1. C. E. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors & D. Makinson (1985): On the logic of theory change: partial meet functions for contraction and revision. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, pp. 510–530, doi:10.2307/2274239.
  2. L. E. Blume, A. Brandenburger & E. Dekel (1991): Lexicographic probabilities and choice under uncertainty. Econometrica 59(1), pp. 61–79, doi:10.2307/2938240.
  3. L. E. Blume, A. Brandenburger & E. Dekel (1991): Lexicographic probabilities and equilibrium refinements. Econometrica 59(1), pp. 81–98, doi:10.2307/2938241.
  4. A. Brandenburger, A. Friedenberg & J. Keisler (2008): Admissibility in games. Econometrica 76(2), pp. 307–352, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2008.00835.x.
  5. C. F. Camerer, T.-H. Ho & J.-K. Chong (2004): A cognitive hierarchy model of games. Quarterly Journal of Economics 119, pp. 861–897, doi:10.1162/0033553041502225.
  6. E. Catonini & N. de Vito (2018): Cautious belief and iterated admissibility. Unpublished manuscript.
  7. A. Darwiche & J. Pearl (1997): On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artificial Intelligence 89(1–2), pp. 1–29, doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(96)00038-0.
  8. J. Y. Halpern (2003): Reasoning About Uncertainty. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. A second edition was published in 2017..
  9. J. Y. Halpern (2010): Lexicographic probability, conditional probability, and nonstandard probability. Games and Economic Behavior 68(1), pp. 155–179, doi:10.1016/j.geb.2009.03.013.
  10. J. Y. Halpern & G. Lakemeyer (2001): Multi-agent only knowing. Journal of Logic and Computation 11(1), pp. 41–70, doi:10.1093/logcom/11.1.41.
  11. J. Y. Halpern & R. Pass (2009): A logical characterization of iterated admissibility. In: Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge: Proc. Twelfth Conference (TARK 2009), pp. 146–155, doi:10.1145/1562814.1562836.
  12. J. Y. Halpern & R. Pass (2009): A logical characterization of iterated admissibility and extensive-form rationalizability. Unpubished manuscript. A preliminary version, with the title "A logical characterization of iterated admissibility", appears in Proc. Twelfth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK), 2009, pp. 146–155..
  13. H. Katsuno & A. Mendelzon (1991): On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proc. Second International Conference (KR '91), pp. 387–394.
  14. H. J. Keisler & B.S. Lee (2015): Common assumption of rationality. Unpublished manuscript.
  15. B. S. Lee (2016): Admissibility and assumption. Journal of Economic Theory 163, pp. 42–72, doi:10.1016/j.jet.2016.01.006.
  16. H. J. Levesque (1990): All I know: a study in autoepistemic logic. Artificial Intelligence 42(3), pp. 263–309, doi:10.1016/0004-3702(90)90056-6.
  17. K.C. Lo (1999): Nash equilibrium without mutual knowledge of rationality. Economic Theory 14(3), pp. 621–633, doi:10.1007/s001990050344.
  18. D. G. Pearce (1984): Rationalizable strategic behavior and the problem of perfection. Econometrica 52(4), pp. 1029–1050, doi:10.2307/1911197.
  19. A. Perea (2012): Epistemic Game Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., doi:10.1017/CBO9780511844072.
  20. L. Samuelson (1992): Dominated strategies and common knowledge. Games and Economic Behavior 4, pp. 284–313, doi:10.1016/0899-8256(92)90020-S.
  21. D. Stahl (1995): Lexicgraphic rationalizability and iterated admissibility. Economic Letters 47, pp. 155–159, doi:10.1016/0165-1765(94)00530-F.
  22. C. Yang (2016): Weak assumption and iterative admissibility. Journal of Economic Theory 158, pp. 87–101, doi:10.1016/j.jet.2015.03.009.

Comments and questions to:
For website issues: