Hubbry Logo
Perfect informationPerfect informationMain
Open search
Perfect information
Community hub
Perfect information
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Perfect information
Perfect information
Perfect information
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Chess is a game of perfect information, but not per se common knowledge
Poker is a game of imperfect information as opponents' private cards are not known

Perfect information is a concept in game theory and economics that describes a situation where all players in a game or all participants in a market have knowledge of all relevant information in the system. This is different than complete information, which implies common knowledge of each agent's utility functions, payoffs, strategies and "types". A system with perfect information may or may not have complete information.

In economics this is sometimes described as "no hidden information" and is a feature of perfect competition. In a market with perfect information all consumers and producers would have complete and instantaneous knowledge of all market prices, their own utility and cost functions.

In game theory, a sequential game has perfect information if each player, when making any decision, is perfectly informed of all the events that have previously occurred, including the "initialisation event" of the game (e.g. the starting hands of each player in a card game).[1][2][3][4]

Games where some aspect of play is hidden from opponents – such as the cards in poker and bridge – are examples of games with imperfect information.[5][6]

Examples

[edit]
Backgammon includes chance events, but by some definitions is classified as a game of perfect information.

Chess is an example of a game with perfect information, as each player can see all the pieces on the board at all times.[2] Other games with perfect information include tic-tac-toe, Reversi, checkers, and Go.[3]

Academic literature has not produced consensus on a standard definition of perfect information which defines whether games with chance, but no secret information, and games with simultaneous moves are games of perfect information.[4][7][8][9]

Games which are sequential (players alternate in moving) and which have chance events (with known probabilities to all players) but no secret information, are sometimes considered games of perfect information. This includes games such as backgammon and Monopoly. However, some academic papers do not regard such games as games of perfect information because the results of chance themselves are unknown prior to them occurring.[4][7][8][9]

Games with simultaneous moves are generally not considered games of perfect information. This is because each player holds information, which is secret, and must play a move without knowing the opponent's secret information. Nevertheless, some such games are symmetrical, and fair. An example of a game in this category is rock paper scissors.[4][7][8][9]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Perfect information

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In , perfect information refers to a situation in an where every set consists of a single node, meaning that at each decision point, the player whose turn it is knows precisely the complete history of all prior actions taken by all players. This ensures no uncertainty about the game's past, allowing players to perfectly reconstruct the sequence of moves leading to the current state. Perfect information games are typically represented using game trees, where nodes denote decision points, branches indicate actions, and information sets group nodes indistinguishable to the player. In such games, moves are sequential, and each player observes all previous choices before acting, contrasting with imperfect information games where information sets may contain multiple nodes, introducing about opponents' actions (e.g., simultaneous moves or hidden information). Classic examples include chess and , where the board state is fully visible to both players at every turn, enabling based on known histories. To analyze perfect information games, economists and game theorists employ , a method that starts from the game's terminal nodes and works backward to determine optimal strategies at each decision point, yielding subgame-perfect Nash equilibria that eliminate non-credible threats. This approach assumes rational players who anticipate future responses, ensuring equilibria are robust across all subgames. For instance, in a sequential entry game, backward induction reveals whether a potential entrant will deter an incumbent by considering the full observable sequence of moves. In , perfect information models underpin analyses of dynamic , such as , auctions with sequential bids, and principal-agent interactions under full , highlighting how transparency influences outcomes like and equilibrium selection. These frameworks, while idealized, provide benchmarks for understanding real-world deviations due to information asymmetries, informing in areas like regulatory and .

