pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.19737 · v5 · submitted 2025-06-24 · 💰 econ.TH

Reasoning about Bounded Reasoning

Shuige Liu , Gabriel Ziegler This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 08:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💰 econ.TH
keywords bounded reasoninglevel-k modelscognitive hierarchyrationalizabilityepistemic game theoryincomplete informationtype uncertaintyhigher-order beliefs
0
0 comments X

The pith

A framework separates players' beliefs about opponents' types from the depth of their reasoning about rationality.

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

Standard summaries of experimental behavior by level distributions conflate two distinct dimensions: a player's type, which captures beliefs about opponents' possible types, and the depth of higher-order reasoning about rationality. The paper develops a unified framework by lifting static complete-information games into incomplete-information versions where players are explicitly uncertain about opponents' types. Within this setup, bounded reasoning about opponents' types appears as first-order belief restrictions, while reasoning depth appears as bounds on belief in rationality. This distinction clarifies when cross-environment variation in observed levels should be read as changes in beliefs versus changes in cognitive depth. The analysis examines downward rationalizability as a baseline along with L-rationalizability and C-rationalizability, which supply epistemic foundations with nuance for level-k and Cognitive Hierarchy models.

Core claim

By lifting static complete-information games into incomplete-information versions in which players are explicitly uncertain about opponents' types, bounded reasoning about opponents' types is represented by transparent first-order belief restrictions, while higher-order reasoning depth is captured by bounds on belief in rationality. The framework then analyzes three benchmark instances: downward rationalizability as a robust baseline, and the refinements L-rationalizability and C-rationalizability, which provide epistemic foundations with an important nuance for classic level-k and Cognitive Hierarchy models respectively.

What carries the argument

The lifting of complete-information games into incomplete-information games with explicit type uncertainty, which separates first-order belief restrictions from bounds on belief in rationality.

If this is right

  • Level distributions observed in experiments may reflect changes in beliefs about opponents' types across environments rather than changes in reasoning depth.
  • Downward rationalizability serves as a robust baseline for modeling bounded reasoning.
  • L-rationalizability supplies an epistemic foundation for level-k behavior with an important nuance about what the model reveals.
  • C-rationalizability supplies an epistemic foundation for Cognitive Hierarchy with an important nuance about what the model reveals.
  • What level-k behavior can and cannot reveal about underlying reasoning processes becomes clearer once type uncertainty and depth are distinguished.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The distinction suggests experiments could isolate type beliefs by holding game payoffs fixed while varying information about possible opponent types.
  • Cross-environment differences in measured levels may indicate shifts in first-order beliefs rather than deeper changes in cognitive limits.
  • The framework opens a way to reinterpret existing level-k data without assuming uniform reasoning depth across settings.

Load-bearing premise

Lifting complete-information games into incomplete-information versions with explicit type uncertainty preserves the essential structure of bounded reasoning without introducing artifacts that alter the interpretation of level distributions.

What would settle it

An experiment that varies only the distribution of opponents' types while holding reasoning depth fixed, and finds no corresponding shift in observed level distributions, would challenge the separation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19737 by Gabriel Ziegler, Shuige Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: EBRS and the corresponding conjectures/anchors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In experimental applications of bounded-reasoning models, behavior is often summarized by distributions of "levels". We argue that such summaries conflate two conceptually distinct dimensions: a player's type, capturing beliefs about what types their opponents might be, and the depth of higher-order reasoning about rationality. Distinguishing these dimensions matters for interpreting experimental evidence and for understanding when cross-environment variation should be read as changes in beliefs versus changes in cognitive depth, but existing frameworks provide no language to do so. We develop a unified framework by "lifting" static complete-information games into incomplete-information versions in which players are explicitly uncertain about opponents' types. Within this framework, bounded reasoning about opponents' types is represented by transparent first-order belief restrictions, while (higher-order) reasoning depth is captured by bounds on belief in rationality. We analyze three benchmark instances: downward rationalizability, a robust baseline, and two refinements, $\mathsf{L}$-rationalizability and $\mathsf{C}$-rationalizability, which provide epistemic foundations -- with an important nuance -- for classic level-$k$ and Cognitive Hierarchy, respectively, and clarify what "level-$k$" behavior can and cannot reveal about underlying reasoning processes.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that experimental summaries of 'levels' in bounded-reasoning models conflate two distinct dimensions: a player's type (capturing beliefs about opponents' types) and the depth of higher-order reasoning about rationality. It develops a unified framework by lifting static complete-information games into incomplete-information versions with explicit type uncertainty, representing bounded reasoning about types via first-order belief restrictions and reasoning depth via bounds on belief in rationality. The paper analyzes three benchmarks—downward rationalizability as a robust baseline, plus L-rationalizability and C-rationalizability as refinements that supply epistemic foundations (with an important nuance) for classic level-k and Cognitive Hierarchy models—and clarifies what level-k behavior can and cannot reveal about underlying reasoning processes.

