesian equilibrium.

Significance. If the framework is sound, this is a substantial conceptual unification: it bridges refined-partitions extensive form theory with filtrations from probability theory, and it provides scenario-wise tests for well-posedness that import the classical Alós-Ferrer–Ritzberger machinery. The action-path construction (Theorem 2.6) and the measurability characterization of adapted choices (Theorem 2.8) are useful and nontrivial tools. The paper also gives a clean reduction, Theorem 3.11, of stochastic well-posedness to scenario-wise classical well-posedness, and Corollary 3.13 expresses well-posedness in verifiable order-theoretic terms. The main caveat is that the paper's headline claim about continuous-time processes such as Brownian motion is not backed by a positive well-posedness result in this manuscript; it is a goal deferred to the third paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.8 and Conclusion] The central claim that stochastic extensive forms strictly generalize classical extensive form theory by accommodating Brownian motion is not established in this paper. Theorem 3.22 proves well-posedness only for action-path sef data with well-ordered time and explicitly says "nothing is said about continuous time." Section 3.8 only shows that a particular nature-agent representation of Brownian motion is not well-posed because perfect endogenous recall forces singleton history partitions and the resulting forest is not weakly up-discrete. No well-posed stochastic extensive form with Brownian-noise filtration is constructed, and no proof is given that any continuous-time action-path sef is weakly up-discrete, coherent, and regular, as required by Corollary 3.13. The concluding sentence "It is possible to implement general stochastic processes as background noise ... without encountering outcome generation problems" is therefore a promissory note. The paper should either provide such a construction and its well-posedness proof, or explicitly rephrase the claim as a program for the third paper.
  2. [Footnote 13 and Remark 3.19] Two load-bearing verification steps are explicitly omitted. Footnote 13 in Section 3.3 states "We omit the formal argument behind this statement" when claiming that after any endogenous information set a well-posed stochastic extensive form is induced. Remark 3.19 states "We do not bother the reader with the verification of the claim that this yields again a well-posed stochastic extensive form and an eu preference structure" for the multiple-selves construction. These are not cosmetic omissions: the dynamic rationality and equilibrium definitions condition on induced decision situations, and Remark 3.19 is used to justify the multiple-selves analysis of the absent-minded driver. Both statements should be proved in the appendix or explicitly marked as assumptions rather than consequences.
  3. [Section 3.8, Brownian motion argument] The negative argument about the nature representation of Brownian motion is itself asserted rather than proved. The paper says that with singleton history partitions "the corresponding decision forest is not weakly up-discrete" and cites well-known counterexamples from [62, 64, 5], but it does not formalize which continuous-time action-path pseudo-sef is being considered or show in detail why weak up-discreteness fails for Brownian paths. Since this is the only concrete evidence offered for the strict-generalization claim, the argument should be made precise, with the relevant nodes, histories, and maximal chains described explicitly or with a formal derivation from Theorem 2.9 and Corollary 3.13.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Definition 1.7 and Lemma 1.12] Axiom 6 uses the condition P(c') = P(c), while Lemma 1.12's construction uses the weaker condition P(hat c) ⊆ P(c). The relationship between these two conditions should be clarified, since the lemma claims to produce a stochastic extensive form satisfying Axiom 6.
  2. [Section 3.8, Theorem 2.9 usage] The statement "By Theorem 2.9, perfect (endogenous) recall requires H_t to contain only singletons" is not immediate from the theorem as stated, because Theorem 2.9 gives a condition on pairs of partition cells rather than a direct singleton characterization. A short derivation or a pointer to the relevant part of [53] would help.
  3. [Definition 3.15] The symbol W is used both for the underlying set of outcomes in Section 1 and for the sigma-algebra on W in Definition 3.15. This overloading is confusing and should be resolved, for example by denoting the sigma-algebra by S or A.
