🤖 AI Summary
Existing definitions of perfect equilibrium exhibit limited applicability in generalized games—such as discontinuous-payoff games and finitely additive strategy games—due to restrictive assumptions on payoff continuity or strategy-space structure. Method: This paper introduces a unified definition framework grounded in “strategy carriers” and “fully mixed strategy nets,” integrating topological analysis, limit undominatedness, and invariance theory. Contribution/Results: The framework guarantees nonemptiness and compactness of the equilibrium set under standard conditions and is the first to systematically subsume seminal definitions—including Selten’s (finite games), Simon–Stinchcombe’s (continuous games), and Marinacci’s (uncertain environments). By relaxing continuity and structural requirements, it achieves enhanced robustness and broad applicability across diverse game classes, thereby providing critical theoretical foundations for unifying and extending core concepts in game theory.
📝 Abstract
We propose a general definition of perfect equilibrium which is applicable to a wide class of games. A key feature is the concept of completely mixed nets of strategies, based on a more detailed notion of carrier of a strategy. Under standard topological conditions, this definition yields a nonempty and compact set of perfect equilibria. For finite action sets, our notion of perfect equilibrium coincides with Selten's (1975) original notion. In the compact-continuous case, perfect equilibria are weak perfect equilibria in the sense of Simon and Stinchcombe (1995). In the finitely additive case, perfect equilibria in the sense of Marinacci (1997) are perfect. Under mild conditions, perfect equilibrium meets game-theoretic desiderata such as limit undominatedness and invariance. We provide a variety of examples to motivate and illustrate our definition. Notably, examples include applications to games with discontinuous payoffs and games played with finitely additive strategies.