Game Theory for Santa Fe
|
|
- Barbara Dorsey
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Game Theory for Santa Fe Joel August 14, 2012
2 OUTLINE 1. Definition of Game 2. Examples 3. Making Predictions 4. Extensive Forms 5. Incomplete Information in Games 6. Communication in Games 7. Design Issues
3 Taxonomy (Loose) 1. Cooperative versus Noncooperative 2. Extensive versus Normal Form 3. Perfect versus Imperfect Information 4. Incomplete versus Complete Information Today mostly: noncooperative, imperfect information
4 Game: Definition Set of players, i = 1,..., I. (Need not be finite.) Strategy set S = S 1 S I. Payoff functions u i : S R. This is normal form, non-cooperative game.
5 Comments on Strategy Set Notation s i S i is a strategy for Player i. s = (s 1,..., s I ) is a strategy profile (sometimes: outcome). s i = (s 1,..., s i 1, s i+1,..., s I ) Comments: Concept of strategy is extremely subtle and general. We ll need to extend to mixed strategies or correlated strategies replacing S by (S 1 ) (S I ) in the first case and by (S) is the second case.
6 Comments on Utility Functions Note: Player i s utility depends on s i. This is the essence of game theory. Extension to mixed or correlated strategies by linearity. There is a normative theory justifying the extension.
7 Game Theory for Social Science Start with strategic problem. Translate problem into game. Solve game. Translate solution back to motivating problem. First step is hard (finding interesting problem). Second step requires making choices. It is something of an art. Third step is both technical and philosophical. What is a solution? Fourth step is easy (although there is a tendency to exaggerate).
8 GAMES AND ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR c 1 UP 1, 1 DOWN 1, 0 Note: Matrix representation of two-player games. One row for each strategy of Player 1 (ROW). One column for each strategy of Player 2 (COLUMN). In each cell of payoff matrix the first number is ROW s payoff, the second is COLUMN s payoff. This game is a decision problem. It is trivial in the sense that R gets the same payoff no matter what he does. But C cares about R s choice of action.
9 Matching Pennies H T H 1, 1 1, 1 T 1, 1 1, 1 Players simultaneously decide whether to reveal the Head (H) or Tail (T) of a penny. If the pennies match, Row wins; if not, Column wins. Pure conflict ( zero sum ). Intuition (symmetry) suggests that each player should expect a zero payoff, but there no zeros in the payoff matrix.
10 Coordination Call Wait Call 0, 0 2, 2 Wait 2, 2 0, 0 Players receive the same payoff (no conflict of interest). Friends talk on phone. The line goes dead. They want to resume the conversation. If both try to call, they get busy signals. If neither call, then they cannot talk. Two sensible predictions.
11 Dominance Left Right Up 10, 1 2, 0 Down 5, 2 1, 100 No matter what Player 2 does, Player 1 plays his top strategy. If Column understands this, she ll play left even though that gives her no chance to get her favorite payoff.
12 Commitment Left Right Up 10, 0 6, 1 Down 8, 1 5, 0 Player 1 s strategy UP is dominant. If Column understands this, she ll play RIGHT. Player 1 would do better if he did not have the strategy UP because then Column would play LEFT and Player 1 would receive 8 instead of 6.
13 Prisoner s Dilemma Left Right Up 4, 4 0, 5 Down 5, 0 1, 1 Here both players have dominant strategies. If both play them, result is inefficient.
14 Battle of the Sexes Left Right Up 4, 1 0, 0 Down 0, 0 1, 4 Players want to coordinate, but have different views of the best place to coordinate.
15 Risk versus Efficiency Left Right Up 10, 10 0, 9 Down 9, 0 6, 6 Players want to coordinate to receive 10, but playing Up is a bad idea when opponent plays Right. Note: Row wants Column to play Left no matter what Row plans to do.
16 Matching Pennies with a Cheater HH HT TH TT H 1, 1 1, 1 1, 1 1, 1 T 1, 1 1, 1 1, 1 1, 1 Like matching pennies, but now Column can observe Row s move before deciding what to do. Note difference in strategies.
17 DEFINITIONS s i is a best response to s i if it solves max s i S i u i (s i, s i). Similarly best response to beliefs. s i is (strictly) dominated (by s i ) if for all s i u i (s i, s i) > u i (s). Strictly dominated strategies cannot be best responses. s i is weakly dominated (by s i ) if for all s i u i (s i, s i) u i (s) with strict inequality for at least one s i. s i is a (weakly) dominant strategy if it (weakly) dominates all other s i S i. Security level: max si S i min s i S i u i (s i, s i ).
18 SIGNIFICANCE Rational players avoid (strictly) dominated strategies. Security Level provides a lower bound to a player s payoffs. How do these concepts apply to examples?
19 Mixed Strategies Given any game, one can extend the game by replacing S i by (S i ) and by extending u i to the new, larger domain. An element σ i (S i ) is called a mixed strategy. s i S i σ i (s i ) = 1, σ i (s i ) 0 for all s i S i. σ i (s i ) is interpreted as the probability that Player i selects (pure) strategy s i under σ i. U i (σ) ( s S Π I i=1 σ i (s i ) ) u i (s) Expected utility justifies this.
20 Why Mix? 1. Raises security level (to 0 in matching pennies). 2. Creates uncertainty for opponents. 3. Makes Best Response Correspondence Continuous. (By linearity, all pure strategies in the support of a best response are best responses.)
21 More... 4 Increases the power of dominance: Left Right Up 10, 0 0, 10 Middle 0, 10 10, 0 Down a, 1 a, 1 Down is dominated by a pure strategy when a < 0. It is dominated by a mixed strategy when a < 5. It is not dominated (by a pure strategy) when a 0. It is dominated (by a mixed strategy) when a < 5. It is not dominated (by a pure or mixed strategy) when a 5. Unless otherwise noted from now on, strategy means mixed strategy.
22 Interpretation of Mixed Strategy Conscious Randomization. Opponent uncertain ( purification ).
23 Correlated Strategies Π I i 1 (S i) is smaller than (S) (The first looks at only product measures or independent distributions.) For example: Left Right Up.5 0 Down 0.5 (numbers are probabilities, not payoffs)
24 Implications of Correlation None for security level (linearity of payoffs) Makes it harder for a strategy to be dominated (when I > 2) Useful idea in repeated games, mechanism design, equilibrium theory.