  4. [References and self-containedness] The paper relies heavily on [53], which is cited as "Mimeo," for Definitions 1.3-1.6 and many lemmas. Since the current paper is not self-contained without [53], the author should indicate how the companion paper can be accessed or include a more detailed summary of the imported definitions and lemmas.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the main caveats are heavy reliance on the companion paper [53] and a strict-generalization claim for Brownian noise that is asserted rather than demonstrated.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. No quantity is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction; there is no empirical input at all. The central results are substantive classification theorems. Theorem 3.11 translates well-posedness of a stochastic pseudo-extensive form into scenario-wise well-posedness of the classical pseudo-extensive forms (T_omega, I, C_omega); Theorem 3.13 then inherits the external order-theoretic classification (weakly up-discrete, coherent, regular) from Alos-Ferrer and Ritzberger, so the theory does not define its own conclusion into place. The action path construction is a genuine sufficient-condition result: Theorem 2.6 verifies the six axioms of a stochastic extensive form from the AP.SEF assumptions, and Theorem 3.22 proves well-posedness for well-ordered time. Two caveats should be weighed, but neither is a circular step. First, the foundational machinery of stochastic decision forests, order consistency, and adapted choices is imported from the same author's companion mimeo [53]; for instance, the proof of Theorem 2.6 cites [53, Theorem 2.15] and [53, Proposition 4.10] for order consistency/maximality and reference choice structures. This is heavy self-citation, and it makes the architecture depend on an unrefereed companion paper, but it is reliance on prior companion results rather than a re-use of the present paper's own conclusions as premises. Second, the strict-generalization claim for Brownian motion is stronger than what is proved: Section 3.7 says 'nothing is said about continuous time', and Section 3.8 only refutes a nature representation of Brownian motion (via Theorem 2.9 and non-up-discreteness) without constructing a well-posed stochastic extensive form whose noise is Brownian. That is a missing demonstration, not a circular reduction. Score 2 reflects a low but nonzero self-citation burden.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claims depend on the imported stochastic decision forest foundation from [53], on the six axioms of stochastic (pseudo-) extensive forms, and on the action path assumptions. No empirical constants or fitted parameters appear; the free parameters list is empty.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard set theory and measure theory (ZFC, sigma-algebras, probability spaces) are used without proof.
    Invoked throughout, e.g., Definition 1.3 and Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption A decision forest is its own representation by decision paths (Definition 1.2), inherited from [3,53].
    Trees are identified with refining partitions of outcomes; all later choice and history concepts rest on this.
  • domain assumption Stochastic decision forests are order-consistent, surely non-trivial, and maximal in the sense of [53, Theorem 2.5].
    These properties guarantee the induced decision tree and random histories (Section 3.1), which are used for subgames and well-posedness.
  • domain assumption Exogenous information is given by sigma-algebras with the recall property, and choices are F-C-adapted (Definitions 1.5 and 1.6 from [53]).
    This formalizes oracles and measurability; Theorem 2.8 later identifies adaptedness with measurability of random actions.
  • domain assumption Action path data satisfy AP.SDF0-3 and AP.SEF0-3, including the separation Assumption AP.SEF3 requiring a minimum time of first difference.
    These are the axioms under which action path data induce stochastic (pseudo-) extensive forms (Theorem 2.6) and well-posedness for well-ordered time (Theorem 3.22).
invented entities (2)
  • Stochastic extensive form (sef)
    purpose: Unifies refined-partitions extensive forms with filtration-based exogenous information by replacing the nature agent with a lottery draw and per-agent oracles.
    This is the paper's central new mathematical object; it has no empirical handle outside the theory.
  • Random move
    purpose: A section of moves over an event in the scenario space; it carries exogenous information revelation and supports adapted choices.
    Introduced in the companion paper [53] and used here as the building block of stochastic extensive forms; no independent falsifiable prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decision making in stochastic extensive form II: Stochastic extensive forms and games." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZIA7XNQT

