• 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
A Short Tutorial on Game Theory
A Short Tutorial on Game Theory

Game Theory -- Lecture 5
Game Theory -- Lecture 5

Relational Contracts1
Relational Contracts1

... • Suppose that you and a particular engineer will play the Trust Game repeatedly, with all previous outcomes observed by both players before the next period’s Trust Game is played. • The analysis of this repeated game differs dramatically from the one-shot interaction: the engineer’s actions today m ...
a > -r
a > -r

Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection
Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection

... cate with one another before or during the game. The most sweeping (and, perhaps, historically the most frequently invoked) case for Nash equilibrium theory in such circumstances asserts that a player's strategy must be a best response to those selected by other players, because he can deduce what t ...
Chapter 13 Alternative Concepts
Chapter 13 Alternative Concepts

... placed on the preference and conversion relations. These games are used to formalize gene regulation networks and some aspects of security. Another generalization of strategic games, called graphical games, introduced in Kearns, Littman and Singh [2001]. These games stress the locality in taking de ...
How to rationalise auction sales
How to rationalise auction sales

Author`s personal copy Journal of Economic Behavior
Author`s personal copy Journal of Economic Behavior

VIII. Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly.
VIII. Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly.

this quarter`s midterm solutions - Faculty Directory | Berkeley-Haas
this quarter`s midterm solutions - Faculty Directory | Berkeley-Haas

... strategy, so without loss of generality, we can assume that the two NE in pure strategies are (T , L) and (B, R). If either player played the same strategy in both NE, she would have to have a strictly dominant strategy since we assumed no player is indifferent between any two outcomes. Therefore, ...
Target (R)
Target (R)

... The Safety Analysis. ...
Repeated Games and the Folk Theorem
Repeated Games and the Folk Theorem

Anonymizing Web Services Through a Club Mechanism
Anonymizing Web Services Through a Club Mechanism

Example John Strategy Box Ballet Box (2, 1) ← (0, 0) Marry
Example John Strategy Box Ballet Box (2, 1) ← (0, 0) Marry

... But the function g attains its maximum at a unique point, what is a contradiction. Due to symmetry, cases (iia) and (iib) can not occur. • Uniqueness. The proof is done by a contradiction resulting from the assumption that there exists another arbitration procedure Ψ satisfying Nash axioms. Since th ...
Economics for Business
Economics for Business

Slides - people.csail.mit.edu
Slides - people.csail.mit.edu

... - At a fixed point of our circuit, it must be that the (0, 0, 0) displacement vector is added to (x, y, z). - So the average displacement vector computed by our copies must be (0,0,0). Theorem: For the appropriate choice of the constant , even if the set “conspires” to output any collection of displ ...
Slideshow for Ethics and Responsibility in Business Workshops
Slideshow for Ethics and Responsibility in Business Workshops

N-Player Games
N-Player Games

... Evolutionary theory of Sex Ratios • Why do almost all mammals have essentially equal numbers of sons and daughters? • Every child that is born has exactly one mother and one father. Let C be the number of children born in the next generation. Let Nm be the number of adult males and Nf the number of ...
2 - BrainMass
2 - BrainMass

... If player 2 chooses left, the worst payoff would occur if player 1 chooses bottom: player 2’s payoff would be 0. If player 2 chooses right, the worst payoff would occur if player 1 chooses bottom: player 2’s payoff would be 1. With a maximin strategy, player 2 therefore chooses right. So under maxim ...
Multi-Agent Algorithms for Solving Graphical Games
Multi-Agent Algorithms for Solving Graphical Games

Cartels and collusion in oligopoly • Single-period non
Cartels and collusion in oligopoly • Single-period non

... • In order for qj to be NE of this subgame, require π j /(1 − δ) > π x + δ(π ∗ /(1 − δ)) (profits from cooperating exceed profits from deviating). This is satisfied if δ > 9/17. 3. Therefore, the Nash reversion specifies a best response in both of these subgames if δ > 9/17 (“high enough”). In this ...
Experimental Economics Will Foster a Renaissance of Economic
Experimental Economics Will Foster a Renaissance of Economic

... Nash equilibrium, even when such an equilibrium is the unique equilibrium of the game. The conditions under which rational agents choose subgame perfect Nash equilibria is in fact an important, but unsolved problem. This message has not filtered through to the textbooks, and hence is ignored by most ...
Notes on Extensive Form Games (
Notes on Extensive Form Games (

... So far we have restricted attention to normal form games, where a player’s strategy is just a choice of a single uncontingent action, exactly as in games of simultaneous moves. The extensive form of a game conveys more information than the strategic form since it shows a particular sequence of moves ...
MATH4321 — Game Theory Topic One: Strategies and equilibriums
MATH4321 — Game Theory Topic One: Strategies and equilibriums

... for all rows i = 1, 2, ..., n and columns j = 1, 2, ..., m. We can spot a saddle point in a matrix (if there is one) as the entry that is simultaneously the smallest in a row and largest in a column. In words, (i∗, j ∗) is a saddle point if when Player 1 deviates from row i∗, but Player 2 still play ...
108 Perspectives on Bounded Rationality by: Robert
108 Perspectives on Bounded Rationality by: Robert

... the expected number of its offspring (I use "its" on purpose, since strictly speaking, reproduction must be asexual for this to work). This increment is the payoffto each of the individuals for the encounter in question. The payoff is determined by the genetic endowment of each of the interacting in ...
< 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 16 >

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