Significance. If the separation of type beliefs from reasoning depth holds without artifacts, the framework would allow sharper interpretation of experimental data on bounded rationality, distinguishing cross-environment variation in beliefs from variation in cognitive depth. The epistemic foundations for level-k and Cognitive Hierarchy models constitute a useful contribution to epistemic game theory, particularly if the lifting construction preserves the intended decomposition.

major comments (2)
  1. [Framework construction] Framework construction (abstract and lifting section): the central claim requires that first-order belief restrictions remain independent of bounds on belief in rationality so that level distributions decompose into separate type and depth components. The lifting into incomplete-information games must be shown to avoid entanglement via the common prior or type-space definition; the abstract's reference to an 'important nuance' for L-rationalizability and C-rationalizability raises the possibility that this independence fails in the benchmark cases, which would render experimental interpretations of level-k distributions ambiguous.
  2. [Benchmark instances] Benchmark instances (L-rationalizability and C-rationalizability): the paper should explicitly verify that the epistemic foundations do not implicitly restrict the support of first-order type beliefs through the rationality-order bounds. If any such dependence is introduced by the type-space construction, the claimed separation does not hold and the refinements cannot cleanly ground the classic models.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify notation for the three rationalizability concepts on first use and ensure consistent labeling of the lifted type spaces across sections.
  2. Consider including a simple 2x2 game example that illustrates how a given level-k action can arise from different combinations of type beliefs and reasoning depth under the new framework.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and insightful comments, which help clarify the scope and limitations of our framework. We respond to each major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Framework construction (abstract and lifting section): the central claim requires that first-order belief restrictions remain independent of bounds on belief in rationality so that level distributions decompose into separate type and depth components. The lifting into incomplete-information games must be shown to avoid entanglement via the common prior or type-space definition; the abstract's reference to an 'important nuance' for L-rationalizability and C-rationalizability raises the possibility that this independence fails in the benchmark cases, which would render experimental interpretations of level-k distributions ambiguous.

    Authors: We agree that independence between first-order type-belief restrictions and higher-order rationality bounds is essential to the framework's value for interpreting experiments. The lifting construction defines the type space by adjoining type uncertainty to the original complete-information game, with first-order belief restrictions imposed directly on players' marginal beliefs over opponents' types. These restrictions are chosen independently of the order-k bounds on mutual belief in rationality, which are imposed iteratively on the higher-order belief hierarchies. The common prior is taken over the product type space but does not create feedback from rationality bounds back to first-order supports. The 'important nuance' noted in the abstract concerns the precise conditions under which L-rationalizability and C-rationalizability recover the behavioral predictions of classic level-k and cognitive-hierarchy models; it does not introduce dependence between the two dimensions. We will add a clarifying proposition and accompanying discussion in the revised lifting section to make this separation explicit. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Benchmark instances (L-rationalizability and C-rationalizability): the paper should explicitly verify that the epistemic foundations do not implicitly restrict the support of first-order type beliefs through the rationality-order bounds. If any such dependence is introduced by the type-space construction, the claimed separation does not hold and the refinements cannot cleanly ground the classic models.

    Authors: We accept the request for explicit verification. In the current definitions, the rationality-order bounds operate exclusively on beliefs of order two and higher; the support of first-order type beliefs is fixed by the initial transparent restrictions and is not further constrained by the iterative application of rationality bounds. To address the concern directly, we will insert a short lemma (or remark) following the definitions of L-rationalizability and C-rationalizability that states and proves this non-restriction property, confirming that the first-order marginals remain as specified by the type-space construction. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: lifting construction separates type beliefs from rationality bounds by definition.

full rationale

The paper constructs the framework by explicitly lifting complete-information games to incomplete-information type spaces, representing first-order belief restrictions on opponent types separately from bounds on belief in rationality. This separation is definitional in the lifting step and does not reduce one component to the other by construction or via self-citation. The three benchmark instances (downward rationalizability, L-rationalizability, C-rationalizability) are analyzed as distinct refinements with an acknowledged nuance in epistemic foundations, but no equations or definitions make the level distributions or type-depth decomposition tautological. The framework remains self-contained against standard epistemic game theory primitives without fitted parameters or load-bearing self-referential steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the framework rests on standard domain assumptions from epistemic game theory. No free parameters or invented entities are indicated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Players hold first-order beliefs about opponents' types that admit transparent restrictions.
    This underpins the representation of bounded reasoning about types in the lifted framework.
  • domain assumption Higher-order reasoning depth can be isolated via bounds on belief in rationality.
    This separates the depth dimension from type uncertainty as described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5720 in / 1509 out tokens · 47861 ms · 2026-05-19T08:04:17.701778+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Beliefs and endogenous cognitive levels: An experimental study,

    AGRANOV , M., E. P OTAMITES , A. S CHOTTER , AND C. T ERGIMAN (2012): “Beliefs and endogenous cognitive levels: An experimental study,” Games and Economic Behavior, 75, 449–463. (Cited on page

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Reasoning about others’ reason- ing,

    40We say a game is generic if, for every player and every justifiable action, there exists a G-conjecture making that action the unique best reply. 30 Reasoning about Bounded Reasoning Liu and Ziegler ALAOUI , L., K. A. J ANEZIC , AND A. P ENTA (2020): “Reasoning about others’ reason- ing,” Journal of Economic Theory, 189, 105091. (Cited on page

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Endogenous depth of reasoning,

    ALAOUI , L. AND A. P ENTA (2016): “Endogenous depth of reasoning,” The Review of Economic Studies, 83, 1297–1333. (Cited on page 3,

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Robust virtual implementa- tion: Toward a reinterpretation of the Wilson doctrine,

    ARTEMOV , G., T. K UNIMOTO , AND R. S ERRANO (2013): “Robust virtual implementa- tion: Toward a reinterpretation of the Wilson doctrine,”Journal of Economic Theory, 148, 424–447. (Cited on page

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Correlated equilibrium as an expression of Bayesian rationality,

    AUMANN , R. J. (1987): “Correlated equilibrium as an expression of Bayesian rationality,” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1–18. (Cited on page

    work page 1987

  6. [6]

    Rationalizability in incomplete information games,

    BATTIGALLI , P. (1999): “Rationalizability in incomplete information games,” EUI Working Paper ECO 99/17. (Cited on page 5, 9, 10,

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Rationalizability in infinite, dynamic games with incomplete informa- tion,

    ——— (2003): “Rationalizability in infinite, dynamic games with incomplete informa- tion,” Research in Economics, 57, 1–38. (Cited on page

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Recent results on belief, knowledge and the epistemic foundations of game theory,

    BATTIGALLI , P. AND G. B ONANNO (1999): “Recent results on belief, knowledge and the epistemic foundations of game theory,”Research in Economics, 53, 149–225. (Cited on page

    work page 1999

  9. [9]

    Game theory: Analysis of Strategic Thinking,

    BATTIGALLI , P., E. C ATONINI , AND N. D E VITO (2025): “Game theory: Analysis of Strategic Thinking,” Book in preparation. (Cited on page 2, 6, 11, 16, 19,

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Forward induction reasoning revisited,

    BATTIGALLI , P. AND A. F RIEDENBERG (2012): “Forward induction reasoning revisited,” Theoretical Economics, 7, 57–98. (Cited on page

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    Hierarchies of conditional beliefs and interactive epistemology in dynamic games,

    BATTIGALLI , P. AND M. S INISCALCHI (1999): “Hierarchies of conditional beliefs and interactive epistemology in dynamic games,” Journal of Economic Theory, 88, 188–230. (Cited on page

    work page 1999

  12. [12]

    Rationalization and incomplete information,

    ——— (2003): “Rationalization and incomplete information,” Advances in Theoretical Economics,

    work page 2003

  13. [13]

    Robust mechanism design,

    BERGEMANN , D. AND S. M ORRIS (2005): “Robust mechanism design,” Econometrica, 1771–1813. (Cited on page

    work page 2005

  14. [14]

    Robust implementation in direct mechanisms,

    ——— (2009): “Robust implementation in direct mechanisms,” The Review of Economic Studies, 76, 1175–1204. (Cited on page 5,

    work page 2009

  15. [15]

    Bayes correlated equilibrium and the comparison of information struc- tures in games,

    ——— (2016): “Bayes correlated equilibrium and the comparison of information struc- tures in games,” Theoretical Economics, 11, 487–522. (Cited on page

