Hart, S. . (2005).
An Interview with Robert Aumann.
Discussion Papers. presented at the 2, Macroeconomic Dynamics 9 (2005), 683-740. Also in Inside the Economist's Mind: The History of Modern Economic Thought, as Explained by Those Who Produced It, William A. Barnett and Paul Samuelson (eds.), Blackwell Publishing. Retrieved from
/files/ aumann.html Publisher's VersionAbstractWho is Robert Aumann? Is he an economist or a mathematician? A rational scientist or a deeply religious man? A deep thinker or an easygoing person? These seemingly disparate qualities can all be found in Aumann; all are essential facets of his personality. A pure mathematician who is a renowned economist, he has been a central figure in developing game theory and establishing its key role in modern economics. He has shaped the field through his fundamental and pioneering work, work that is conceptually profound, and much of it mathematically deep. He has greatly influenced and inspired many people: his students, collaborators, colleagues, and anyone who has been excited by reading his papers or listening to his talks. Aumann promotes a unified view of rational behavior, in many different disciplines: chiefly economics, but also political science, biology, computer science, and more. To mention just a few of the areas of Aumann's groundbreaking work: perfect competition, repeated games, correlated equilibrium, interactive knowledge and rationality, and coalitions and cooperation. But Aumann is not just a theoretical scholar, closed in his ivory tower. He is interested in real-life phenomena and issues, to which he applies insights from his research. He is a devoutly religious man; and he is one of the founding fathers-and a central and most active member-of the multidisciplinary Center for the Study of Rationality at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Aumann enjoys skiing, mountain climbing, and cooking-no less than working out a complex economic question or proving a deep theorem. He is a family man, a very warm and gracious person-of an extremely subtle and sharp mind. This interview catches a few glimpses of Robert Aumann's fascinating world. It was held in Jerusalem on three consecutive days in September of 2004. I hope the reader will learn from it and enjoy it as much as we two did.
Ron Holzman, B. P., & Sudholter, P. . (2005).
Bargaining Sets of Majority Voting Games (revision of Discussion Paper #376).
Discussion Papers. presented at the 11, Mathematics of Operations Research 32 (2007), 857-872. Retrieved from
/files/dp410.pdf Publisher's VersionAbstractLet A be a finite set of m alternatives, let N be a finite set of n players and let RN be a profile of linear preference orderings on A of the players. Let uN be a profile of utility functions for RN. We define the NTU game VuN that corresponds to simple majority voting, and investigate its Aumann-Davis-Maschler and Mas-Colell bargaining sets. The first bargaining set is nonempty for m 3 and it may be empty for m ¥ 4. However, in a simple probabilistic model, for fixed m, the probability that the Aumann-Davis-Maschler bargaining set is nonempty tends to one if n tends to infinity. The Mas-Colell bargaining set is nonempty for m 5 and it may be empty for m ¥ 6. Furthermore, it may be empty even if we insist that n be odd, provided that m is sufficiently large. Nevertheless, we show that the Mas-Colell bargaining set of any simple majority voting game derived from the k-th replication of RN is nonempty, provided that k ¥ n + 2.
Ullmann-Margalit, E. . (2005).
Big Decisions: Opting, Converting, Drifting.
Discussion Papers. presented at the 11, In Anthony O'Hear (ed.), Political Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Retrieved from
/files/dp409.pdf Publisher's Version Robert J. Aumann, S. H., & Perry, M. . (2005).
Conditioning and the Sure-Thing Principle.
Discussion Papers. presented at the 6. Retrieved from
/files/dp393.pdf Publisher's VersionAbstractThis paper undertakes a careful examination of the concept of conditional probability and its use. The ideas are then applied to resolve a conceptual puzzle related to Savage's "Sure-Thing Principle."
Aumann, R. J. . (2005).
Consciousness.
Discussion Papers. presented at the 5, In Life as We Know It, Edited by J. Seckbach, Springer (2006), 555-564. Retrieved from
/files/ consciousness.pdf Publisher's VersionAbstractConsciousness is the last great frontier of science. Here we discuss what it is, how it differs fundamentally from other scientific phenomena, what adaptive function it serves, and the difficulties in trying to explain how it works. The emphasis is on the adaptive function.
Thomas Kittsteiner, J. N., & Winter, E. . (2005).
Declining Valuations in Sequential Auctions.
Discussion Papers. presented at the 2. Retrieved from
/files/dp385.pdf Publisher's VersionAbstractWe analyze an independent private values model where a number of objects are sold in sequential first- and second-price auctions. Bidders have unit demand and their valuation for an object is decreasing in the rank number of the auction in which it is sold. We derive efficient equilibria if prices are announced after each auction or if no information is given to bidders. We show that the sequence of prices constitutes a supermartingale. Even if we correct for the decrease in valuations for objects sold in later auctions we find that average prices are declining.
Harel, A., & Klement, A. . (2005).
The Economics of Shame: Why More Shaming May Deter Less.
Discussion Papers. presented at the 8. Retrieved from
/files/dp401.pdf Publisher's VersionAbstractThis paper investigates the effectiveness of shaming penalties. It establishes that there may be an inverse relation between the rate of shaming penalties and their deterrent effects - the more people are shamed the less deterring shaming penalties become. This conclusion is based on a search model in which the costs of searching for law-abiding partners increase with the rate of shaming, and may lead to lower expected sanction for offenders. The inverse relation between the rate of shaming penalties and their effectiveness is later used to show that increasing the probability of detection, increasing the magnitude of shaming penalties or reducing the number of wrongful acquittals does not necessarily increase the deterrent effects of shaming penalties (and may, in fact, decrease these effects).
Maschler, M. . (2005).
Encouraging a Coalition Formation.
Discussion Papers. presented at the 5, Theory and Decision 56 (2004), 25-34. Retrieved from
/files/dp392.pdf Publisher's VersionAbstractA 4-person quota game is analyzed and discussed, in which players find it beneficial to pay others, in order to encourage favorable coalition structure.
Wexler, T. . (2005).
Evolutionary Dynamics for Large Populations in Games with Multiple Backward Induction Equilibria.
Discussion Papers. presented at the 9. Retrieved from
/files/dp402.pdf Publisher's VersionAbstractThis work follows "Evolutionary dynamics and backward induction" (Hart [2000]) in the study of dynamic models consisting of selection and mutation, when the mutation rate is low and the populations are large. Under the assumption that there is a single backward induction (or subgame perfect) equilibrium of a perfect information game, Hart [2000] proved that this point is the only stable state. In this work, we examine the case where there are multiple backward induction equilibria.
Neyman, A. . (2005).
Existence of Optimal Strategies in Markov Games with Incomplete Information.
Discussion Papers. presented at the 12. Retrieved from
/files/dp413.pdf Publisher's VersionAbstractThe existence of a value and optimal strategies is proved for the class of two-person repeated games where the state follows a Markov chain independently of players' actions and at the beginning of each stage only player one is informed about the state. The results apply to the case of standard signaling where players' stage actions are observable, as well as to the model with general signals provided that player one has a nonrevealing repeated game strategy. The proofs reduce the analysis of these repeated games to that of classical repeated games with incomplete information on one side.