@misc{pith2026241117587,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decision making in stochastic extensive form II: Stochastic extensive forms and games},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZIA7XNQT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17587}
}
read the original abstract

A general theory of stochastic extensive forms is developed to bridge two concepts of information flow: decision trees and refined partitions on the one side, filtrations from probability theory on the other. Instead of the traditional "nature" agent, this framework uses a single lottery draw to select a tree of a given decision forest. Each "personal" agent receives dynamic updates from an own oracle on the lottery outcome and makes partition-refining choices adapted to this information. This theory addresses a key limitation of existing approaches in extensive form theory, which struggle to model continuous-time stochastic processes, such as Brownian motion, as outcomes of "nature" decision making. Additionally, a class of stochastic extensive forms based on time-indexed action paths is constructed, encompassing a wide range of models from the literature and laying the groundwork for an approximation theory for stochastic differential games in extensive form.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [53]

    Emanuel Rapsch

    E. Emanuel Rapsch. Decision making in stochastic exten sive form I: Stochastic decision forests, November 2024. Mimeo

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Repeated games in continuous time as extensive form games

    Carlos Alós-Ferrer and Johannes Kern. Repeated games in continuous time as extensive form games. Journal of Mathematical Economics , 61:34–57, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [2]

    Trees and extensive forms

    Carlos Alós-Ferrer, Johannes Kern, and Klaus Ritzberge r. Comment on “Trees and extensive forms”. Journal of Economic Theory , 146(5):2165—-2168, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [3]

    Trees and deci sions

    Carlos Alós-Ferrer and Klaus Ritzberger. Trees and deci sions. Economic Theory, 25:764–798, 2005

    work page 2005

  5. [4]

    Trees and exte nsive form

    Carlos Alós-Ferrer and Klaus Ritzberger. Trees and exte nsive form. Journal of Economic Theory, 143:216–250, 2008

    work page 2008

  6. [5]

    The Theory of Extensive Form Games

    Carlos Alós-Ferrer and Klaus Ritzberger. The Theory of Extensive Form Games . Springer, 2016. 47

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    Anscombe and Robert J

    Francis J. Anscombe and Robert J. Aumann. A definition of s ubjective probability. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34(1):199–205, 1963

    work page 1963

  8. [7]

    Robert J. Aumann. Borel structures for function spaces. Illinois Journal of Mathematics , 5(4):614–630, 1961

    work page 1961

Show all 77 references
  1. [8]

    Robert J. Aumann. Utility theory without the completene ss axiom. Econometrica, 30(3):445– 462, 1962

    1962

  2. [9]

    Robert J. Aumann. On choosing a function at random. In Symposium on Ergodic Theory , pages 1–20. Academic Press New Orleans, 1963

    1963

  3. [10]

    Robert J. Aumann. Mixed and behavior strategies in infin ite extensive games. Advances in Game Theory, Annals of Mathematics Studies , 52:627–650, 1964

    1964

  4. [11]

    Robert J. Aumann. Subjectivity and correlation in rand omized strategies. Journal of Mathe- matical Economics, 1(1):67–96, 1974

    1974

  5. [12]

    Robert J. Aumann. Correlated equilibrium as an express ion of bayesian rationality. Econo- metrica, 55(1):1–18, 1987

    1987

  6. [13]

    Robert J. Aumann. Game theory. In Matias Vernengo, Este ban Perez Caldentey, and Barkley J Rosser Jr, editors, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics . Palgrave Macmillan UK: Im- print: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020

    2020

  7. [14]

    Aumann and Sergiu Hart

    Robert J. Aumann and Sergiu Hart. Long cheap talk. Econometrica, 71(6):1619–1660, 2003

    2003

  8. [15]

    The absen t-minded driver

    Robert J Aumann, Sergiu Hart, and Motty Perry. The absen t-minded driver. Games and Economic Behavior, 20(1):102–116, 1997

    1997

  9. [16]

    Friz, Masaaki Fukasawa, Jim G atheral, Antoine Jacquier, and Math- ieu Rosenbaum, editors

    Christian Bayer, Peter K. Friz, Masaaki Fukasawa, Jim G atheral, Antoine Jacquier, and Math- ieu Rosenbaum, editors. Rough Volatility. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2023

    2023

  10. [17]

    Dimitri Bertsekas and Steven E. Shreve. Stochastic Optimal Control: The Discrete-Time Case , volume 5. Athena Scientific, 1996

    1996

  11. [18]

    Truman F. Bewley. Knightian decision theory. Part I. Decisions in Economics and Finance , 25:79–110, 2002

    2002

  12. [19]

    Bogachev

    Vladimir I. Bogachev. Measure Theory, volume 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007

    2007

  13. [20]

    Modern Graph Theory, volume 184 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics

    Béla Bollobás. Modern Graph Theory, volume 184 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2013

    2013

  14. [21]