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    Belief-free rationalizability and informational robustness,

    ——— (2017): “Belief-free rationalizability and informational robustness,” Games and Economic Behavior, 104, 744–759. (Cited on page 11,

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    One, two,(three), infinity,. . . : Newspaper and lab beauty-contest experiments,

    31 Reasoning about Bounded Reasoning Liu and Ziegler BOSCH -DOMENECH , A., J. G. M ONTALVO , R. N AGEL , AND A. S ATORRA (2002): “One, two,(three), infinity,. . . : Newspaper and lab beauty-contest experiments,”American Economic Review, 92, 1687–1701. (Cited on page

    work page 2002

  18. [18]

    Rationalizability and correlated equilib- ria,

    BRANDENBURGER , A. AND E. D EKEL (1987): “Rationalizability and correlated equilib- ria,” Econometrica, 1391–1402. (Cited on page 4,

    work page 1987

  19. [19]

    Two approaches to iterated reasoning in games,

    BRANDENBURGER , A., A. F RIEDENBERG , AND T. KNEELAND (2020): “Two approaches to iterated reasoning in games,” Tech. rep., Mimeo. (Cited on page 3, 5, 7, 21,

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    A cognitive hierarchy model of games,

    CAMERER , C. F., T.-H. H O, AND J.-K. C HONG (2004): “A cognitive hierarchy model of games,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 861–898. (Cited on page 2,

    work page 2004

  21. [21]

    Measuring higher-order rationality with belief control,

    CHEN , W. J., M.-J. F ONG , AND P.-H. L IN (2025): “Measuring higher-order rationality with belief control,” Experimental Economics, 1–28. (Cited on page

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Consistent depth of reasoning in level-k models,

    COOPER , D. J., E. F ATAS, A. J. M ORALES , AND S. Q I (2024): “Consistent depth of reasoning in level-k models,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 16, 40–76. (Cited on page

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Lying for strategic advantage: Rational and boundedly rational misrepresentation of intentions,

    CRAWFORD , V. P. (2003): “Lying for strategic advantage: Rational and boundedly rational misrepresentation of intentions,” American Economic Review , 93, 133–149. (Cited on page

    work page 2003

  24. [24]

    Efficient mechanisms for level-k bilateral trading,

    ——— (2021): “Efficient mechanisms for level-k bilateral trading,” Games and Economic Behavior, 127, 80–101. (Cited on page 3,

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Structural models of nonequilibrium strategic thinking: Theory, evidence, and applications,

    CRAWFORD , V. P., M. A. C OSTA -GOMES , AND N. I RIBERRI (2013): “Structural models of nonequilibrium strategic thinking: Theory, evidence, and applications,” Journal of Economic Literature, 51, 5–62. (Cited on page 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 17,

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    Level-k auctions: Can a nonequilibrium model of strategic thinking explain the winner’s curse and overbidding in private- value auctions?

    CRAWFORD , V. P. AND N. I RIBERRI (2007): “Level-k auctions: Can a nonequilibrium model of strategic thinking explain the winner’s curse and overbidding in private- value auctions?” Econometrica, 75, 1721–1770. (Cited on page

    work page 2007

  27. [27]

    Behaviorally optimal auction design: Examples and observations,

    CRAWFORD , V. P., T. K UGLER , Z. N EEMAN , AND A. PAUZNER (2009): “Behaviorally optimal auction design: Examples and observations,” Journal of the European Economic Association, 7, 377–387. (Cited on page

    work page 2009

  28. [28]

    Level-mechanism design,

    DE CLIPPEL , G., R. S ARAN , AND R. S ERRANO (2019): “Level-mechanism design,” The Review of Economic Studies, 86, 1207–1227. (Cited on page

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    Continuous level-k mechanism design,

    DE CLIPPEL , G., R. S ARAN , AND R. S ERRANO (2023): “Continuous level-k mechanism design,” Games and Economic Behavior, 140, 481–501. (Cited on page

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Interim correlated rationalizabil- ity,

    DEKEL , E., D. F UDENBERG , AND S. M ORRIS (2007): “Interim correlated rationalizabil- ity,” Theoretical Economics, 2, 15–40. (Cited on page

    work page 2007

  31. [31]

    Epistemic game theory,

    32 Reasoning about Bounded Reasoning Liu and Ziegler DEKEL , E. AND M. S INISCALCHI (2015): “Epistemic game theory,” in Handbook of game theory with economic applications, Elsevier, vol. 4, 619–702. (Cited on page