Fundamentals

Definition

Perfect information in describes a scenario in strategic interactions where every player has full awareness of all prior actions, moves, and states of the game at each decision point, enabling complete reconstruction of the game's history up to that moment. This concept, foundational to the analysis of sequential games, ensures that no exists regarding the sequence of events leading to the current position, as formalized in the extensive form representation where information sets contain only a single node. The completeness of knowledge under perfect information means that all participants are privy to the exact choices made by every player throughout the game, distinguishing it from situations where moves are hidden or simultaneous. This full transparency applies particularly to non- settings, where players act independently to maximize their own payoffs, but the framework can extend to contexts involving joint under shared knowledge. Importantly, perfect information differs from perfect recall, which solely mandates that a player remembers their own previous actions and the information available to them at those times, without requiring knowledge of opponents' moves. Analysis of with perfect information typically assumes rational players who make optimal decisions based on complete historical , often in deterministic environments where outcomes are fully predictable given the rules and prior plays, unless elements are explicitly incorporated. This assumption underpins solution concepts like , allowing for the determination of subgame perfect equilibria without informational asymmetries.

Key Characteristics

Games of perfect information exhibit a sequential structure in which players alternate turns, with each move fully observable by all participants before the subsequent decision is made. This ensures that the game progresses in a linear fashion, where the history of all prior actions is among players. Such observability eliminates any ambiguity regarding the sequence of events, allowing each player to base their on the complete record of the game up to that point. A defining is the absence of hidden actions, meaning every move and its consequences are public knowledge from the moment they occur, thereby removing about past occurrences. Players possess perfect recall of the game's history, enabling them to evaluate the current position without doubt about previous choices. This transparency contrasts with scenarios involving concealed and facilitates straightforward . Perfect information games may include elements of chance, such as observable random events (e.g., dice rolls in backgammon), where outcomes are fully known to all players, resulting in potentially stochastic outcomes but with complete historical knowledge. This structure allows for the resolution of the game through logical deduction and expected payoff calculations if optimal play is assumed. Furthermore, decisions are reversible in analysis, as players can mentally reconstruct and assess alternative paths from any point using the full historical context. Within the framework of extensive-form games, perfect information manifests as each decision node belonging to a singleton information set for the relevant player, indicating that no two nodes are indistinguishable and every choice point is uniquely identified by the game's . This structure underscores the game's tree-like representation, where branching occurs solely based on deliberate actions rather than informational .

Historical Development

Origins in Game Theory

The concept of perfect information in traces its early roots to the analysis of deterministic games like chess in the early . In , published a seminal paper applying to chess, demonstrating that it is a finite, two-person of perfect information without chance elements, where players alternate moves with full visibility of the board state. Zermelo proved that such games are determinate: either the first player has a winning strategy, the second player has a winning strategy, or both can force a under optimal play, establishing the principle that optimal play leads to a fixed outcome. His work, titled "Über eine Anwendung der Mengenlehre auf die Theorie des Schachspiels," laid the groundwork for formalizing sequential games where is fully shared, influencing later theorists by showing solvability in principle through exhaustive position analysis. The formal emergence of perfect information concepts occurred in the 1920s amid broader efforts to mathematize strategic . French mathematician initiated key developments in his 1921–1927 series of papers on , where he explored strategies in two-person zero-sum games and introduced the notion of mixed strategies to guarantee expected payoffs. Borel conceptualized strategies as complete "methods of play" or codes dictating responses to all possible observed actions in sequential settings, implicitly assuming perfect information in scenarios without hidden elements, such as simplified duels or symmetric games limited to three strategies per player. Although Borel did not prove the general and focused on small-scale cases, his work highlighted the role of full in enabling deterministic planning, drawing from games like poker but emphasizing transparent sequential interactions. John von Neumann provided the pivotal formalization in his 1928 paper "Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele," which introduced the extensive-form representation for multi-stage games, making perfect information a core implicit feature through visible sequential moves. Building on Borel's foundations, von Neumann proved the general for two-person zero-sum games, asserting that players can secure optimal values via pure or mixed strategies when all prior actions are known, as in perfect information structures. This framework was initially applied to classic zero-sum games like chess and , illustrating how perfect information allows to determine winning strategies in finite trees of decisions, without or . Von Neumann's innovations shifted toward rigorous abstraction, treating perfect information games as solvable systems where strategy equates to full anticipation of observable opponent responses.