25 Rationalizability Agents who maximize utility subject to beliefs avoid strictly dominated strategies. If a player believes her opponents maximize subject to beliefs, you can iterate the process. This leads to two closely related ideas: Iterated Deletion of Strictly Dominated Strategies and Rationalizability. The ideas are identical for two player games. In general, dominance is related to being a best response to correlated beliefs. Rationalizability is related to being a best response to (smaller set of) independent beliefs. Dominance Solvable: Iterative process terminates with one strategy profile.
26 Dominance Solvable Games 1. Are rare. 2. Linear Cournot 3. Guessing Games 4. Often do not provide good predictions (especially when many rounds of deletions are needed).
27 Equilibrium A strategy profile s is a (Nash) equilibrium if for each i, si best response to s i. The definition has two parts: 1. players best respond to beliefs; 2. beliefs are accurate. is a
28 Properties of Equilibrium 1. Nash equilibrium does not exist (in pure strategies). 2. Nash equilibrium exists (in mixed strategies); S finite. 3. Nash equilibrium is rationalizable and survives IDDS. 4. Hence dominance solvable implies unique Nash. 5. Games have multiple Nash equilibria. 6. Nash equilibria need not be efficient. 7. Nash equilibrium payoffs are at least equal to security level.
29 Existence Proof Let φ : Π i (S i ) Π i (S i ) by φ i (σ) = {σ i : σ i is a best response to σ i }. Check that φ satisfies assumptions of Kakutani s Fixed Point Theorem and that a fixed point is a Nash equilibrium.
30 Lessons of Existence Proof Depends on Expected Utility (convex valued). Can be extended to existence of pure strategy equilibria in games with continuous strategy spaces if u i strictly quasi-concave.
31 Correlated Equilibrium A probability distribution p( ) (S) is a correlated equilibrium if for all i and s i, if p(s i, s i ) > 0, then s i solves max u i (s s i i, s i )p(s i s i ). s i
32 Properties 1. Existence (includes convex hull of NE) 2. Simplicity (linear programming characterization, rather than fixed point) 3. Nice Dynamic Properties 4. Some Epistemic Foundations 5. Convenient in Repeated Games 6. Appropriate in Mechanism Design Problems 7. Justified when mediators, jointly observed signals, communication available
33 Standard Example Left Right Up 6, 6 2, 7 Down 7, 2 0, 0 Correlated equilibrium that induces distribution: Left 1 Up 3 1 Down Right
34 Comments 1. Row is willing to play Up when told because he infers that Left and Right are equally likely. 2. Outcome outside of convex hull of Nash Equilibrium payoffs. 3. NE payoffs are (7, 2), (2, 7), and (14/3, 14/3). The last comes from (2/3, 1/3) symmetric mixed equilibrium. 4. Correlation generates a better symmetric equilibrium payoff (5, 5). 5. How might players arrive at correlated outcome?
35 Two-Player Zero-Sum Games I = 2, u 1 (s) + u 2 (s) = 0 for all s S. (Example: Matching pennies.) In general, min σ i max σ i u i (σ) max σ i min u i (σ). σ i What is the importance of mixed strategies? Interpretation of LHS? Why is inequality true? Inequality is an equation for zero-sum games. Fundamental Theorem of Two-Player Zero-Sum Games.
36 Refinements Nash removes strictly dominated strategies (and iterates). What about weakly dominated strategies? Left Right Up 4, 4 0, 0 Down 0, 0 0, 0 Can we trick Nash into removing weakly dominated strategies?
37 Refinements The program of refining the set of NE has the goal of making more precise predictions.
38 General Approach Require equilibrium to be robust to trembles. Approach: Given a game Γ, a completely mixed strategy σ and ε (0, 1) Form new game Γ(σ, ε). In new game: 1. Same player set as Γ. 2. Same strategy set as Γ. 3. ũ i (s) = (1 ε)u i (s) + εu i (s i, σ i ) Require a refined equilibrium to be the limit of NE of Γ(σ, ε) as ε approaches 0 for some (trembling-hard perfect) or all (truly perfect) σ.
39 Properties (Mostly Good) 1. Existence (for perfect). 2. Non existence (for truly perfect). 3. Set-valued notion of strategic stability results non-existence problem. 4. Eliminates weakly dominated strategies. 5. Eliminates incredible threats.
40 Properties (Mostly Bad) 1. Still leaves multiple equilibria in interesting cases (coordination, signaling, repeated games). 2. Not robust in precise sense(s). 3. Strong demands on rationality of players. 4. Often provide poor predictions. 5. Strong demands on rationality of modelers (hard to compute).
41 Why Bother? The Case Against Refinements typically do not eliminate mixed equilibria in pure coordination games. Refinements do not reduce the large set of equilibria in repeated games. In generic normal-form games, pure strategy NE are strict, and satisfy standard refinements. s is a strict Nash Equilibrium if s i is unique best response to s i.
42 Why Bother? The Case For 1. Interesting dynamic games are non-generic. 2. Refinement program makes useful predictions in some settings. 3. Baseline for further analysis.
43 Dynamics 1. Eliminate Coordination Failure mixed equilibria. 2. Allow for boundedly rational agents. 3. Link to evolutionary models. 4. Some potential to distinguish between strict equilibria 5. Convergence problematic.
44 Bounded Rationality 1. Most dynamic, evolutionary arguments. 2. Quantile Response Equilibrium. 3. Level k analysis
45 Quantal-Response Equilibrium 1. Random choice, with higher probabilities on better performing strategies. 2. Logit Variation: One parameter family moving from best responding to uniform distribution over strategy space. 3. Equilibrium analysis.
46 Assessment 1. General. 2. Smoothes responses. 3. Requires more strategic sophistication than standard model. 4. Organizes observations in centipede games. 5. Tension between flawed optimization and perfect sophistication.
47 Level k Reasoning 1. Level 0 arbitrary. 2. Level k best response to belief that the population is level k Free parameters: specification of level 0, distribution of k.
48 Assessment 1. General, easier to compute than equilibria. 2. Computing best responses is still hard for a computer scientist. 3. Striking results in guessing games. 4. Good ex post fits. 5. Tension between stupid beliefs and smart optimization.
