• Study Resource
  • Explore Categories
    • Arts & Humanities
    • Business
    • Engineering & Technology
    • Foreign Language
    • History
    • Math
    • Science
    • Social Science

    Top subcategories

    • Advanced Math
    • Algebra
    • Basic Math
    • Calculus
    • Geometry
    • Linear Algebra
    • Pre-Algebra
    • Pre-Calculus
    • Statistics And Probability
    • Trigonometry
    • other →

    Top subcategories

    • Astronomy
    • Astrophysics
    • Biology
    • Chemistry
    • Earth Science
    • Environmental Science
    • Health Science
    • Physics
    • other →

    Top subcategories

    • Anthropology
    • Law
    • Political Science
    • Psychology
    • Sociology
    • other →

    Top subcategories

    • Accounting
    • Economics
    • Finance
    • Management
    • other →

    Top subcategories

    • Aerospace Engineering
    • Bioengineering
    • Chemical Engineering
    • Civil Engineering
    • Computer Science
    • Electrical Engineering
    • Industrial Engineering
    • Mechanical Engineering
    • Web Design
    • other →

    Top subcategories

    • Architecture
    • Communications
    • English
    • Gender Studies
    • Music
    • Performing Arts
    • Philosophy
    • Religious Studies
    • Writing
    • other →

    Top subcategories

    • Ancient History
    • European History
    • US History
    • World History
    • other →

    Top subcategories

    • Croatian
    • Czech
    • Finnish
    • Greek
    • Hindi
    • Japanese
    • Korean
    • Persian
    • Swedish
    • Turkish
    • other →
 
Profile Documents Logout
Upload
CHT. 5 DATABASE MANAGEMENT
CHT. 5 DATABASE MANAGEMENT

... row strategies A and B: If A has a better (larger) payoff than B for any column strategy, then B is dominated by A.  For column strategies X and Y: if X has a better (smaller) payoff than Y for any row strategy, then Y is dominated by X.  A dominated decision can be removed from the payoff table t ...
Lecture 3: Continuous Congestion Games 1 Review: Atomic
Lecture 3: Continuous Congestion Games 1 Review: Atomic

Lecture 7: Game theory
Lecture 7: Game theory

mixed strategy: p ^ i - Computer and Information Science
mixed strategy: p ^ i - Computer and Information Science

Kin selection and Evolution of Sympathy
Kin selection and Evolution of Sympathy

... • Selection is for utility and sympathy, not strategies (as in Alger-Weibull theory). • Individuals cannot determine sympathies of others, can only observe actions. • Mutants act as if probability that their opponent is like them is r. • Normals almost never see mutants. They act as if opponent is s ...
Planning, Learning, Prediction, and Games 4 Two–Player Zero
Planning, Learning, Prediction, and Games 4 Two–Player Zero

... that for any mixed strategy p, q of one of the players, the other player has a pure strategy that constitutes a best response. Yao’s Minimax Principle states that, for finite sets of algorithms and inputs, the best worst-case running time achievable by any randomized algorithm (the right hand side), ...
Lecture 8: (More about) Oligopoly
Lecture 8: (More about) Oligopoly

... In general, cooperative outcomes are easiest to attain when: (a) it is easy to tell when defection has taken place, (b) it is easy to tell who defected, and (c) the short-run gain is relatively small compared to the difference between the cooperative and uncooperative outcomes. The factors that make ...
Lecture 4
Lecture 4

Conflict, Bargaining, Deterrence, and Escalation
Conflict, Bargaining, Deterrence, and Escalation

Outline - people.vcu.edu
Outline - people.vcu.edu

Game Theory Zero
Game Theory Zero

Section 11 - Harvard University
Section 11 - Harvard University

... Before the allocative decision if the elite is in power, they have the possibility of transferring power forever to the citizens (democratization). Therefore the timing of the stage game with the elite in power at the start is as follows: – The elite can decide whether to democratize. – Whoever is ...
The Nash Threats Folk Theorem with Communication and
The Nash Threats Folk Theorem with Communication and

Homework 2
Homework 2

... cost is the same, she flips a coin to choose the store to buy.) (a) Compute the revenue for each firm, as a function of price vector ( ). The revenue is price times the total mass of the kids who buy from the given store. (b) Assume that each store set their own price simultaneously and try to max ...
INF-MAT3370 Linear optimization: game theory
INF-MAT3370 Linear optimization: game theory

... Theorem The game has a value, player R has a pure minmax strategy r and player K has a pure maxmin strategy s if and only if (r , s) is a saddlepoint in A. In that case the value is V = ars . Proof. (i) Assume the game has a value V , player R has a pure minmax strategy r and player K has a pure ma ...
Game Theory Lecture 2: Strategic form games and NE
Game Theory Lecture 2: Strategic form games and NE