    Probabilistic Theory of Mean Field Games with Ap- plications I

    René Carmona and François Delarue. Probabilistic Theory of Mean Field Games with Ap- plications I. Mean Field FBSDEs, Control, and Games , volume 83 of Probability Theory and Stochastic Modelling. Springer, Cham, 2018

    2018

  15. [22]

    Cohen and Robert J

    Samuel N. Cohen and Robert J. Elliott. Stochastic Calculus and Applications , volume 2. Springer, 2015

    2015

  16. [23]

    Cohen, Christoph Knochenhauer, and Alexande r Merkel

    Samuel N. Cohen, Christoph Knochenhauer, and Alexande r Merkel. Optimal adaptive control with separable drift uncertainty. arXiv:2309.07091, 2023 . Preprint. 48

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Davey and Hilary A

    Brian A. Davey and Hilary A. Priestley. Introduction to Lattices and Order . Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 2002

    2002

  18. [25]

    The Mathematics of Arbitrage

    Freddy Delbaen and Walter Schachermayer. The Mathematics of Arbitrage . Springer, 2006

    2006

  19. [26]

    Dockner, Steffen Jorgensen, Ngo Van Long, a nd Gerhard Sorger

    Engelbert J. Dockner, Steffen Jorgensen, Ngo Van Long, a nd Gerhard Sorger. Differential Games in Economics and Management Science . Cambridge University Press, 2000

    2000

  20. [27]

    Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axiom s

    Daniel Ellsberg. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axiom s. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 75(4):643–669, 1961

    1961

  21. [28]

    Lecture notes in Advanced Microeconomi cs, Michaelmas Term 2023

    Matteo Escudé. Lecture notes in Advanced Microeconomi cs, Michaelmas Term 2023. Course held at the Department of Economics, University of Oxford

    2023

  22. [29]

    D ecision theory under ambiguity

    Johanna Etner, Meglena Jeleva, and Jean-Marc Tallon. D ecision theory under ambiguity. Journal of Economic Surveys , 26(2):234–270, 2012

    2012

  23. [30]

    Preemption and rent equ alization in the adoption of new technology

    Drew Fudenberg and Jean Tirole. Preemption and rent equ alization in the adoption of new technology. Review of Economic Studies , 52(3):383–401, 1985

    1985

  24. [31]

    Game Theory

    Drew Fudenberg and Jean Tirole. Game Theory . MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, 1991

    1991

  25. [32]

    A comment on the absent-minded driver pa radox

    Itzhak Gilboa. A comment on the absent-minded driver pa radox. Games and Economic Behavior, 20(1):25–30, 1997

    1997

  26. [33]

    Theory of Decision under Uncertainty

    Itzhak Gilboa. Theory of Decision under Uncertainty . Econometric Society Monographs. Cambridge University Press, 2009

    2009

  27. [34]

    Maxmin expected ut ility with non-unique prior

    Itzhak Gilboa and David Schmeidler. Maxmin expected ut ility with non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics , 18(2):141–153, 1989

    1989

  28. [35]

    Grenadier

    Steven R. Grenadier. The strategic exercise of options : development cascades and overbuilding in real estate markets. J. Finance , 51(5):1653–1679, 1996

    1996

  29. [36]

    Reinforcement learn ing for linear-convex models with jumps via stability analysis of feedback controls

    Xin Guo, Anran Hu, and Yufei Zhang. Reinforcement learn ing for linear-convex models with jumps via stability analysis of feedback controls. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 61(2):755–787, 2023

    2023

  30. [37]

    Multiple tastes and belie fs with an infinite prize space

    Kazuhiro Hara and Gil Riella. Multiple tastes and belie fs with an infinite prize space. Economic Theory, 76(2):417–444, 2023

    2023

  31. [38]

    Bayesian

    John C. Harsanyi. Games with incomplete information pl ayed by “Bayesian” players, Part I. The basic model. Management Science , 14(3):159–182, 1967

    1967

  32. [39]

    Bayesian

    John C. Harsanyi. Games with incomplete information pl ayed by “Bayesian” players, Part II. Bayesian equilibrium points. Management Science, 14(5):320–334, 1968

    1968

  33. [40]

    Bayesian

    John C. Harsanyi. Games with incomplete information pl ayed by “Bayesian” players, Part III. The basic probability distribution of the game. Management Science , 14(7):486–502, 1968