49 Other Approaches 1. Risk Dominance, Pareto Dominance (or other Harsanyi-Selten criteria) 2. New Age: I predict the equilibrium I like best. 3. Coalition (eq, Strong Nash, Renegotiation Proof)
50 Extensive Form 1. Game is: finite set of nodes: X ; actions A; players {1,....I }. 2. p : X {X }. p(x) is the immediate precedessor of x; nonempty for all but one node. x 0, the initial node is the exception. Successors of x, s(x) p 1 (x). Terminal nodes, T X have no successors. 3. α : X \ {x 0 } A is the action that leads to x. 4. Choices at x: c(x) {a A : a = α(x ) for some x s(x)}. It takes different actions to get to different nodes: x, x s(x), x x, implies α(x ) α(x ).
51 5. A partition H of X and a function H : X H. Associated with each node x is an information set H(x) H. c(x) = c(x ) if H(x) = H(x ) (otherwise one could distinguish elements in an information set). C(H) {a A : a c(x) for some x H} are the choices at H. 6. ι : H {0, 1,..., I } identifies a player to each information set. H i = {H H : i = ι(h)}. 7. ρ : H A [0, 1] such that ρ(h, a) = 0 if a / C(H) and a C(H) ρ(h, a) = 1 for all H H 0. ρ describes nature s moves. 8. u i : T R utility functions for each agent.
52 Features 1. Strategy: complete contingent plan (what to do at every information set). 2. Mixed strategy: probability distribution over pure strategies. 3. Outcome: probability distribution over terminal nodes. 4. Behavior strategy: independent probability distribution at each information set. 5. Can turn extensive game into strategic game. (And conversely) 6. Nature is a trick that can be used to incorporate incomplete information. 7. Perfect information game: all information sets are singletons. 8. Perfect Recall: formalization of no player forgets.
53 Two Classical Results 1. Perfect information games have pure strategy equilibria. 2. In games with perfect recall, any outcome induced by mixed strategies can be induced by behavior strategies.
54 Subgames Given an extensive form game, a subgame is a subset of the nodes for which the restrictions of predecessor function is still well defined; there is a unique initial node; and in which if x is in the subgame so are all nodes in H(x). (Start with an arbitrary singleton information set and include all successors. If you can do this and you hit all nodes in all successor information sets, the you have a subgame.) Subform: Same as subgame except that you can start with a non-trivial information set. (If so, then add initial move of nature.)
55 Belief-based Refinements for Extensive Games Many variations, intuitively appealing and sometimes more tractable than trembles.
56 Information 1. Extensive Form: Move by nature Information Sets 2. Normal Form Type space Θ = ΠΘi Prior on Θ. Agent i learns θ i Θ i Strategies are type contingent actions. Examples coming. Game theory handles incomplete information by reinterpreting general formulation.
57 Signaling 1. Two players, S (sender) and R (receiver) 2. Nature picks t type of sender. p(t) is probability that type is t. 3. Sender observes t, selects signal, s. 4. Receiver observes s (but not t), selects action a. 5. U i (a, t, s) payoff function. Standard application: S is worker, t is ability, s is education, R is proxy for a market that sets the wage; a is the wage. Possible preferences: U R (a, t, s) = (a t) 2 (market pays wage equal to expected ability) U S (a, t, s) = a αs 2 /t (workers like higher wages and lower signals, marginal cost of producing signal decreases with ability).
58 Spence Model Is it possible for the signal to convey information to the receiver? Answer: Maybe not. Suppose that s(t) s. The best response for the Receiver includes a(s ) = arg max EU R (a, t, s ) (prior optimal action). If one can find a(s) for s s such that U S (a (s ), t, s ) U S (a(s), t, s) for all t and s s, then there is a pooling equilibrium outcome. Finding such an a( ) is not hard in leading examples (in the labor market, let a(s) 0, so that in a putative pooling equilibrium, agents get the average wage for signal s and zero otherwise).
59 Definition of Equilibrium 1. Sender strategy: σ(t) mapping type to signal. 2. Receiver strategy: α(s) mapping signal to action. 3. Receiver belief: µ(t s) updating beliefs given signal. (σ, α, µ ) is a (weak perfect Bayesian) equilibrium if: 1. σ (t) solves max s U S (α (s), t, s) all t. 2. α (s) solves max a EU R (a, t, s)dµ(t s) all s. 3. µ derives from prior and σ using Bayes s Rule (whenever possible).
60 Single-Crossing Condition If t > t, and s > s, then U S (a, t, s ) = U S (a, t, s) implies that U S (a, t, s ) > U S (a, t, s). This is the fundamental sorting condition that arises in many applications of information economics. Geometrically it states that indifference curves in (a, s) space of different types cross at most once. Mathematically it can be thought of as a supermodularity assumption on utility. Economically, it says that higher types are more willing to use higher signals.
61 When Does Single-Crossing Fail? One Example: Cheap Talk (U S ( ) independent of s).
62 Separating Equilibrium Let BR(s, t) be the Receiver s best response to the signal s given type t: BR(s, t) solves: max a U R (a, t, s). 1. Lowest type as in complete information: s 0 solves max s U S (BR(s, 0), 0, s). Solution is s (0). 2. Next type does as well as possible constrained by lower type does not want to imitate. That is, given s (t), s (t + 1) is solution to max s U S (BR(s, t + 1), t + 1, s) subject to U S (BR(s (t), t), t, s (t)) U S (BR(s, t + 1), t, s).
63 Details 1. Can one really solve the problems in the construction? 2. I described a path of play. How do you specify complete strategies? 3. Given the strategies, are they really equilibrium strategies? The answer to (1) is, in general, no (even with single crossing). You might get a boundary solution. That is, you might have all high types sending the highest message. This can be ruled out with a boundary condition. There are many answers to (2), but the most sensible is for R to assume that signals s (s (t 1), s (t)) come from t 1 and so a (s) = BR(s, t 1). This answer raises two questions: why is s (t 1) < s (t)? why does this support the equilibrium? In both cases the answer is single crossing. The receiver best responds by definition. All we know about the sender is that the sender of type t 1 is indifferent between sending her message (s (t 1)) and the message of type t. With single-crossing, this is enough. Game Theory for Santa Fe
64 Properties of Separating Equilibria Multiplicity Pareto Ranked from the viewpoint of Sender. Good from the viewpoint of Receiver. Sensitive to support of prior. Excessive investment in signal Reflect on Value of Information in this setting.