Key Contributions and Evolution

The foundational formalization of perfect information occurred in and Oskar Morgenstern's seminal 1944 book Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, where they defined it within extensive-form games as situations in which every player is fully aware of all prior actions and the game's history at each decision point, thereby enabling complete observability. This definition was integrated with their axiomatic theory, which posits that rational agents maximize expected under perfect information, providing a rigorous framework for analyzing strategic interactions without uncertainty about past moves. In the , advancements extended perfect to more complex dynamic environments, notably through Harold W. Kuhn's paper "Extensive Games and the Problem of ," which introduced the concept of perfect recall—ensuring players remember all previous information sets—and formalized behavioral strategies in extensive-form representations, facilitating of repeated interactions with full observability. These developments built on the initial framework by addressing how perfect information structures allow for the equivalence between mixed and behavioral strategies, enhancing the applicability to sequential in economic models. The computational era, beginning in the mid-20th century and accelerating from the , underscored the practical solvability of perfect information games through algorithmic approaches, as exemplified by Claude Shannon's 1950 paper "Programming a Computer for Playing Chess," which demonstrated that games like chess—with their perfect information structure—could theoretically be solved via exhaustive from terminal positions, though limited full implementation until advances in hardware and search algorithms. Subsequent AI research, including implementations in programs like those developed at Carnegie Mellon in the 1970s, highlighted how perfect information enables deterministic optimal play in finite games, influencing fields from to decision support systems. In recent decades up to 2025, the concept has evolved through integration with , revealing systematic deviations from perfect information assumptions in human gameplay; for instance, experimental studies show players often exhibit or social preferences, leading to suboptimal strategies even in fully settings like sequential bargaining games. Concurrently, refinements in multi-agent AI simulations have emphasized scalable approximations of perfect information environments, such as in frameworks for training agents in tasks, without introducing major shifts but improving robustness to real-world approximations of .

Formal Representation

Mathematical Modeling

In game theory, perfect information games are formally represented using the extensive-form framework, which models sequential as a . Here, nodes represent decision points for players, branches denote possible moves or actions, and the tree's leaves indicate terminal outcomes with associated payoffs. A defining feature of perfect information in this representation is that each player's information sets—subsets of nodes where the player must choose without distinguishing between them—are singletons, meaning no two nodes belong to the same information set for any player. This ensures that at every decision point, the player has full knowledge of the game's history up to that moment, eliminating uncertainty about prior actions. The standard notation for an with perfect information is a (N,A,H,P,u)(N, A, H, P, u), where NN is the finite set of players, AA is the set of actions available across all , HH is the set of (finite sequences of actions representing possible paths through the game , including the empty history ∅\emptyset as the starting point), P:H∖Z→NP: H \setminus Z \to N assigns to each non-terminal history h∈Hh \in H (where Z⊆HZ \subseteq H denotes terminal histories) the player who moves next, and u=(ui)i∈Nu = (u_i)_{i \in N} specifies each player's payoff function ui:Z→Ru_i: Z \to \mathbb{R}. Under perfect information, for any history h∈Hh \in H, the player P(h)P(h) observes the entire sequence of prior actions comprising hh, as there are no simultaneous or hidden moves; this contrasts with imperfect information games where information sets may contain multiple histories. Behavioral strategies in such games are derived from this structure, ensuring that choices are contingent on the fully observed history. To solve these games, serves as the primary algorithm, proceeding from the terminal nodes of the tree upward to the root. Starting at the leaves, payoffs are assigned; then, at each non-terminal node, the moving player selects the action that maximizes their payoff given optimal play in subsequent subgames. This process continues recursively until the root, yielding a (SPE), which refines the by requiring sequential rationality in every subgame. For finite games of perfect information, backward induction guarantees the existence of at least one pure-strategy SPE, as established in foundational work on sequential games. In this framework, a pure for player i∈[N](/page/N+)i \in [N](/page/N+) is a function σi:Hi→Ai\sigma_i: H_i \to A_i, where Hi⊆HH_i \subseteq H is the set of histories at which player ii moves (i.e., {h∈H:P(h)=i}\{h \in H : P(h) = i\}), and AiA_i is the set of actions available to ii. This maps each reachable decision history for ii to a specific action, fully specifying the player's under perfect recall and observation. A profile (σi)i∈[N](/page/N+)(\sigma_i)_{i \in [N](/page/N+)} induces outcomes and payoffs via the game tree, and the SPE obtained via selects the optimal such profile.