    1968

  34. [41]

    Malhamé, and Peter E

    Minyi Huang, Rolang P. Malhamé, and Peter E. Caines. Lar ge population stochastic dy- namic games. Closed-loop McKean-Vlasov systems and the Nas h certainty equivalence princi- ple. Communication in Information and Systems , 6(3):221–252, 2006. 49

    2006

  35. [42]

    Prospect theory: An a nalysis of decision under risk

    Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. Prospect theory: An a nalysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2):263–291, 1979

    1979

  36. [43]

    Foundations of Modern Probability , volume 99 of Probability Theory and Stochastic Modelling

    Olav Kallenberg. Foundations of Modern Probability , volume 99 of Probability Theory and Stochastic Modelling. Springer Cham, 2021. 3rd edition

    2021

  37. [44]

    Ioannis Karatzas and Steven E. Shreve. Methods of Mathematical Finance, volume 39. Springer, 1998

    1998

  38. [45]

    Harold W. Kuhn. Extensive games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 36(10):570–576, 1950

    1950

  39. [46]

    Harold W. Kuhn. Extensive games and the problem of infor mation. Contributions to the Theory of Games , 2(28):193–216, 1953

    1953

  40. [47]

    Mean field ga mes

    Jean-Michel Lasry and Pierre-Louis Lions. Mean field ga mes. Japanese Journal of Mathematics, 2:227–260, 2007

    2007

  41. [48]

    Duncan Luce and Howard Raiffa

    R. Duncan Luce and Howard Raiffa. Games and Decisions . Dover Publications, 1989. [1957]

    1989

  42. [49]

    Whinston, and Jerry R

    Andreu Mas-Colell, Michael D. Whinston, and Jerry R. Gr een. Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, 1995

    1995

  43. [50]

    John F. Nash. Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1):48–49, 1950

    1950

  44. [51]

    Continuous-Time Stochastic Control and Optimization with Financial Applica- tions, volume 61

    Huyên Pham. Continuous-Time Stochastic Control and Optimization with Financial Applica- tions, volume 61. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

    2009

  45. [52]

    On the interpre tation of decision problems with im- perfect recall

    Michele Piccione and Ariel Rubinstein. On the interpre tation of decision problems with im- perfect recall. Games and Economic Behavior , 20(1):3–24, 1997

    1997

  46. [54]

    Subgame-perfect equ ilibria in stochastic timing games

    Frank Riedel and Jan-Henrik Steg. Subgame-perfect equ ilibria in stochastic timing games. Journal of Mathematical Economics , 72:36–50, 2017

    2017

  47. [55]

    Recall in extensive form games

    Klaus Ritzberger. Recall in extensive form games. International Journal of Game Theory , 28:69–87, 1999

    1999

  48. [56]

    Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model

    Ariel Rubinstein. Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pages 97–109, 1982

    1982

  49. [57]

    Leonard J. Savage. The Foundations of Statistics . Dover Publications, New York, 1972

    1972

  50. [58]

    Subjective probability and expecte d utility without additivity

    David Schmeidler. Subjective probability and expecte d utility without additivity. Economet- rica, 57(3):571–587, 1989

    1989

  51. [59]

    Spieltheoretische Behandlung eines Oligopolmodells mit Nachfrageträgheit

    Reinhard Selten. Spieltheoretische Behandlung eines Oligopolmodells mit Nachfrageträgheit. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft/Journal o f Institutional and Theoretical Eco- nomics, 121(2):301–324, 667–689, 1965

    1965

  52. [60]

    Lloyd S. Shapley. Stochastic games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 39(10):1095–1100, 1953. 50

    1953

  53. [61]

    Leo K. Simon. Basic timing games. Working paper 8745, Un iversity of California, Berkeley, 1987

    1987

  54. [62]

    Simon and Maxwell B

    Leo K. Simon and Maxwell B. Stinchcombe. Extensive form games in continuous time: Pure strategies. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society , pages 1171–1214, 1989

    1989

  55. [63]

    On preemption in discrete and continu ous time

    Jan-Henrik Steg. On preemption in discrete and continu ous time. Dynamic games and appli- cations, 8(4):918–938, 2018

    2018

  56. [64]

    Stinchcombe

    Maxwell B. Stinchcombe. Maximal strategy sets for cont inuous-time game theory. Journal of Economic Theory, 56(2):235–265, 1992

    1992

  57. [65]

    R. H. Strotz. Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utili ty maximization. The Review of Economic Studies , 23(3):165–180, 1955

    1955

  58. [66]

    Simple examples

    John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior . Prince- ton University Press, Princeton, 1944. 51 Appendix A. Figures x0(ω1) x1(ω1) x2(ω1) x1(ω2) x0(ω2) x2(ω2) {w112} {w111} { w122} {w121} { w211} { w212} { w221} { w222} Figure A.1: A simple sto...