... we call a = (ai )i∈N with ai ∈ Ai an action profile (and sometimes an outcome), i.e. each player takes one of his actions; sometimes it is convenient to denote an action profile by (ai , a−i ) A = ×i∈N Ai the set of all action profiles/outcomes each player i has a preference i over the outcomes in ...
Non-zero sum games: example: Hawk vs
Non-zero sum games: example: Hawk vs

Game Theory
Game Theory

... Simultaneous, one-shot move at making a deal. Successful negotiations lead to $600 million in surplus (to be split among the parties), failure results in a $100 million loss to the firm and a $3 million loss to the union. • Experiments suggests that, in the absence of any “history,” real players typ ...
Chap02 - Nash Equilibrium theory
Chap02 - Nash Equilibrium theory

Bayesian-Nash games ∗ Sergei Izmalkov
Bayesian-Nash games ∗ Sergei Izmalkov

... mind, a player needs only to tell the trusted party her type. If a trusted party for each type of player i follows an equilibrium strategy of that type, σ ∗i (ti ), then it is optimal to make a truthful announcement. Indeed, if player i of type ti tells the truth, she trusts the trusted party to sel ...
1 - contentextra
1 - contentextra

... profits or losses that will result from a particular economic decision made by itself and its competitors) then it will be better able to make a rational, profit-maximizing (or loss minimizing) decision based on the likely actions of its competitors. The outcome of such a situation, or game, can be ...
Nash equilibrium
Nash equilibrium

... act strategically.  Each firm knows that its profit depends not only on how much it produces but also on how much the other firms produce. ...
EXERCISE 9: GAME THEORY AND OLIGOPOLY
EXERCISE 9: GAME THEORY AND OLIGOPOLY

... There are various variants that you can play on this game:  change the payoffs while keeping the structure of a Prisoner’s Dilemma;  play it once without or with communication;  play it a fixed number of times without or with communication;  play it a random number of times without or with comm ...
Applications of Game Theory in the Computational Biology Domain
Applications of Game Theory in the Computational Biology Domain

... • The fitness of a phenotype is determined by its frequency in the population • The genetic code of a player can’t change, but their offspring can have mutated genes (and therefore a different strategy). ...
Nash flow
Nash flow

... But the more a link is used, the more is slower, and there is no central authority “optimizing” the data flow… So, why does Internet eventually work is such a ...
< 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >

Prisoner's dilemma

The prisoner's dilemma is a standard example of a game analyzed in game theory that shows why two completely ""rational"" individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so. It was originally framed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher working at RAND in 1950. Albert W. Tucker formalized the game with prison sentence rewards and named it, ""prisoner's dilemma"" (Poundstone, 1992), presenting it as follows:Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communicating with the other. The prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge. They hope to get both sentenced to a year in prison on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the prosecutors offer each prisoner a bargain. Each prisoner is given the opportunity either to: betray the other by testifying that the other committed the crime, or to cooperate with the other by remaining silent. The offer is: If A and B each betray the other, each of them serves 2 years in prison If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve 3 years in prison (and vice versa) If A and B both remain silent, both of them will only serve 1 year in prison (on the lesser charge)It is implied that the prisoners will have no opportunity to reward or punish their partner other than the prison sentences they get, and that their decision will not affect their reputation in the future. Because betraying a partner offers a greater reward than cooperating with him, all purely rational self-interested prisoners would betray the other, and so the only possible outcome for two purely rational prisoners is for them to betray each other. The interesting part of this result is that pursuing individual reward logically leads both of the prisoners to betray, when they would get a better reward if they both kept silent. In reality, humans display a systematic bias towards cooperative behavior in this and similar games, much more so than predicted by simple models of ""rational"" self-interested action. A model based on a different kind of rationality, where people forecast how the game would be played if they formed coalitions and then they maximize their forecasts, has been shown to make better predictions of the rate of cooperation in this and similar games given only the payoffs of the game.An extended ""iterated"" version of the game also exists, where the classic game is played repeatedly between the same prisoners, and consequently, both prisoners continuously have an opportunity to penalize the other for previous decisions. If the number of times the game will be played is known to the players, then (by backward induction) two classically rational players will betray each other repeatedly, for the same reasons as the single shot variant. In an infinite or unknown length game there is no fixed optimum strategy, and Prisoner's Dilemma tournaments have been held to compete and test algorithms.The prisoner's dilemma game can be used as a model for many real world situations involving cooperative behaviour. In casual usage, the label ""prisoner's dilemma"" may be applied to situations not strictly matching the formal criteria of the classic or iterative games: for instance, those in which two entities could gain important benefits from cooperating or suffer from the failure to do so, but find it merely difficult or expensive, not necessarily impossible, to coordinate their activities to achieve cooperation.
  • studyres.com © 2026
  • DMCA
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Report