Game Trees and Strategies

In perfect information games, game trees provide a graphical representation of the sequential process, with the root node depicting the initial game state and subsequent non-terminal nodes alternating between players to reflect their turns. Each non-terminal node represents a decision point for the active player, with outgoing branches corresponding to available actions, and terminal nodes at the leaves specifying payoff vectors for all players. Due to perfect information, every information set contains exactly one node, ensuring that all branches from a given node are fully distinguishable without any overlap or , which eliminates the need for grouping multiple histories into shared information sets. A in such specifies an action for the player at every possible decision node they encounter, as sets are singletons under perfect . This results in pure strategies that fully describe contingent on the observed , and behavioral strategies—probability distributions over actions at each node—are equivalent to mixed strategies over pure strategies, allowing without altering outcomes in perfect recall settings. A profile, comprising strategies for all players, thus determines a unique path through the tree to a terminal node, yielding definite payoffs. Subgame perfection refines equilibria by requiring that the strategy profile induces a equilibrium in every , defined as any subtree rooted at a non-terminal node that includes all subsequent branches and payoffs. In perfect information games, this condition is enforceable through , where players anticipate optimal play in observable future s, ensuring sequential rationality at every decision point without non-credible threats. Finite perfect information games, particularly two-player zero-sum variants, can be solved exactly using search, which recursively evaluates the tree by maximizing at one player's nodes and minimizing at the opponent's, propagating values bottom-up from terminal payoffs. The is exponential in the tree depth, specifically O(b^d) where b is the and d the depth, though alpha-beta pruning can reduce this to O(b^{d/2}) in the best case by eliminating suboptimal branches early. The following illustrates a basic traversal for a tree:

function [minimax](/page/Minimax)(node, isMaximizingPlayer): if node is terminal: return node.payoff if isMaximizingPlayer: maxEval = -∞ for each child in node.children: eval = [minimax](/page/Minimax)(child, false) maxEval = max(maxEval, eval) return maxEval else: minEval = ∞ for each child in node.children: eval = [minimax](/page/Minimax)(child, true) minEval = min(minEval, eval) return minEval

function [minimax](/page/Minimax)(node, isMaximizingPlayer): if node is terminal: return node.payoff if isMaximizingPlayer: maxEval = -∞ for each child in node.children: eval = [minimax](/page/Minimax)(child, false) maxEval = max(maxEval, eval) return maxEval else: minEval = ∞ for each child in node.children: eval = [minimax](/page/Minimax)(child, true) minEval = min(minEval, eval) return minEval

This depth-first starts from the (maximizing player) and returns the optimal value, with extensions for action selection via path tracking.

