Game Theory: Global Games. Christoph Schottmüller

Similar documents
Global Games and Illiquidity

Global Games and Illiquidity

Economics 171: Final Exam

Game Theory with Applications to Finance and Marketing, I

preferences of the individual players over these possible outcomes, typically measured by a utility or payoff function.

SI 563 Homework 3 Oct 5, Determine the set of rationalizable strategies for each of the following games. a) X Y X Y Z

Speculative Attacks and the Theory of Global Games

ECON 803: MICROECONOMIC THEORY II Arthur J. Robson Fall 2016 Assignment 9 (due in class on November 22)

6.254 : Game Theory with Engineering Applications Lecture 3: Strategic Form Games - Solution Concepts

In the Name of God. Sharif University of Technology. Microeconomics 2. Graduate School of Management and Economics. Dr. S.

M.Phil. Game theory: Problem set II. These problems are designed for discussions in the classes of Week 8 of Michaelmas term. 1

The Ohio State University Department of Economics Second Midterm Examination Answers

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY. Department of Economics. January Written Portion of the Comprehensive Examination for

Math 152: Applicable Mathematics and Computing

Solution to Tutorial 1

Introduction to Game Theory

Game Theory. Analyzing Games: From Optimality to Equilibrium. Manar Mohaisen Department of EEC Engineering

UC Berkeley Haas School of Business Game Theory (EMBA 296 & EWMBA 211) Summer 2016

Financial Fragility A Global-Games Approach Itay Goldstein Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

MIDTERM ANSWER KEY GAME THEORY, ECON 395

Introduction to Industrial Organization Professor: Caixia Shen Fall 2014 Lecture Note 5 Games and Strategy (Ch. 4)

Now we return to simultaneous-move games. We resolve the issue of non-existence of Nash equilibrium. in pure strategies through intentional mixing.

Game Theory Notes: Examples of Games with Dominant Strategy Equilibrium or Nash Equilibrium

Rationalizable Strategies

ECONS 424 STRATEGY AND GAME THEORY HANDOUT ON PERFECT BAYESIAN EQUILIBRIUM- III Semi-Separating equilibrium

1 x i c i if x 1 +x 2 > 0 u i (x 1,x 2 ) = 0 if x 1 +x 2 = 0

Solution to Tutorial /2013 Semester I MA4264 Game Theory

Exercises Solutions: Game Theory

Ph.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program June 2017

Game Theory Problem Set 4 Solutions

Lecture 1: Normal Form Games: Refinements and Correlated Equilibrium

Simon Fraser University Fall Econ 302 D200 Final Exam Solution Instructor: Songzi Du Wednesday December 16, 2015, 8:30 11:30 AM

University of Hong Kong

Out of equilibrium beliefs and Refinements of PBE

Today. Applications of NE and SPNE Auctions English Auction Second-Price Sealed-Bid Auction First-Price Sealed-Bid Auction

CS711: Introduction to Game Theory and Mechanism Design

Test 1. ECON3161, Game Theory. Tuesday, September 25 th

PAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV

Microeconomics II. CIDE, MsC Economics. List of Problems

Game Theory. Important Instructions

MA200.2 Game Theory II, LSE

Basic Game-Theoretic Concepts. Game in strategic form has following elements. Player set N. (Pure) strategy set for player i, S i.

Corporate Control. Itay Goldstein. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

CUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications Final Exam Ronaldo Carpio Jan. 13, 2015

The Ohio State University Department of Economics Econ 601 Prof. James Peck Extra Practice Problems Answers (for final)

Econ 618: Topic 11 Introduction to Coalitional Games

Introduction to Game Theory

Not 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.

ECO 5341 (Section 2) Spring 2016 Midterm March 24th 2016 Total Points: 100

Economics 502 April 3, 2008

Simon Fraser University Spring 2014

ECON 459 Game Theory. Lecture Notes Auctions. Luca Anderlini Spring 2017

Games of Incomplete Information ( 資訊不全賽局 ) Games of Incomplete Information

Best-Reply Sets. Jonathan Weinstein Washington University in St. Louis. This version: May 2015

MS&E 246: Lecture 5 Efficiency and fairness. Ramesh Johari

The Nash equilibrium of the stage game is (D, R), giving payoffs (0, 0). Consider the trigger strategies:

Iterated Dominance and Nash Equilibrium

Sequential Rationality and Weak Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium

HW Consider the following game:

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.

PAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV. If any mistakes or typos are spotted, kindly communicate them to

Impact of Imperfect Information on the Optimal Exercise Strategy for Warrants

Economics 109 Practice Problems 1, Vincent Crawford, Spring 2002

Oligopoly Games and Voting Games. Cournot s Model of Quantity Competition:

In reality; some cases of prisoner s dilemma end in cooperation. Game Theory Dr. F. Fatemi Page 219

Spring 2017 Final Exam

Exercises Solutions: Oligopoly

Common Knowledge AND Global Games

Problem 3 Solutions. l 3 r, 1

Repeated Games with Perfect Monitoring

MA200.2 Game Theory II, LSE

10.1 Elimination of strictly dominated strategies

Strategies and Nash Equilibrium. A Whirlwind Tour of Game Theory

Microeconomic Theory II Spring 2016 Final Exam Solutions

CS711 Game Theory and Mechanism Design

In the Name of God. Sharif University of Technology. Graduate School of Management and Economics

Chapter 3. Dynamic discrete games and auctions: an introduction

GAME THEORY. Department of Economics, MIT, Follow Muhamet s slides. We need the following result for future reference.

Game theory and applications: Lecture 1

Player 2 H T T -1,1 1, -1

Preliminary Notions in Game Theory

March 30, Why do economists (and increasingly, engineers and computer scientists) study auctions?

ECE 586GT: Problem Set 1: Problems and Solutions Analysis of static games

Duopoly models Multistage games with observed actions Subgame perfect equilibrium Extensive form of a game Two-stage prisoner s dilemma

Agenda. Game Theory Matrix Form of a Game Dominant Strategy and Dominated Strategy Nash Equilibrium Game Trees Subgame Perfection

Mixed Strategies. Samuel Alizon and Daniel Cownden February 4, 2009

Microeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions Exam date: August 7, 2017

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.

An introduction on game theory for wireless networking [1]

General Examination in Microeconomic Theory SPRING 2014

Elements of Economic Analysis II Lecture XI: Oligopoly: Cournot and Bertrand Competition

Problem Set 2 Answers

Sequential-move games with Nature s moves.

Ph.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program June 2015

Outline for today. Stat155 Game Theory Lecture 13: General-Sum Games. General-sum games. General-sum games. Dominated pure strategies

Microeconomic Theory May 2013 Applied Economics. Ph.D. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION MICROECONOMIC THEORY. Applied Economics Graduate Program.

Problem Set 2 - SOLUTIONS

Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports

Advanced Microeconomics

Contagious Adverse Selection

Transcription:

Game Theory: Global Games Christoph Schottmüller 1 / 20

Outline 1 Global Games: Stag Hunt 2 An investment example 3 Revision questions and exercises 2 / 20

Stag Hunt Example H2 S2 H1 3,3 3,0 S1 0,3 4,4 Figure: Stag hunt two pure NE (+ 1 mixed NE) which should we predict as outcome of the game? 3 / 20

Two approaches payoff dominance risk dominance multiply the deviation losses of both players in a given equilibrium and select the equilibrium where the product is highest (here : (3 0) 2 > (4 3) 2 ) intuitively: which equilibrium is supported by a larger set of beliefs? i.e. if the other player mixes (1/2, 1/2), what do you choose? 4 / 20

Global Games: Carlsson and van Damme (1993) H2 S2 H1 x, x x, 0 S1 0, x 4, 4 state of the world x [ 1, 5] is unknown to players assume each state is equally likely (x distributed uniformly on [ 1, 5]) both players observe a private signal x i [x ε, x + ε] for some ε > 0 assume the two x i are independently drawn from a uniform distribution on [x ε, x + ε] interpretation: players are not exactly sure which game they play 5 / 20

Global Games: Carlsson and van Damme (1993) (cont.) assume ε = 0.1 you get a signal x 1 = 0.5 what do you believe about the state of the world? what do you believe about the other player s signal? which action should you take? you get signal x 1 < 0... you get a signal x 1 = 0... what is the biggest x 1 for which you play S1 for sure? 6 / 20

Global Games: Carlsson and van Damme (1993) (cont.) you get signal x 1 > 4 what do you believe about the state of the world? what do you believe about the other player s signal? which action should you take? what is the smallest x 1 for which you play H1 for sure? 7 / 20

Global Games: Carlsson and van Damme (1993) (cont.) result does not depend on ε = 0.1 but is true for any ε > 0 that is not too big if ε 0, we get a unique prediction for any stag hunt game Carlsson and van Damme show that the global game approach selects the risk dominant equilibrium in 2 2 games with two strict equilibria result does not depend on uniform distributions 8 / 20