65 Refinements Select Pareto dominating separating equilibrium
66 My presentation did not include anything that follows
67 Simple Cheap Talk S learns θ, selects a message m M and R selects an action a A. Strategies: α(a m) for R, σ(m θ) for S. Beliefs: µ(θ m) As in Spence, but preferences do not directly depend on m.
68 SIMPLE MODEL 1. One Dimensional 2. A = R, Θ = [0, 1] 3. Quadratic preferences, uniform bias: U S (a, θ) = (a θ b) 2, U R (a, θ) = (a θ) Add uniform prior to quadratic preferences to get linear-quadratic model.
69 Linear-Quadratic Special Case 1. Closed form solutions. 2. Mean a sufficient statistic for R. 3. Ex ante interests aligned: EU S = E(y θ b) 2 = E(y θ) 2 2bE(y θ) Eb 2 = EU R b 2
70 STRATEGIC ASPECTS 1. Babbling Outcome Always Exists. 2. Communication Requires Some Common Interests.
71 TAXONOMY Communication can change beliefs, actions, and payoffs. 1. Informative communication changes beliefs: µ ( m) is not constant on the equilibrium path. 2. Influential communication changes actions: α ( m) is not constant on the equilibrium path. 3. Payoff relevant communication changes R s payoff: E[U R (α (σ ), θ)] > max a A E[U R (a, θ)].
72 THREE REASONS FOR MULTIPLE EQUILIBRIA 1. Multiple responses off-the-path 2. Multiple meanings of words 3. Multiple equilibrium type-action distributions
73 I: OFF THE PATH Familiar indeterminacy. Consistent with unique equilibrium outcomes.
74 II: MEANINGS INDETERMINATE If there is an equilibrium in which you enter my office when I say come in and leave when I say goodbye, there is also an equilibrium in which you enter my office when I say goodbye and leave when I say come in. The two equilibria are equivalent in that they preserve the same relationship between types and action (and payoffs). This multiplicity is both good and bad.
75 ENDOGENOUS MEANING 1. Elegant abstraction from natural language. 2. Emphasizes that coordination failure is possible. 3. Natural language does mean something. The first two comments are strengths, the third a weakness.
76 III: Multiple Equilibrium Type-Action Distributions Common-interest games have both babbling and fully revealing equilibria. To make predictions you must resolve Indeterminacy III.
77 IMPROVING SENDER S INFORMATION HURTS Compare: If θ is uniform on [0, 1], then U S (a, θ) = (a θ.15) 2 U R (a, θ) = (a θ) 2 if S knows θ, most informative equilibrium reports whether θ <.2. if S knows only whether θ >.5, there is an equilibrium in which S reports truthfully.
78 MANY SENDERS Obtaining advice from different experts with similar information. Applications: 1. Arbitration 2. Legislative Decision Making
79 FOCUS ON FULL REVELATION More information transmission possible with multiple Senders. Full revelation possible if 1. Large enough domain (one dimensional). 2. Close preferences. 3. Unbounded domain and multiple Senders Equilibria that Approximate Full Revelation
80 Are Fully Revealing Equilibria Good Predictions? Wife wants to dine out and avoid enemy. Prefers to stay home than dine out not knowing enemy s location. Husband wants to stay at home. Prefers to dine without enemy than with enemy. Revealing equilibrium (good for wife). Pooling equilibrium (good for husband). Add more informed agents if you wish.
81 INSTITUTION DESIGN Abandon simple strategic form, study R optimal arrangements under different assumptions. Most analysis for one-dimensional, linear-quadratic example.
82 ARBITRATION Disinterested third party asks S for information and is able to commit to a decision rule. How to maximize R s utility? Delegation with constraint Sender can take her favorite action as long as it is not too large Better than cheap talk No better than babbling for sufficiently high biases
83 MEDIATION Third-party can collect information, but the Receiver retains decision-making authority and is constrained to make a best response given his information. 1. Generically better than direct cheap-talk (when mediation is informative) 2. When the largest partition has cardinality k, mediation gets you k.5 steps 3. Can be implemented with noisy channels or multiple rounds
84 NEGOTIATION Extended cheap talk. Logically (weakly) not as good as mediation, but performs as well for intermediate biases.
85 PERSUASION Sender can commit. Sender selects q(m θ): probability that the Sender uses the message m when the state is θ, which generates beliefs: and µ(θ m) = p(θ)q(m θ) θ p(θ )q(m θ ) P(m) = q(m θ)p(θ). Receiver s best response to µ: a R (µ) Maximum expected payoff for the Sender when she induces the beliefs µ is Û S (µ) = θ Θ U S (a R (µ), θ)µ(θ).
86 Only constraint, Bayesian Plausibility: µ(θ m)p(m) p(θ). (1) m M So Sender solves: max Û S (µ(m))p(m)dm subject to (??).
87 VERIFIABLE INFORMATION M consists of all subset of Θ. θ Θ can send only messages m with θ m.
88 CENTRAL RESULT 1. Unraveling from the top in monotone models. 2. Skeptical Strategy for Receiver: Assume message is worst available for S.
89 Conclusion None.
Basic Game-Theoretic Concepts. Game in strategic form has following elements. Player set N. (Pure) strategy set for player i, S i.
Basic Game-Theoretic Concepts Game in strategic form has following elements Player set N (Pure) strategy set for player i, S i. Payoff function f i for player i f i : S R, where S is product of S i s.