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    Five legitimate definitions of correlated equilibrium in games with incomplete information,

    FORGES , F. (1993): “Five legitimate definitions of correlated equilibrium in games with incomplete information,” Theory and decision, 35, 277–310. (Cited on page

    work page 1993

  33. [33]

    Correlated Equilibrium in Games with Incomplete Information Revis- ited,

    ——— (2006): “Correlated Equilibrium in Games with Incomplete Information Revis- ited,” Theory and Decision, 61, 329–344. (Cited on page

    work page 2006

  34. [34]

    Iterated dominance revisited,

    FRIEDENBERG , A. AND H. J. K EISLER (2021): “Iterated dominance revisited,” Economic Theory, 72, 377–421. (Cited on page

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    On the persistence of strategic sophistication,

    GEORGANAS , S., P. J. H EALY, AND R. A. W EBER (2010): “On the persistence of strategic sophistication,” Unpublished Ohio State working paper. (Cited on page

    work page 2010

  36. [36]

    Uncertain rationality, depth of reasoning and robustness in games with incomplete information,

    GERMANO , F., J. W EINSTEIN , AND P. ZUAZO -GARIN (2020): “Uncertain rationality, depth of reasoning and robustness in games with incomplete information,”Theoretical Economics, 15, 89–122. (Cited on page

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Magic Mirror on the Wall, Who Is the Smartest One of All?

    HALEVY , Y., J. H OELZEMANN , AND T. KNEELAND (2025): “Magic Mirror on the Wall, Who Is the Smartest One of All?” Unpublished Manuscript. (Cited on page

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Games with incomplete information played by “Bayesian

    HARSANYI , J. C. (1967): “Games with incomplete information played by “Bayesian” players, I–III Part I. The basic model,” Management science, 14, 159–182. (Cited on page

    work page 1967

  39. [39]

    Robust multiplicity with (transfinitely) vanishing naiveté,

    HEIFETZ , A. (2019): “Robust multiplicity with (transfinitely) vanishing naiveté,” Inter- national Journal of Game Theory, 48, 1277–1296. (Cited on page

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Robust multiplicity with a grain of naiveté,

    HEIFETZ , A. AND W. K ETS (2018): “Robust multiplicity with a grain of naiveté,” Theoretical Economics, 13, 415–465. (Cited on page

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    Iterated dominance and iterated best response in experimental ’p-beauty contests’,

    HO, T.-H., C. C AMERER , AND K. W EIGELT (1998): “Iterated dominance and iterated best response in experimental ’p-beauty contests’,”The American Economic Review, 88, 947–969. (Cited on page

    work page 1998

  42. [42]

    Does level-k behavior imply level-k thinking?

    JIN, Y. (2021): “Does level-k behavior imply level-k thinking?” Experimental Economics, 24, 330–353. (Cited on page

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    Bounded Reasoning and Higher-Order Uncertainty,

    KETS , W. (2021): “Bounded Reasoning and Higher-Order Uncertainty,” mimeo. (Cited on page

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    KEYNES , J. M. (1936): The general theory of employment, interest and money , Harcourt Brace and Co. (Cited on page

    work page 1936

  45. [45]

    Mechanism design with level-k types: Theory and an appli- cation to bilateral trade,

    KNEELAND , T. (2022): “Mechanism design with level-k types: Theory and an appli- cation to bilateral trade,” Journal of Economic Theory, 201, 105421. (Cited on page 3,

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Level-k Reasoning, Cognitive Hierarchy, and Rationalizability,

    LIU, S. (2024): “Level-k Reasoning, Cognitive Hierarchy, and Rationalizability,” Tech. rep., Working paper,https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.19623. (Cited on page

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Vollkommene voraussicht und wirtschaftliches gle- ichgewicht,

    33 Reasoning about Bounded Reasoning Liu and Ziegler MORGENSTERN , O. (1935): “Vollkommene voraussicht und wirtschaftliches gle- ichgewicht,” Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie/Journal of Economics, 337–357. (Cited on page

    work page 1935

  48. [48]

    Perfect Foresight and Economic Equilibrium,

    ——— (1976): “Perfect Foresight and Economic Equilibrium,” in Selected Economic Writings of Oskar Morgenstern, ed. by A. Schotter, New York University Press, 169–83. (Cited on page

    work page 1976

  49. [49]

