A Bayesian Level-<i>k</i> Model in <i>n</i>-Person Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In standard models of iterative thinking, players choose a fixed rule level from a fixed rule hierarchy. Nonequilibrium behavior emerges when players do not perform enough thinking steps. Existing approaches, however, are inherently static. This paper introduces a Bayesian level-k model, in which level-0 players adjust their actions in response to historical game play, whereas higher-level thinkers update their beliefs on opponents’ rule levels and best respond with different rule levels over time. As a consequence, players choose a dynamic rule level (i.e., sophisticated learning) from a varying rule hierarchy (i.e., adaptive learning). We apply our model to existing experimental data on three distinct games: the p-beauty contest, Cournot oligopoly, and private-value auction. We find that both types of learning are significant in p-beauty contest games, but only adaptive learning is significant in the Cournot oligopoly, and only sophisticated learning is significant in the private-value auction. We conclude that it is useful to have a unified framework that incorporates both types of learning to explain dynamic choice behavior across different settings. This paper was accepted by Manel Baucells, decision analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".