Skip to content

The Aumann Game

The Aumann Game is a thought experiment in game theory and epistemology, based on Robert Aumann's theorem that demonstrates rational agents cannot "agree to disagree." The theorem shows that if two rational agents have common knowledge of their rationality and the fact that they disagree, they must eventually converge to the same belief.

Aumann's Agreement Theorem

Formal Statement

If two rational agents have:

  1. Common priors: They start with the same probability distribution over states of the world

  2. Common knowledge of rationality: Each knows the other is rational, each knows that each knows this, etc.

  3. Common knowledge of their posterior beliefs: Each knows what the other believes after observing evidence

Then they cannot have different posterior probabilities for the same event.

The Impossibility of Agreeing to Disagree

The theorem proves that rational disagreement with common knowledge is impossible. If Alice and Bob are both rational and both know:

  • That they're both rational

  • Each other's beliefs

  • That they disagree

Then they should update their beliefs based on the fact that another rational agent disagrees with them, leading to convergence.

The Game Structure

Setup

  1. Two players: Alice and Bob

  2. Both are perfectly rational Bayesian updaters

  3. Both have the same prior beliefs about some proposition P

  4. Each receives private information

  5. They announce their posterior beliefs publicly

  6. Process repeats until convergence

Example Scenario

Proposition: "It will rain tomorrow"

  • Initial prior: Both believe 50% chance of rain

  • Alice observes: Dark clouds forming (updates to 70%)

  • Bob observes: Barometric pressure rising (updates to 30%)

  • Public announcement: Alice says 70%, Bob says 30%

  • Rational response: Each should update based on what the other's announcement reveals about their private information

The Convergence Process

Through iterated announcements, rational agents must eventually converge because:

  1. Each announcement reveals information about private evidence

  2. Rational agents incorporate this revealed information

  3. Common knowledge of rationality prevents exploitation

  4. Process continues until no new information is revealed

Philosophical Implications

Epistemological Consequences

  • No Rational Disagreement: Persistent disagreement implies either irrationality or lack of common knowledge

  • Information Aggregation: The theorem shows how individual knowledge can be efficiently combined

  • Belief Revision: Demonstrates the importance of higher-order beliefs (beliefs about beliefs)

Real-World Complications

The theorem assumes idealized conditions rarely met in reality:

  • Perfect rationality: Humans have cognitive limitations and biases

  • Common priors: People often start with fundamentally different assumptions

  • Common knowledge: Full transparency about reasoning is rare

  • Computational limits: Real agents can't perform infinite updating

Applications and Examples

Financial Markets

Efficient Market Hypothesis Connection:

  • If all traders were perfectly rational with common knowledge, price disagreements couldn't persist

  • Actual market volatility suggests violations of Aumann conditions

  • Explains why "no trade theorems" predict rational agents shouldn't trade

Scientific Disagreement

Peer Review and Consensus:

  • Scientists with access to same data should eventually agree

  • Persistent disagreement suggests different priors or hidden information

  • Explains the importance of methodological transparency

Political Discourse

Rational Political Disagreement:

  • Persistent political disagreements suggest different fundamental values (priors)

  • Or lack of common knowledge about what information others possess

  • Or systematic irrationality in processing information

Expert Witnesses:

  • Rational experts examining same evidence should reach same conclusions

  • Disagreement between qualified experts suggests missing common knowledge conditions

  • Adversarial system may incentivize departure from pure rationality

Experimental Evidence

Laboratory Studies

Researchers have tested Aumann's theorem in controlled settings:

  • Partial Success: Subjects often converge more than chance would predict

  • Incomplete Convergence: Full convergence is rare due to cognitive limitations

  • Learning Effects: Experience with the game improves convergence rates

Field Evidence

Prediction Markets:

  • Tend toward consensus over time as predicted

  • But convergence often incomplete and temporary

  • Suggests real-world departures from Aumann conditions

Critiques and Limitations

Unrealistic Assumptions

  • Perfect Rationality: Humans are bounded rational at best

  • Infinite Cognitive Resources: Real agents can't perform unlimited calculations

  • Perfect Honesty: Agents may have incentives to misrepresent beliefs

  • Common Knowledge: Rarely achieved in practice

Alternative Explanations for Disagreement

  • Different Priors: Fundamental value differences can't be resolved through updating

  • Model Uncertainty: Disagreement about how to interpret evidence

  • Strategic Considerations: Incentives to maintain disagreement

  • Emotional Attachments: Non-rational factors affecting belief formation

Paradoxes and Extensions

The Lottery Paradox: Shows how common knowledge requirements can be problematic

Dynamic Considerations: What happens when new information arrives during the game

Multi-Agent Extensions: How the theorem applies to more than two agents

Practical Implications

Rational Discourse

The theorem suggests strategies for productive disagreement:

  1. Make reasoning transparent: Share not just conclusions but reasoning processes

  2. Seek common ground: Identify shared assumptions and values

  3. Update incrementally: Be willing to revise beliefs based on others' rational disagreement

  4. Question assumptions: Examine whether disagreement stems from different priors

Institutional Design

Organizations can leverage Aumann insights:

  • Prediction markets: Harness collective intelligence

  • Delphi methods: Structured expert consensus-building

  • Red team exercises: Systematic challenge of assumptions

  • Transparent deliberation: Make reasoning processes visible

Information Systems

Design systems that promote Aumann-style convergence:

  • Reputation systems: Reward accurate predictions

  • Structured debate: Force explicit reasoning

  • Meta-reasoning: Encourage thinking about thinking

  • Incentive alignment: Reward truth-seeking over winning

Modern Relevance

AI Alignment

  • How should AI systems handle disagreement between human experts?

  • Can we design AI systems that implement Aumann-style updating?

  • What happens when humans disagree with AI recommendations?

Social Media and Information

  • Why do people remain polarized despite access to same information?

  • How do echo chambers violate common knowledge assumptions?

  • Can platform design promote rational convergence?

Collective Intelligence

  • How can organizations better aggregate individual knowledge?

  • What institutional structures support Aumann-style updating?

  • How do we handle disagreement in democratic decision-making?

Key Takeaway

The Aumann Game reveals a fundamental tension between idealized rationality and practical human limitations. While perfect rational agents must converge in their beliefs, real-world persistence of disagreement highlights the importance of cognitive biases, different background assumptions, strategic considerations, and the difficulty of achieving true common knowledge. The theorem serves as both an aspirational goal for rational discourse and a diagnostic tool for understanding why disagreement persists.