Au­mann’s Agree­ment Theorem

TagLast edit: 15 Sep 2020 19:57 UTC by Ruby

Aumann’s agreement theorem, roughly speaking, says that two agents acting rationally (in a certain precise sense) and with common knowledge of each other’s beliefs cannot agree to disagree. More specifically, if two people are genuine Bayesians, share common priors, and have common knowledge of each other’s current probability assignments, then they must have equal probability assignments.

Related tags and wikis: Disagreement, Modesty, Modesty argument, Aumann agreement, The Aumann Game

Highlighted Posts

External Links

See also


Au­mann-agree­ment is common

tailcalled26 Aug 2023 20:22 UTC
64 points
31 comments7 min readLW link

Prob­a­bil­ity Space & Au­mann Agreement

Wei Dai10 Dec 2009 21:57 UTC
52 points
76 comments5 min readLW link

The Modesty Argument

Eliezer Yudkowsky10 Dec 2006 21:42 UTC
56 points
40 comments10 min readLW link

Bayesian Judo

Eliezer Yudkowsky31 Jul 2007 5:53 UTC
86 points
110 comments1 min readLW link

Au­mann Agree­ment Game

abramdemski9 Oct 2015 17:14 UTC
32 points
17 comments1 min readLW link

The Au­mann’s agree­ment the­o­rem game (guess 2/​3 of the av­er­age)

[deleted]9 Jun 2009 7:29 UTC
17 points
156 comments1 min readLW link

Scott Aaron­son: Com­mon knowl­edge and Au­mann’s agree­ment theorem

gjm17 Aug 2015 8:41 UTC
23 points
4 comments1 min readLW link

Au­mann Agree­ment by Combat

roryokane5 Apr 2019 5:15 UTC
14 points
2 comments1 min readLW link

Au­mann vot­ing; or, How to vote when you’re ignorant

PhilGoetz2 Apr 2009 18:54 UTC
12 points
37 comments2 min readLW link

An ex­pla­na­tion of Au­mann’s agree­ment theorem

Tyrrell_McAllister7 Jul 2011 6:22 UTC
13 points
18 comments1 min readLW link

Au­mann’s Agree­ment Revisited

agilecaveman27 Aug 2018 6:21 UTC
4 points
1 comment7 min readLW link

Sta­tus Reg­u­la­tion and Anx­ious Underconfidence

Eliezer Yudkowsky16 Nov 2017 19:35 UTC
81 points
17 comments21 min readLW link

The Er­ror of Crowds

Eliezer Yudkowsky1 Apr 2007 21:50 UTC
32 points
13 comments4 min readLW link

The Me­chan­ics of Disagreement

Eliezer Yudkowsky10 Dec 2008 14:01 UTC
14 points
26 comments4 min readLW link

Why is the sur­pris­ingly pop­u­lar an­swer cor­rect?

Stuart_Armstrong3 Feb 2017 16:24 UTC
43 points
13 comments3 min readLW link

Fun­da­men­tal Uncer­tainty: Chap­ter 3 - Why don’t we agree on what’s right?

Gordon Seidoh Worley25 Jun 2022 17:50 UTC
27 points
21 comments14 min readLW link

Hash­ing out long-stand­ing dis­agree­ments seems low-value to me

So8res16 Feb 2023 6:20 UTC
130 points
34 comments4 min readLW link

[Question] Trans­fer­ring cre­dence with­out trans­fer­ring ev­i­dence?

Kaarel4 Feb 2022 8:11 UTC
11 points
6 comments3 min readLW link

Am­bi­guity causes conflict

Ege Erdil26 Feb 2022 16:53 UTC
24 points
9 comments8 min readLW link

Don’t Dou­ble-Crux With Suicide Rock

Zack_M_Davis1 Jan 2020 19:02 UTC
81 points
30 comments2 min readLW link

Dangers of deference

TsviBT8 Jan 2023 14:36 UTC
55 points
5 comments2 min readLW link

[Question] What is a dis­agree­ment you have around AI safety?

tailcalled12 Jan 2023 16:58 UTC
16 points
7 comments1 min readLW link

A New Re­sponse To New­comb’s Paradox

Daniel Birnbaum15 Apr 2024 20:38 UTC
0 points
5 comments1 min readLW link

[Question] How to build com­mon knowl­edge of ra­tio­nal­ity and hon­esty?

MikkW21 Feb 2021 6:07 UTC
5 points
3 comments1 min readLW link