Comparisons and Distinctions

Perfect vs. Information

In games of information, players possess incomplete knowledge of the history of play, meaning they cannot always distinguish between certain decision nodes in the game tree; this is formally represented by partitioning these nodes into information sets, where each set contains multiple nodes that are indistinguishable to the player, and the same actions are available from all nodes within a set. Such information sets arise in scenarios like simultaneous moves, where players act without observing each other's choices, or when past actions are concealed, forcing players to consider bundled possibilities rather than a fully revealed sequence. Structurally, this contrasts sharply with perfect information games, in which every information set is a singleton—containing exactly one node—ensuring that the entire history of moves is at each decision point, allowing for complete and sequential revelation. In imperfect information games, the partitions into non-singleton information sets reflect inherent uncertainties, such as hidden opponent actions or chance outcomes not fully disclosed, which prevent players from tailoring responses to precise past events and instead require strategies that account for ambiguity across the set. This partitioning enables the modeling of real-world interactions where full transparency is absent, but it complicates analysis by introducing indistinguishability that does not exist in perfect information structures. Regarding solvability, finite deterministic games of perfect information admit a pure solution, as proven in Zermelo's theorem for games like chess where the first player can force a win, draw, or loss deterministically. This solution can be determined via , which systematically evaluates optimal actions starting from terminal nodes and working backwards. In contrast, imperfect information games generally lack such pure solutions and necessitate mixed or behavioral strategies to achieve equilibrium, often requiring the computation of equilibria—where no player benefits from unilateral deviation—or refinements like subgame perfect equilibria to ensure credibility across all reachable histories, since fails due to the inability to isolate s at non-singleton information sets. These equilibria capture the probabilistic nature of play under uncertainty, highlighting how imperfect information expands the solution space beyond deterministic outcomes. A key illustration of transitioning from perfect to information occurs when elements of concealment are introduced to an otherwise observable game; for instance, a simplified sequential betting game with full visibility of all prior bets and outcomes operates under perfect information, permitting to predict behaviors precisely, but incorporating hidden private —such as dealing unseen cards in poker—creates non-singleton information sets for each player's possible hands, shifting the game to information and eliminating predictability in favor of bluffing and mixed strategies that randomize actions to obscure intentions. This alteration fundamentally changes the game's dynamics, as players must now form beliefs about unobserved elements and respond to bundled possibilities, rendering pure strategies suboptimal and emphasizing equilibrium concepts that balance exploitation and deception.

Relation to Other Information Structures

Perfect information in game theory is closely related to but distinct from the concepts of complete and incomplete information, which pertain to players' knowledge of the game's structure, payoffs, and opponents' characteristics. In games of perfect information, players are assumed to have full knowledge of payoffs and types, enabling precise anticipation of outcomes based on observed histories. In contrast, incomplete information introduces about opponents' utilities or private types, such as hidden preferences or capabilities, which players model probabilistically using Bayesian updating. This distinction is formalized through the Harsanyi transformation, which converts games of incomplete information into equivalent games of imperfect information by treating nature as a player that randomly selects types at the outset, allowing analysis via standard imperfect information tools like Bayesian Nash equilibria. Perfect recall serves as a complementary assumption to perfect information, specifying that players fully remember their own past actions and observations, ensuring that decision-making at any point incorporates the entire relevant history without forgetfulness. While games of perfect information—characterized by singleton information sets where players know the of prior moves—often incorporate perfect recall to simplify representation, the two are analytically separate: perfect recall can apply to imperfect information games, and its absence might lead to behavioral strategies that differ from mixed strategies. This equivalence between mixed and behavioral strategies under perfect recall, as established in foundational work, facilitates the computation of subgame-perfect equilibria in extensive-form representations. Perfect information typically aligns with sequential-move structures, where players alternate turns and observe all preceding actions, contrasting sharply with simultaneous-move that inherently involve information due to the lack of of concurrent choices. In sequential with perfect information, backward induction yields pure-strategy equilibria, as each player can foresee the full consequences of moves; simultaneous may require mixed strategies to account for uncertainty in cases of conflicting interests, such as rock-paper-scissors, although like the have pure-strategy equilibria. This sequential nature underpins the determinacy of perfect information , distinguishing them from the indeterminacy prevalent in simultaneous settings. In hierarchical models such as principal-agent frameworks, perfect information mitigates by allowing to fully monitor the agent's actions, enabling the implementation of first-best contracts that align incentives without efficiency losses. arises from hidden actions under imperfect information, where the agent might shirk unobserved; with perfect information, observability eliminates this, as can condition rewards directly on verified effort. This reduction in agency costs highlights perfect information's role in resolving informational asymmetries in contractual relationships.

