  Game theory largely rests on the availability of cardinal utility functions.
In contrast, only ordinal preferences are elicited in fields such as matching
under preferences. The literature focuses on mechanisms with simple dominant
strategies. However, many real-world applications do not have dominant
strategies, so intensities between preferences matter when participants
determine their strategies. Even though precise information about cardinal
utilities is unavailable, some data about the likelihood of utility functions
is typically accessible. We propose to use Bayesian games to formalize
uncertainty about decision-makers utilities by viewing them as a collection of
normal-form games where uncertainty about types persist in all game stages.
Instead of searching for the Bayes-Nash equilibrium, we consider the question
of how uncertainty in utilities is reflected in uncertainty of strategic play.
We introduce $\alpha$-Rank-collections as a solution concept that extends
$\alpha$-Rank, a new solution concept for normal-form games, to Bayesian games.
This allows us to analyze the strategic play in, for example,
(non-strategyproof) matching markets, for which we do not have appropriate
solution concepts so far. $\alpha$-Rank-collections characterize a range of
strategy-profiles emerging from replicator dynamics of the game rather than
equilibrium point. We prove that $\alpha$-Rank-collections are invariant to
positive affine transformations, and that they are efficient to approximate. An
instance of the Boston mechanism is used to illustrate the new solution
concept.