More informationMicroeconomics II. CIDE, MsC Economics. List of Problems
Microeconomics II CIDE, MsC Economics List of Problems 1. There are three people, Amy (A), Bart (B) and Chris (C): A and B have hats. These three people are arranged in a room so that B can see everything
More informationJanuary 26,
January 26, 2015 Exercise 9 7.c.1, 7.d.1, 7.d.2, 8.b.1, 8.b.2, 8.b.3, 8.b.4,8.b.5, 8.d.1, 8.d.2 Example 10 There are two divisions of a firm (1 and 2) that would benefit from a research project conducted
More informationEconomics 171: Final Exam
Question 1: Basic Concepts (20 points) Economics 171: Final Exam 1. Is it true that every strategy is either strictly dominated or is a dominant strategy? Explain. (5) No, some strategies are neither dominated
More informationStrategies and Nash Equilibrium. A Whirlwind Tour of Game Theory
Strategies and Nash Equilibrium A Whirlwind Tour of Game Theory (Mostly from Fudenberg & Tirole) Players choose actions, receive rewards based on their own actions and those of the other players. Example,
More informationPAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV
GAME THEORY SOLUTION SET 1 WINTER 018 PAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV Introduction For suggested solution to problem 4, last year s suggested solutions by Tsz-Ning Wong were used who I think used suggested
More informationStochastic Games and Bayesian Games
Stochastic Games and Bayesian Games CPSC 532l Lecture 10 Stochastic Games and Bayesian Games CPSC 532l Lecture 10, Slide 1 Lecture Overview 1 Recap 2 Stochastic Games 3 Bayesian Games 4 Analyzing Bayesian
More informationAdvanced Microeconomics
Advanced Microeconomics ECON5200 - Fall 2014 Introduction What you have done: - consumers maximize their utility subject to budget constraints and firms maximize their profits given technology and market
More informationSequential Rationality and Weak Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium
Sequential Rationality and Weak Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium Carlos Hurtado Department of Economics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign hrtdmrt2@illinois.edu June 16th, 2016 C. Hurtado (UIUC - Economics)
More informationMicroeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions
Microeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions 1. (45 points) Consider the following normal form game played by Bruce and Sheila: L Sheila R T 1, 0 3, 3 Bruce M 1, x 0, 0 B 0, 0 4, 1 (a) Suppose
More information6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 9: Introduction to Game Theory 1
6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 9: Introduction to Game Theory 1 Daron Acemoglu and Asu Ozdaglar MIT October 13, 2009 1 Introduction Outline Decisions, Utility Maximization Games and Strategies Best Responses
More information6.254 : Game Theory with Engineering Applications Lecture 3: Strategic Form Games - Solution Concepts
6.254 : Game Theory with Engineering Applications Lecture 3: Strategic Form Games - Solution Concepts Asu Ozdaglar MIT February 9, 2010 1 Introduction Outline Review Examples of Pure Strategy Nash Equilibria
More informationGAME THEORY. Department of Economics, MIT, Follow Muhamet s slides. We need the following result for future reference.
14.126 GAME THEORY MIHAI MANEA Department of Economics, MIT, 1. Existence and Continuity of Nash Equilibria Follow Muhamet s slides. We need the following result for future reference. Theorem 1. Suppose
More informationExtensive-Form Games with Imperfect Information
May 6, 2015 Example 2, 2 A 3, 3 C Player 1 Player 1 Up B Player 2 D 0, 0 1 0, 0 Down C Player 1 D 3, 3 Extensive-Form Games With Imperfect Information Finite No simultaneous moves: each node belongs to
More informationBest-Reply Sets. Jonathan Weinstein Washington University in St. Louis. This version: May 2015
Best-Reply Sets Jonathan Weinstein Washington University in St. Louis This version: May 2015 Introduction The best-reply correspondence of a game the mapping from beliefs over one s opponents actions to
More informationFDPE Microeconomics 3 Spring 2017 Pauli Murto TA: Tsz-Ning Wong (These solution hints are based on Julia Salmi s solution hints for Spring 2015.
FDPE Microeconomics 3 Spring 2017 Pauli Murto TA: Tsz-Ning Wong (These solution hints are based on Julia Salmi s solution hints for Spring 2015.) Hints for Problem Set 2 1. Consider a zero-sum game, where
More informationAn introduction on game theory for wireless networking [1]
An introduction on game theory for wireless networking [1] Ning Zhang 14 May, 2012 [1] Game Theory in Wireless Networks: A Tutorial 1 Roadmap 1 Introduction 2 Static games 3 Extensive-form games 4 Summary
More informationCHAPTER 9 Nash Equilibrium 1-1
. CHAPTER 9 Nash Equilibrium 1-1 Rationalizability & Strategic Uncertainty In the Battle of Sexes, uncertainty about other s strategy can lead to poor payoffs, even if both players rational Rationalizability
More informationSequential-move games with Nature s moves.
Econ 221 Fall, 2018 Li, Hao UBC CHAPTER 3. GAMES WITH SEQUENTIAL MOVES Game trees. Sequential-move games with finite number of decision notes. Sequential-move games with Nature s moves. 1 Strategies in
More informationGame Theory. Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari. Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India October 2012
Game Theory Lecture Notes By Y. Narahari Department of Computer Science and Automation Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, India October 22 COOPERATIVE GAME THEORY Correlated Strategies and Correlated
More informationFinitely repeated simultaneous move game.
Finitely repeated simultaneous move game. Consider a normal form game (simultaneous move game) Γ N which is played repeatedly for a finite (T )number of times. The normal form game which is played repeatedly
More informationIn the Name of God. Sharif University of Technology. Graduate School of Management and Economics
In the Name of God Sharif University of Technology Graduate School of Management and Economics Microeconomics (for MBA students) 44111 (1393-94 1 st term) - Group 2 Dr. S. Farshad Fatemi Game Theory Game:
More informationGame Theory: Normal Form Games
Game Theory: Normal Form Games Michael Levet June 23, 2016 1 Introduction Game Theory is a mathematical field that studies how rational agents make decisions in both competitive and cooperative situations.
More informationWeb Appendix: Proofs and extensions.