Examples and Applications

Classic Game Examples

Chess exemplifies a classic finite, of perfect information, where both players have complete visibility of all prior moves and the current board state. proved in 1913 that such games are solvable in principle, meaning one player has a strategy to force a win or draw assuming optimal play; however, chess's vast complexity, estimated at approximately 10^{120} possible game sequences by in 1950, renders full computation infeasible with current technology. Tic-tac-toe, played on a 3x3 grid, serves as a simpler illustration of perfect information, with players alternating marks and full knowledge of the board at every turn. reveals that optimal play always results in a draw, as the second player can counter any first-player advantage. There are exactly 255,168 possible distinct games under these rules, accounting for early terminations upon victory. , an impartial combinatorial game involving heaps of objects where players remove any number from a single heap, maintains perfect information through full of all heap sizes. The winning relies on the minimum excludant (mex) function applied to the nimbers of individual heaps, equivalent to the Sprague-Grundy theorem, allowing the first player to secure victory from non-zero positions by balancing the overall nim-sum to zero. Go represents a larger-scale perfect information game on a 19x19 board, where players place stones to control territory, with all moves visible and no hidden elements. Its immense state space, approximately 10^{170} possible configurations, underscores the challenges of perfect information games despite theoretical solvability. This complexity has driven AI advancements, such as DeepMind's , which mastered the game through and tree search in 2016.

Real-World and Economic Applications

In , the English ascending serves as a practical mechanism that approximates perfect information by making bids publicly observable, allowing participants to update their strategies based on others' actions and ultimately yielding outcomes equivalent to a second-price sealed-bid auction under independent private values. This public revelation of bidding behavior during the ascending process conveys valuable signals about valuations, reducing and promoting efficiency in , as demonstrated in analyses of competitive bidding environments. Such auctions are widely applied in spectrum sales and , where transparency fosters truthful bidding and maximizes seller revenue without risks inherent in private formats. In economic contexts involving principal-agent relationships, perfect information through full monitoring enables effective enforcement, particularly in settings like piece-rate compensation where output is directly observable and tied to pay, thereby minimizing agent shirking and aligning with principal goals. Under such conditions, the principal can verify effort levels without moral hazard distortions, as the agent's actions are completely transparent, allowing for optimal schemes that eliminate agency costs associated with hidden effort. This approach is evident in labor markets, such as or , where verifiable performance metrics ensure productivity without the need for costly beyond the output linkage itself. Legal negotiations often embody perfect information when parties fully disclose , resembling the sequential offer structure in the Rubinstein bargaining model, where alternating proposals under complete knowledge lead to immediate perfect equilibria that efficiently divide surplus based on and discount factors. In this framework, with no informational asymmetries, negotiators converge on a unique outcome that reflects their relative , facilitating swift settlements in litigation or contract disputes. Applications include plea bargaining or settlement talks in civil law, where mandatory evidence sharing—akin to the model's transparency—prevents prolonged haggling and promotes Pareto-efficient resolutions. In and , path-planning algorithms like A* leverage perfect information about the environment to compute optimal trajectories from start to goal states, assuming a fully known of obstacles and costs for efficient navigation. By combining actual path costs with estimates, A* guarantees the shortest path in static, deterministic settings, making it foundational for robotic applications such as warehouse automation or autonomous vehicles operating in pre-mapped areas. This reliance on complete environmental knowledge underscores its utility in controlled domains, where real-time updates are unnecessary, enabling high-precision movements without overhead.