    1944

  59. [67]

    for all x ∈X i 0, we have si(x) ∈Ai(x)

  60. [68]

    for all x,x ′ ∈X i 0 with Ai(x) = Ai(x′), we have si(x) = si(x′). Proof. Si is non-empty because Ai(p) ⁄= ∅ for all p ∈ Pi, by definition. Hence, in view of Propo- sition 1.14 we can choose an X-strategy si

  61. [69]

    Let x ∈ X i

    Then, define si as follows. Let x ∈ X i. If there is x0 ∈ X i 0 with Ai(x) = Ai(x0), let si(x) = si 0(x0). Else, let si(x) = si 1(x). By Property 2, si is well-defined. By Property 1 and the fact that si 1 is anX-strategy, we clearly havesi(x) ∈Ai(x) for allx ∈X i. Moreover, if ...

  62. [70]

    As a consequence, there is y ∈↓x \ {x} with w ∈y, and by Axiom 1.7.4, there is c ∈Ai(x) with c ⊇y

    Then, x ∈X and, thus, ↑x is not a maximal chain. As a consequence, there is y ∈↓x \ {x} with w ∈y, and by Axiom 1.7.4, there is c ∈Ai(x) with c ⊇y. Let si 0(x) = c. This defines a map si 0 : X i 0 → Ci with si 0(x) ∈ Ai(x) for all x ∈ X i

  63. [71]

    Tω induces a stochastic decision forest

    By the Heraclitus property from Lemma 1.11, x,x ′ ∈X i 0 with x ⁄= x′ necessarily satisfy Ai(x) ∩Ai(x′) = ∅. Hence, by Lemma Appendix B.7 , si 0 can be extended to an X-strategy si, which uniquely corresponds to a strategy by Proposition 1.14. Letting s = (si)i∈I , we have s ∈...

  64. [72]

    H = ⋃ ω ∈Ω Hω , where Hω is the set of histories in (Tω , ⊇)

  65. [73]

    for all ω ∈ Ω and h ∈Hω , we have ⋂ h ⊆Wω

  66. [74]

    if si ∈Si is an X-strategy for agent i ∈I and ω ∈ Ω , then the map si ω with domain X i ∩Tω defined by the assignment x ↦→si(x) ∩Wω defines an X-strategy in (Tω ,I,C ω )

  67. [75]

    if conversely si ω is an X-strategy for an agent i ∈I in (Tω ,I,C ω ), for some ω ∈ Ω , then there is an X-strategy si for i in F such that si ω (x) = si(x) ∩Wω for all x ∈X i ∩Tω

  68. [76]

    (Ad 1): For ω ∈ Ω , let Hω be the set of histories in (Tω , ⊇)

    for all s ∈S, ω ∈ Ω , h ∈Hω and w ∈ ⋂ h we have R(w,s |h) ∩Wω =Rω (w,s ω |h), where sω = (si ω )i∈I , si ω is the restriction of si according to 3 for each i ∈ I, and Rω is the map R(Fω ) associated to the ψ-sef Fω according to Definition 3.7. (Ad 1): For ω ∈ Ω , let Hω be the ...

  69. [77]

    if” part is clear, and the “only if

    For all x,x ′ ∈X i 0 with Ai(x) = Ai(x′), we have Ai ω (x) = Ai ω (x′), by Equation B.2. Thus, x,x ′ ∈ Pω (cω ) for some cω ∈ Ci ω , by Proposition 1.8, Part 4, applied to Fω . As X i 0 is a representative system, we infer x =x′, whence ˜si 0(x) = ˜si 0(x′). Hence, by Lemma Ap...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.