Intermezzo: Cutoff Strategies A strategy in the global game is a function that associates an action with each signal s i (x i ) : [ 1, 5] {Hi, Si} we define a cutoff strategy with cutoff s as { Hi if x i s i s i (x i ) = Si if x i < s i 9 / 20

Intermezzo: Cutoff Strategies (cont.) if i plays a cutoff strategy with cutoff s i ( ε, 4 + ε) which cutoff strategy is a best response of j (i.e. what is the best response cutoff s j )? if j gets the signal x j = s j, he should be indifferent between Hj and Sj can j be indifferent if s i s j 2ε? can j be indifferent if s i s j + 2ε? after observing x j, what does j believe about the distribution of x i? can s j = s i be a best response? what would j think about the probability that i plays Si when receiving signal x j = s j in this case? if s i < 2, (i) should s j be above or below s i to make j indifferent? (ii) could s j > 2 make j indifferent? 10 / 20

Global Games and iterative elimination of strictly dominated strategies back to the global game: which strategies are strictly dominated? given that the other player does not play strictly dominated strategies, which of my strategies are strictly dominated? iterative elimination of dominated strategies Result Iterative elimination of strictly dominated strategies leads to a unique prediction in the global game. 11 / 20

Global Games and Knowledge if i receives signal x i, what does he know about state of the world which states j considers possible which states j thinks i considers possible... global games capture in a tractable way the idea that payoffs are not common knowledge beliefs are not common knowledge 12 / 20

An investment example Coordination problems as above are relevant in many settings 2 investors investors decide (simultaneously) whether to invest in a project or not (A i = {I, N}) investing carries a cost of 1 the project succeeds only if both invest a successfull project generates revenue of 4 which is equally split not investing in the project gives a payoff of r 13 / 20

An investment example (cont.) I N I 1, 1 1, r N r, 1 r, r Figure: Investment game for which values of r does an investor have a dominant strategy? say, both investors have the prior that r is distributed uniformly on [ 2, 2] and receive a private signal x i which is uniformly distributed on [r 0.1, r + 0.1] what is the belief of i after observing x i concerning the state r the signal of the other investor? for which values of x i is I strictly dominated by N? 14 / 20

An investment example (cont.) given that the other investor does not use dominated strategies, why is I strictly dominated by N for values of x i slightly below 1? What is the equilibrium (in cutoff strategies)? 15 / 20

Review questions What is the Stag Hunt game and what is the basic problem described by this game? What is the main game theoretic challenge in the Stag Hunt? What is a global game? What does a player know in a global game? What is common knowledge? How does the global game approach select an equilibrium? Why is it surprising that the global game approach selects a unique equilibrium? reading: Carlsson and van Damme, ECTA 93, p. 989-993; *Morris and Shin, 2000, p. 1-15; *Morris and Shin, 1998 16 / 20

Exercises Compare equilibrium selection by the global game approach with equilibrium refinement by perfect equilibrium. This exercise is about a model of speculating against a fixed exchange rate: Two players have to decide whether they want to speculate against the peg or not. If both players speculate against, the central bank is unable to defend the peg and the speculators make a profit of x. If only one player speculates against the peg, the central bank will successfully defend the peg and the speculating player receives x 1. This gives payoffs as below 17 / 20

Exercises (cont.) S N S x, x x 1, 0 N 0, x 1 0, 0 Figure: Speculating against a currency peg Each player does not know x but receives a signal x i which is uniformly distributed on [x 0.1, x + 0.1] (the two signals are independent). For which values of x is S a dominant action? For which values of x is N a dominant action? 18 / 20

Exercises (cont.) Suppose player 1 observes x 1 = 0.9. What does he believe about the distribution of x (assume that players had a uniform prior on [ 1, 2] about the true state x before observing x i )? What does he believe about the distribution of x 2? Suppose player 1 believes that player 2 plays S whenever x 2 1. What should player 1 do when observing signal x 1 = 0.9? Suppose player 1 believes that player 2 plays S whenever x 2 x 2 (and let x 2 1/2). For which values of x 1 should player 1 definitely play S himself? *What is 1 s best response? 19 / 20

Exercises (cont.) Can you find a symmetric Nash equilibrium in this game? (recall that a strategy is a function assigning an action to each signal) *Show that only cutoff strategies are optimal and that the equilibrium of the previous subquestion is the unique Nash equilibrium. Show that this NE is the unique strategy surviving iterative elimination of strictly dominated strategies. (hint: check the Morris/Shin paper for a solution) 20 / 20