B eb Appendix: Proofs and extensions. B.1 Proofs of results about block correlated markets. This subsection provides proofs for Propositions A1, A2, A3 and A4, and the proof of Lemma A1. Proof of Proposition
More informationComparing Allocations under Asymmetric Information: Coase Theorem Revisited
Comparing Allocations under Asymmetric Information: Coase Theorem Revisited Shingo Ishiguro Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University 1-7 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan August 2002
More informationUC Berkeley Haas School of Business Game Theory (EMBA 296 & EWMBA 211) Summer 2016
UC Berkeley Haas School of Business Game Theory (EMBA 296 & EWMBA 211) Summer 2016 More on strategic games and extensive games with perfect information Block 2 Jun 11, 2017 Auctions results Histogram of
More informationRationalizable Strategies
Rationalizable Strategies Carlos Hurtado Department of Economics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign hrtdmrt2@illinois.edu Jun 1st, 2015 C. Hurtado (UIUC - Economics) Game Theory On the Agenda 1
More informationOn Existence of Equilibria. Bayesian Allocation-Mechanisms
On Existence of Equilibria in Bayesian Allocation Mechanisms Northwestern University April 23, 2014 Bayesian Allocation Mechanisms In allocation mechanisms, agents choose messages. The messages determine
More informationGAME THEORY: DYNAMIC. MICROECONOMICS Principles and Analysis Frank Cowell. Frank Cowell: Dynamic Game Theory
Prerequisites Almost essential Game Theory: Strategy and Equilibrium GAME THEORY: DYNAMIC MICROECONOMICS Principles and Analysis Frank Cowell April 2018 1 Overview Game Theory: Dynamic Mapping the temporal
More informationHW Consider the following game:
HW 1 1. Consider the following game: 2. HW 2 Suppose a parent and child play the following game, first analyzed by Becker (1974). First child takes the action, A 0, that produces income for the child,
More informationGame Theory Fall 2003
Game Theory Fall 2003 Problem Set 5 [1] Consider an infinitely repeated game with a finite number of actions for each player and a common discount factor δ. Prove that if δ is close enough to zero then
More informationG5212: Game Theory. Mark Dean. Spring 2017
G5212: Game Theory Mark Dean Spring 2017 What is Missing? So far we have formally covered Static Games of Complete Information Dynamic Games of Complete Information Static Games of Incomplete Information
More informationGame Theory for Wireless Engineers Chapter 3, 4
Game Theory for Wireless Engineers Chapter 3, 4 Zhongliang Liang ECE@Mcmaster Univ October 8, 2009 Outline Chapter 3 - Strategic Form Games - 3.1 Definition of A Strategic Form Game - 3.2 Dominated Strategies
More informationLecture 5 Leadership and Reputation
Lecture 5 Leadership and Reputation Reputations arise in situations where there is an element of repetition, and also where coordination between players is possible. One definition of leadership is that
More informationIntroduction to Multi-Agent Programming
Introduction to Multi-Agent Programming 10. Game Theory Strategic Reasoning and Acting Alexander Kleiner and Bernhard Nebel Strategic Game A strategic game G consists of a finite set N (the set of players)
More informationIterated Dominance and Nash Equilibrium
Chapter 11 Iterated Dominance and Nash Equilibrium In the previous chapter we examined simultaneous move games in which each player had a dominant strategy; the Prisoner s Dilemma game was one example.
More informationPreliminary Notions in Game Theory
Chapter 7 Preliminary Notions in Game Theory I assume that you recall the basic solution concepts, namely Nash Equilibrium, Bayesian Nash Equilibrium, Subgame-Perfect Equilibrium, and Perfect Bayesian
More informationEvaluating Strategic Forecasters. Rahul Deb with Mallesh Pai (Rice) and Maher Said (NYU Stern) Becker Friedman Theory Conference III July 22, 2017
Evaluating Strategic Forecasters Rahul Deb with Mallesh Pai (Rice) and Maher Said (NYU Stern) Becker Friedman Theory Conference III July 22, 2017 Motivation Forecasters are sought after in a variety of
More informationIn the Name of God. Sharif University of Technology. Microeconomics 2. Graduate School of Management and Economics. Dr. S.
In the Name of God Sharif University of Technology Graduate School of Management and Economics Microeconomics 2 44706 (1394-95 2 nd term) - Group 2 Dr. S. Farshad Fatemi Chapter 8: Simultaneous-Move Games
More informationIntroduction to Industrial Organization Professor: Caixia Shen Fall 2014 Lecture Note 5 Games and Strategy (Ch. 4)
Introduction to Industrial Organization Professor: Caixia Shen Fall 2014 Lecture Note 5 Games and Strategy (Ch. 4) Outline: Modeling by means of games Normal form games Dominant strategies; dominated strategies,
More informationNot 0,4 2,1. i. Show there is a perfect Bayesian equilibrium where player A chooses to play, player A chooses L, and player B chooses L.
Econ 400, Final Exam Name: There are three questions taken from the material covered so far in the course. ll questions are equally weighted. If you have a question, please raise your hand and I will come
More informationRegret Minimization and Security Strategies
Chapter 5 Regret Minimization and Security Strategies Until now we implicitly adopted a view that a Nash equilibrium is a desirable outcome of a strategic game. In this chapter we consider two alternative
More informationOutline Introduction Game Representations Reductions Solution Concepts. Game Theory. Enrico Franchi. May 19, 2010
May 19, 2010 1 Introduction Scope of Agent preferences Utility Functions 2 Game Representations Example: Game-1 Extended Form Strategic Form Equivalences 3 Reductions Best Response Domination 4 Solution
More informationYao s Minimax Principle
Complexity of algorithms The complexity of an algorithm is usually measured with respect to the size of the input, where size may for example refer to the length of a binary word describing the input,
More informationPh.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program June 2017
Ph.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program June 2017 The time limit for this exam is four hours. The exam has four sections. Each section includes two questions.
More informationIntroduction to Game Theory
Introduction to Game Theory What is a Game? A game is a formal representation of a situation in which a number of individuals interact in a setting of strategic interdependence. By that, we mean that each
More informationMicroeconomic Theory August 2013 Applied Economics. Ph.D. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION MICROECONOMIC THEORY. Applied Economics Graduate Program
Ph.D. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program August 2013 The time limit for this exam is four hours. The exam has four sections. Each section includes two questions.
More information4. Beliefs at all info sets off the equilibrium path are determined by Bayes' Rule & the players' equilibrium strategies where possible.
A. Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium B. PBE Examples C. Signaling Examples Context: A. PBE for dynamic games of incomplete information (refines BE & SPE) *PBE requires strategies to be BE for the entire game
More informationMS&E 246: Lecture 5 Efficiency and fairness. Ramesh Johari
MS&E 246: Lecture 5 Efficiency and fairness Ramesh Johari A digression In this lecture: We will use some of the insights of static game analysis to understand efficiency and fairness. Basic setup N players
More informationIntroduction to Game Theory
Introduction to Game Theory 3a. More on Normal-Form Games Dana Nau University of Maryland Nau: Game Theory 1 More Solution Concepts Last time, we talked about several solution concepts Pareto optimality
More informationMicroeconomics of Banking: Lecture 5
Microeconomics of Banking: Lecture 5 Prof. Ronaldo CARPIO Oct. 23, 2015 Administrative Stuff Homework 2 is due next week. Due to the change in material covered, I have decided to change the grading system
More informationIntroduction to game theory LECTURE 2
Introduction to game theory LECTURE 2 Jörgen Weibull February 4, 2010 Two topics today: 1. Existence of Nash equilibria (Lecture notes Chapter 10 and Appendix A) 2. Relations between equilibrium and rationality
More information6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 9: Introduction to Game Theory 1
6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 9: Introduction to Game Theory 1 Daron Acemoglu and Asu Ozdaglar MIT October 13, 2009 1 Introduction Outline Decisions, Utility Maximization Games and Strategies Best Responses
More informationAnswers to Problem Set 4
Answers to Problem Set 4 Economics 703 Spring 016 1. a) The monopolist facing no threat of entry will pick the first cost function. To see this, calculate profits with each one. With the first cost function,
More informationEcon 618 Simultaneous Move Bayesian Games
Econ 618 Simultaneous Move Bayesian Games Sunanda Roy 1 The Bayesian game environment A game of incomplete information or a Bayesian game is a game in which players do not have full information about each
More informationPh.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program August 2017
Ph.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program August 2017 The time limit for this exam is four hours. The exam has four sections. Each section includes two questions.