    Robust predictions under finite depth of reasoning,

    MURAYAMA , K. (2020): “Robust predictions under finite depth of reasoning,” The Japanese Economic Review, 71, 59–84. (Cited on page

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    Unraveling in guessing games: An experimental study,

    NAGEL , R. (1995): “Unraveling in guessing games: An experimental study,” The American economic review, 85, 1313–1326. (Cited on page 2, 6,

    work page 1995

  51. [51]

    Depth of reasoning in strategic form games,

    OHTSUBO , Y. AND A. R APOPORT (2006): “Depth of reasoning in strategic form games,” The Journal of Socio-Economics, 35, 31–47. (Cited on page 3,

    work page 2006

  52. [52]

    Full implementation and belief restrictions,

    OLLÁR , M. AND A. P ENTA (2017): “Full implementation and belief restrictions,” Amer- ican Economic Review, 107, 2243–2277. (Cited on page

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    Efficient full implementation via transfers: Uniqueness and sensitivity in symmetric environments,

    ——— (2022): “Efficient full implementation via transfers: Uniqueness and sensitivity in symmetric environments,” in AEA papers and proceedings , American Economic Association 2014 Broadway, Suite 305, Nashville, TN 37203, vol. 112, 438–443. (Cited on page

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    A network solution to robust implementation: The case of identical but unknown distributions,

    ——— (2023): “A network solution to robust implementation: The case of identical but unknown distributions,” Review of Economic Studies, 90, 2517–2554. (Cited on page

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    (2012): Epistemic game theory: reasoning and choice , Cambridge University Press

    PEREA , A. (2012): Epistemic game theory: reasoning and choice , Cambridge University Press. (Cited on page

    work page 2012

  56. [56]

    Games of incomplete information without common knowledge priors,

    SÁKOVICS , J. (2001): “Games of incomplete information without common knowledge priors,” Theory and decision, 50, 347–366. (Cited on page

    work page 2001

  57. [57]

    Evolution of smart n players,

    STAHL , D. O. (1993): “Evolution of smart n players,” Games and Economic Behavior, 5, 604–617. (Cited on page

    work page 1993

  58. [58]

    On players’ models of other players: Theory and experimental evidence,

    STAHL , D. O. AND P. W. WILSON (1995): “On players’ models of other players: Theory and experimental evidence,” Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 218–254. (Cited on page

    work page 1995

  59. [59]

    Experimental evidence on players’ models of other players,

    STAHL II, D. O. AND P. W. WILSON (1994): “Experimental evidence on players’ models of other players,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 25, 309–327. (Cited on page 2,

    work page 1994

  60. [60]

    Depth of reasoning and higher order beliefs,

    STRZALECKI , T. (2014): “Depth of reasoning and higher order beliefs,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 108, 108–122. (Cited on page 4, 15,

    work page 2014

  61. [61]

    The Bayesian foundations of solution concepts of games,

    TAN, T. C.-C. AND S. R. DA COSTA WERLANG (1988): “The Bayesian foundations of solution concepts of games,” Journal of Economic Theory, 45, 370–391. (Cited on page

    work page 1988

  62. [62]

    Pinocchio’s pupil: using eyetracking and pupil dilation to understand truth telling and deception in sender- receiver games,

    34 Reasoning about Bounded Reasoning Liu and Ziegler WANG , J. T.- Y., M. S PEZIO , AND C. F. C AMERER (2010): “Pinocchio’s pupil: using eyetracking and pupil dilation to understand truth telling and deception in sender- receiver games,” American Economic Review, 100, 984–1007. (Cited on page

    work page 2010

  63. [63]

    Best-reply sets,

    WEINSTEIN , J. (2020): “Best-reply sets,” Economic Theory Bulletin, 8, 105–112. (Cited on page

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    A structure theorem for rationalizability with application to robust predictions of refinements,

    WEINSTEIN , J. AND M. Y ILDIZ (2007): “A structure theorem for rationalizability with application to robust predictions of refinements,” Econometrica, 75, 365–400. (Cited on page

    work page 2007

  65. [65]

    Game-Theoretic Analysis of Trading Processes,

    WILSON , R. (1987): “Game-Theoretic Analysis of Trading Processes,” in Advances in Economic Theory, ed. by T. Bewley, Cambridge University Press, vol. Fifth World Congress. (Cited on page

    work page 1987

  66. [66]

    Informational robustness of common belief in rationality,

    ZIEGLER , G. (2022): “Informational robustness of common belief in rationality,” Games and Economic Behavior, 132, 592–597. (Cited on page

    work page 2022