Implications

Strategic Decision-Making

In perfect information games, enables players to strategically anticipate opponents' responses by working backwards from terminal nodes in the game tree, ensuring that each decision accounts for the full observable history of play. This process leads to precommitment effects, where early movers effectively bind future actions based on rational foresight, as players recognize that subsequent choices will be optimal given the available. For instance, in sequential decision settings, the ability to foresee and react to every possible path eliminates surprises, fostering decisions that align with long-term equilibrium paths. The (SPE) emerges as the cornerstone solution concept for perfect information games, refining Nash equilibria by requiring sequential rationality in every —subsets of the game starting from any decision node. Introduced by , SPE eliminates non-credible threats or promises that would not be executed off the equilibrium path, as full observability ensures players can verify and respond to deviations immediately. This uniqueness in perfect information settings contrasts with information games, where multiple equilibria may persist due to hidden actions, allowing SPE to pinpoint the outcome where fully unravels the strategy profile. Full in perfect information games enhances deterrence and commitment mechanisms, as players can credibly signal intentions through actions, thereby reducing the scope for bluffing that plagues imperfect information environments. When a player commits to a course of action early, subsequent players, seeing the entire history, rationally assess its credibility without uncertainty, enabling effective deterrence of undesirable moves—such as entry in sequential market games—via threats that are enforceable due to the game's . This strengthens commitment power, as deviations are immediately detectable and punishable, leading to more stable strategic interactions compared to settings where allows empty threats to influence outcomes. Despite these theoretical advantages, human players in perfect information games often deviate from or SPE due to , where cognitive limitations prevent exhaustive computation of optimal strategies. Herbert Simon's concept of —settling for satisfactory rather than maximally optimal decisions—explains these suboptimal choices, as individuals face constraints in information processing, time, and computational capacity, even when all moves are fully visible. Experimental evidence shows that players frequently ignore distant implications, opting for heuristic-based decisions that yield good-enough results but fall short of theoretical equilibria, highlighting the gap between idealized rationality and practical play.

Broader Theoretical Impacts

Perfect information serves as a foundational element in the analysis of extensive-form games, enabling the decomposition of complex strategic interactions into manageable subgames. This structure, formalized by Kuhn in his seminal 1953 paper, represents sequential decision-making through game trees where players observe all prior actions, contrasting with the simultaneous-move limitations of normal-form games. By allowing such decomposition, perfect information facilitates the application of , which iteratively solves subgames starting from terminal nodes, thereby advancing solution concepts like introduced by Selten in 1965. This equilibrium refinement ensures credibility across all subgames, providing a more robust framework for predicting outcomes in dynamic settings than Nash equilibria alone. In , the presence of perfect information significantly simplifies the study of , particularly in applications such as voting systems and . Without private information to conceal, designers can directly implement socially optimal outcomes, bypassing the need for intricate principles or Bayesian incentive constraints that dominate incomplete information environments. For instance, ex post —where truth-telling is dominant regardless of others' reports—becomes more tractable under perfect information, as transfers can be derived straightforwardly to align individual actions with collective goals, reducing the complexity of ensuring participation and efficiency. This simplification highlights perfect information's role in foundational models before extending to real-world asymmetries. Perfect information games also benchmark in and computational theory, where solving them tests the limits of decision procedures. The problem of determining a winning strategy in finite two-player perfect information games is , as established by in 1978 through reductions from known hard problems like quantified formulas, implying that no polynomial-time algorithm exists unless . This complexity underscores the theoretical challenges in AI, influencing developments in heuristic search, alpha-beta pruning, and parallel computation for games like chess, while serving as a baseline for evaluating solvers in broader contexts. Critiques of the perfect information assumption emphasize its limited realism, prompting extensions in robust to address without relying on specific probability distributions. Bergemann and Schlag's framework introduces distribution-free equilibria that bound worst-case deviations from payoffs, mitigating the fragility of traditional models to misspecified beliefs and inspiring ambiguity-averse solutions in economic design. In , this assumption similarly drives refinements to signaling models, where perfect information precludes , leading to analyses of honest communication under informational asymmetries, as explored in multi-sender-receiver systems that achieve perfect state revelation through signal combinations. These extensions highlight perfect information's theoretical purity while fueling interdisciplinary advances in handling real-world opacity.