More information6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 10: Introduction to Game Theory 2
6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 10: Introduction to Game Theory 2 Daron Acemoglu and Asu Ozdaglar MIT October 14, 2009 1 Introduction Outline Review Examples of Pure Strategy Nash Equilibria Mixed Strategies
More informationPAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV. If any mistakes or typos are spotted, kindly communicate them to
GAME THEORY PROBLEM SET 1 WINTER 2018 PAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV Introduction If any mistakes or typos are spotted, kindly communicate them to andrey.zhukov@aalto.fi. Materials from Osborne and Rubinstein
More informationRepeated Games with Perfect Monitoring
Repeated Games with Perfect Monitoring Mihai Manea MIT Repeated Games normal-form stage game G = (N, A, u) players simultaneously play game G at time t = 0, 1,... at each date t, players observe all past
More informationMicroeconomic Theory May 2013 Applied Economics. Ph.D. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION MICROECONOMIC THEORY. Applied Economics Graduate Program.
Ph.D. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program May 2013 *********************************************** COVER SHEET ***********************************************
More informationIntroductory Microeconomics
Prof. Wolfram Elsner Faculty of Business Studies and Economics iino Institute of Institutional and Innovation Economics Introductory Microeconomics More Formal Concepts of Game Theory and Evolutionary
More informationCS 7180: Behavioral Modeling and Decision- making in AI
CS 7180: Behavioral Modeling and Decision- making in AI Algorithmic Game Theory Prof. Amy Sliva November 30, 2012 Prisoner s dilemma Two criminals are arrested, and each offered the same deal: If you defect
More informationGame Theory. Wolfgang Frimmel. Repeated Games
Game Theory Wolfgang Frimmel Repeated Games 1 / 41 Recap: SPNE The solution concept for dynamic games with complete information is the subgame perfect Nash Equilibrium (SPNE) Selten (1965): A strategy
More informationWeek 8: Basic concepts in game theory
Week 8: Basic concepts in game theory Part 1: Examples of games We introduce here the basic objects involved in game theory. To specify a game ones gives The players. The set of all possible strategies
More informationTopics in Contract Theory Lecture 1
Leonardo Felli 7 January, 2002 Topics in Contract Theory Lecture 1 Contract Theory has become only recently a subfield of Economics. As the name suggest the main object of the analysis is a contract. Therefore
More informationSignaling Games. Farhad Ghassemi
Signaling Games Farhad Ghassemi Abstract - We give an overview of signaling games and their relevant solution concept, perfect Bayesian equilibrium. We introduce an example of signaling games and analyze
More informationLecture 3 Representation of Games
ecture 3 epresentation of Games 4. Game Theory Muhamet Yildiz oad Map. Cardinal representation Expected utility theory. Quiz 3. epresentation of games in strategic and extensive forms 4. Dominance; dominant-strategy
More informationMA200.2 Game Theory II, LSE
MA200.2 Game Theory II, LSE Problem Set 1 These questions will go over basic game-theoretic concepts and some applications. homework is due during class on week 4. This [1] In this problem (see Fudenberg-Tirole
More informationECE 586BH: Problem Set 5: Problems and Solutions Multistage games, including repeated games, with observed moves
University of Illinois Spring 01 ECE 586BH: Problem Set 5: Problems and Solutions Multistage games, including repeated games, with observed moves Due: Reading: Thursday, April 11 at beginning of class
More informationStochastic Games and Bayesian Games
Stochastic Games and Bayesian Games CPSC 532L Lecture 10 Stochastic Games and Bayesian Games CPSC 532L Lecture 10, Slide 1 Lecture Overview 1 Recap 2 Stochastic Games 3 Bayesian Games Stochastic Games
More informationBeliefs and Sequential Rationality
Beliefs and Sequential Rationality A system of beliefs µ in extensive form game Γ E is a specification of a probability µ(x) [0,1] for each decision node x in Γ E such that x H µ(x) = 1 for all information
More informationMA200.2 Game Theory II, LSE
MA200.2 Game Theory II, LSE Answers to Problem Set [] In part (i), proceed as follows. Suppose that we are doing 2 s best response to. Let p be probability that player plays U. Now if player 2 chooses
More informationAdvanced Micro 1 Lecture 14: Dynamic Games Equilibrium Concepts
Advanced Micro 1 Lecture 14: Dynamic Games quilibrium Concepts Nicolas Schutz Nicolas Schutz Dynamic Games: quilibrium Concepts 1 / 79 Plan 1 Nash equilibrium and the normal form 2 Subgame-perfect equilibrium
More informationFinite Memory and Imperfect Monitoring
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Research Department Finite Memory and Imperfect Monitoring Harold L. Cole and Narayana Kocherlakota Working Paper 604 September 2000 Cole: U.C.L.A. and Federal Reserve
More informationExercises Solutions: Game Theory
Exercises Solutions: Game Theory Exercise. (U, R).. (U, L) and (D, R). 3. (D, R). 4. (U, L) and (D, R). 5. First, eliminate R as it is strictly dominated by M for player. Second, eliminate M as it is strictly
More information10.1 Elimination of strictly dominated strategies
Chapter 10 Elimination by Mixed Strategies The notions of dominance apply in particular to mixed extensions of finite strategic games. But we can also consider dominance of a pure strategy by a mixed strategy.
