Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Brandenburger — Carmelics
    Thinkers/Brandenburger
    B

    Brandenburger

    contemporaryEpistemic Game Theory

    b. 1953

    Adam Brandenburger is a game theorist and philosopher of economics whose work centers on epistemic game theory — the formal analysis of how players' beliefs, knowledge, and reasoning underpin strategic behavior. He has made foundational contributions to understanding rationalizability, backward induction, and the role of common knowledge in equilibrium selection. His collaborative research, particularly with Eddie Dekel and Geir Asheim, clarified the epistemic conditions under which standard solution concepts (Nash equilibrium, iterated dominance) hold.

    WWikipediaSEPStanford Encyclopedia

    Notable Achievements

    1

    Co-developed the epistemic characterization of rationalizability via common belief in rationality

    2

    Clarified the distinct epistemic assumptions underlying Aumann's and Stalnaker's backward induction results

    3

    Advanced the use of lexicographic probability systems to model sequential reasoning in games

    4

    Contributed to interactive epistemology, formalizing how players model each other's beliefs

    5

    Long-term faculty at NYU Stern, shaping the epistemic game theory research program

    Positions & Arguments(2)

    Skepticism

    claim

    The difference in conclusions between Aumann (1995) and Stalnaker (1998) is due to differing models of belief revision upon deviation from the backward induction path

    claim

    Plausibility updates in sequential games during actual play differ in interpretation from plausibility updates used in pregame deliberation for Backward Induction.

    Truth & Knowledge

    claim

    The difference in conclusions between Aumann (1995) and Stalnaker (1998) is due to differing models of belief revision upon deviation from the backward induction path

    claim

    Plausibility updates in sequential games during actual play differ in interpretation from plausibility updates used in pregame deliberation for Backward Induction.

    At a Glance

    Ideas

    2

    Topics

    2

    Era

    contemporary

    Tradition

    Epistemic Game Theory

    Topic Influence

    Truth & Knowledge2
    Skepticism2

    Related Thinkers

    David Lewis2 sharedImmanuel Kant2 sharedBoyd2 sharedBrian Skyrms2 sharedStathis Psillos2 sharedBertrand Russell2 sharedDavid Hume2 sharedAristotle2 shared

    Dive Deeper

    Explore Truth & Knowledge→See Skepticism→