References

  1. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/14-12-economic-applications-of-game-theory-fall-2012/b90ef0b930888cc7a1828d5eaf91f5c9_MIT14_12F12_chapter3.pdf
  2. http://web.stanford.edu/~rjohari/teaching/notes/246_lecture8_2007.pdf
  3. https://oyc.yale.edu/economics/econ-159/lecture-15
  4. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/14-12-economic-applications-of-game-theory-fall-2012/4b4412575dc74593c9d9c59e94427b69_MIT14_12F12_chapter9.pdf
  5. https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/peck.33/Econ601/Econ601L10.pdf
  6. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/14-12-economic-applications-of-game-theory-fall-2012/114453d67d6fd1a1d72ecedb29bd88ef_MIT14_12F12_chapter11.pdf
  7. https://scholarship.haverford.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=sociology_facpubs
  8. https://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/sf2972/2015/lecture5_2015.pdf
  9. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/
  10. https://www2.math.upenn.edu/~ted/210F10/References/GameTheory/Chapter3copy.pdf
  11. https://iep.utm.edu/game-th/
  12. https://people.math.harvard.edu/~elkies/FS23j.03/zermelo.pdf
  13. https://home.uchicago.edu/~rmyerson/research/boreltalk.pdf
  14. https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~y328yu/classics/vonNeumann.pdf
  15. https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1998-99/game-theory/neumann.html
  16. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691130613/theory-of-games-and-economic-behavior
  17. https://uvammm.github.io/docs/theoryofgames.pdf
  18. https://vision.unipv.it/IA1/ProgrammingaComputerforPlayingChess.pdf
  19. https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/hoteck/PAPERS/Camerer-Ho-Book.pdf
  20. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262650403/a-course-in-game-theory/
  21. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262061414/game-theory/
  22. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/basilico/files/maskin_notes_2013.pdf
  23. https://artint.info/3e/html/ArtInt3e.Ch14.S3.html
  24. https://www.cs.umd.edu/~hajiagha/474GT13/Lecture10222013.pdf
  25. https://oyc.yale.edu/economics/econ-159/lecture-18
  26. https://opencourse.inf.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2025-02/agta_-_lecture_10_-_imperfect_information_games_and_more_general_games.pdf
  27. https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/peck.33/gametheory/gameL8.pdf
  28. https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/u.endriss/teaching/game-theory/slides/gt8.pdf
  29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2118175
  30. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/16-410-principles-of-autonomy-and-decision-making-fall-2010/8fb3278245d62dd6212cf85f84fff61a_MIT16_410F10_lec24.pdf
  31. https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202508/rnoti-p858.pdf
  32. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.12252
  33. https://cp-algorithms.com/game_theory/sprague-grundy-nim.html
  34. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16961
  35. https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spr10/cos444/papers/milgrom_weber82.pdf
  36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1911865
  37. https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2020/09/advanced-economicsciencesprize2020.pdf
  38. https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/holmstrom-lecture.pdf
  39. https://idv.sinica.edu.tw/kongpin/teaching/contract/holmstrom%281982%29.pdf
  40. https://arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/papers/11.pdf
  41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1912531
  42. https://www.nber.org/reporter/2020number4/empirical-analysis-bargaining
  43. https://ai.stanford.edu/~nilsson/OnlinePubs-Nils/PublishedPapers/astar.pdf
  44. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~motionplanning/lecture/AppH-astar-dstar_howie.pdf
  45. https://eng.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Mechanical_Engineering/Introduction_to_Autonomous_Robots_%28Correll%29/04%253A_Path_Planning/4.02%253A_Path-Planning_Algorithms
  46. http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/raumann/documents/BackwardInduction.pdf
  47. https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/selten-lecture.pdf
  48. https://academic.oup.com/book/26562/chapter/195176905
  49. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bounded-rationality/
  50. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2817&context=cowles-discussion-paper-series
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022000078900454
  52. https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article/6/2-3/560/2295900
  53. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2008.0258
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.