More informationChapter 10: Mixed strategies Nash equilibria, reaction curves and the equality of payoffs theorem
Chapter 10: Mixed strategies Nash equilibria reaction curves and the equality of payoffs theorem Nash equilibrium: The concept of Nash equilibrium can be extended in a natural manner to the mixed strategies
More informationLecture Notes on Adverse Selection and Signaling
Lecture Notes on Adverse Selection and Signaling Debasis Mishra April 5, 2010 1 Introduction In general competitive equilibrium theory, it is assumed that the characteristics of the commodities are observable
More informationRepeated Games. September 3, Definitions: Discounting, Individual Rationality. Finitely Repeated Games. Infinitely Repeated Games
Repeated Games Frédéric KOESSLER September 3, 2007 1/ Definitions: Discounting, Individual Rationality Finitely Repeated Games Infinitely Repeated Games Automaton Representation of Strategies The One-Shot
More informationFinish what s been left... CS286r Fall 08 Finish what s been left... 1
Finish what s been left... CS286r Fall 08 Finish what s been left... 1 Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium A strategy-belief pair, (σ, µ) is a perfect Bayesian equilibrium if (Beliefs) At every information set
More informationUncertainty in Equilibrium
Uncertainty in Equilibrium Larry Blume May 1, 2007 1 Introduction The state-preference approach to uncertainty of Kenneth J. Arrow (1953) and Gérard Debreu (1959) lends itself rather easily to Walrasian
More informationMarch 30, Why do economists (and increasingly, engineers and computer scientists) study auctions?
March 3, 215 Steven A. Matthews, A Technical Primer on Auction Theory I: Independent Private Values, Northwestern University CMSEMS Discussion Paper No. 196, May, 1995. This paper is posted on the course
More informationName. Answers Discussion Final Exam, Econ 171, March, 2012
Name Answers Discussion Final Exam, Econ 171, March, 2012 1) Consider the following strategic form game in which Player 1 chooses the row and Player 2 chooses the column. Both players know that this is
More informationECON 803: MICROECONOMIC THEORY II Arthur J. Robson Fall 2016 Assignment 9 (due in class on November 22)
ECON 803: MICROECONOMIC THEORY II Arthur J. Robson all 2016 Assignment 9 (due in class on November 22) 1. Critique of subgame perfection. 1 Consider the following three-player sequential game. In the first
More informationWhen does strategic information disclosure lead to perfect consumer information?
When does strategic information disclosure lead to perfect consumer information? Frédéric Koessler Régis Renault April 7, 2010 (Preliminary) Abstract A firm chooses a price and how much information to
More informationChapter 6. Game Theory
Chapter 6 Game Theory Most of the models you have encountered so far had one distinguishing feature: the economic agent, be it firm or consumer, faced a simple decision problem. Aside from the discussion
More informationG5212: Game Theory. Mark Dean. Spring 2017
G5212: Game Theory Mark Dean Spring 2017 Modelling Dynamics Up until now, our games have lacked any sort of dynamic aspect We have assumed that all players make decisions at the same time Or at least no
More informationEconomics 109 Practice Problems 1, Vincent Crawford, Spring 2002
Economics 109 Practice Problems 1, Vincent Crawford, Spring 2002 P1. Consider the following game. There are two piles of matches and two players. The game starts with Player 1 and thereafter the players
More informationm 11 m 12 Non-Zero Sum Games Matrix Form of Zero-Sum Games R&N Section 17.6
Non-Zero Sum Games R&N Section 17.6 Matrix Form of Zero-Sum Games m 11 m 12 m 21 m 22 m ij = Player A s payoff if Player A follows pure strategy i and Player B follows pure strategy j 1 Results so far
More informationCUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 12
CUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 12 Prof. Ronaldo CARPIO May 24, 2016 Announcements Homework #4 is due next week. Review of Last Lecture In extensive games with imperfect information,
More informationThe Ohio State University Department of Economics Econ 601 Prof. James Peck Extra Practice Problems Answers (for final)
The Ohio State University Department of Economics Econ 601 Prof. James Peck Extra Practice Problems Answers (for final) Watson, Chapter 15, Exercise 1(part a). Looking at the final subgame, player 1 must
More informationMATH 4321 Game Theory Solution to Homework Two
MATH 321 Game Theory Solution to Homework Two Course Instructor: Prof. Y.K. Kwok 1. (a) Suppose that an iterated dominance equilibrium s is not a Nash equilibrium, then there exists s i of some player
More informationFebruary 23, An Application in Industrial Organization
An Application in Industrial Organization February 23, 2015 One form of collusive behavior among firms is to restrict output in order to keep the price of the product high. This is a goal of the OPEC oil
More informationExtensive form games - contd
Extensive form games - contd Proposition: Every finite game of perfect information Γ E has a pure-strategy SPNE. Moreover, if no player has the same payoffs in any two terminal nodes, then there is a unique
More informationMS&E 246: Lecture 2 The basics. Ramesh Johari January 16, 2007
MS&E 246: Lecture 2 The basics Ramesh Johari January 16, 2007 Course overview (Mainly) noncooperative game theory. Noncooperative: Focus on individual players incentives (note these might lead to cooperation!)
More informationG5212: Game Theory. Mark Dean. Spring 2017
G5212: Game Theory Mark Dean Spring 2017 More on Nash Equilibrium So now we know That (almost) all games have a Nash Equilibrium in mixed strategies How to find these equilibria by calculating best responses
More informationMixed Strategies. In the previous chapters we restricted players to using pure strategies and we
6 Mixed Strategies In the previous chapters we restricted players to using pure strategies and we postponed discussing the option that a player may choose to randomize between several of his pure strategies.
More informationNotes for Section: Week 7
Economics 160 Professor Steven Tadelis Stanford University Spring Quarter, 004 Notes for Section: Week 7 Notes prepared by Paul Riskind (pnr@stanford.edu). spot errors or have questions about these notes.
More informationECE 586GT: Problem Set 1: Problems and Solutions Analysis of static games
University of Illinois Fall 2018 ECE 586GT: Problem Set 1: Problems and Solutions Analysis of static games Due: Tuesday, Sept. 11, at beginning of class Reading: Course notes, Sections 1.1-1.4 1. [A random
More informationAnswer Key: Problem Set 4
Answer Key: Problem Set 4 Econ 409 018 Fall A reminder: An equilibrium is characterized by a set of strategies. As emphasized in the class, a strategy is a complete contingency plan (for every hypothetical
More information