DOCSLIB.ORG

A. the Questions in This Section Use the Following Stage Game: C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A. the Questions in This Section Use the Following Stage Game: C POLS 8000 Dougherty Spring 2018 Homework Assignment 4 (answers) A. The questions in this section use the following stage game: CD C -1,-1 -10,0 C 0,-10 -5,-5 1. (5 points) Suppose the game is repeated for exactly 100 finite rounds, δ = 1, and player 2 plays TFT. Which would be more rational for player 1: TFT or always defect? Why? What is the difference between the two payoffs for player 1? For 100 finite rounds with δ = 1, (TFT;TFT ) will produce 100 C's for player 1. ... Hence, U1(TFT;TFT ) = 100(−1) = −100. For player 1, (AllD,TFT) will produce 0 for t = 1 and -5 for the remaining 99 rounds. ... Hence, U1(AllD; T F T ) = 99(−5) = −495. Therefore, TFT is more rational for player 1 than AllD, because it produces a greater payoff. 2. (5 points) Compare your answer in the previous question to the subgame perfect equilibrium prediction for finite games. What is the difference be- tween the two? Why? The distinction is based on the difference between Nash Equilibrium (which can miss some sequential rationality) and subgame perfect equilibrium, which is based on antic- ipation. Although player 1 receives greater utility by playing TFT against TFT than by playing AllD against TFT, this does not change the fact that TFT would not be a rational strategy in the final period as noted by backward induction. Because it is not rational to cooperate in the last round, it's not rational to cooperate in the second to last round, and by similar reasoning anticipation makes cooperation unravel. 1 B. The questions in this section use the following infinitely repeated stage game CD C 2,2 0,3 C 3,0 1,1 3 Delayed Grim Trigger. In the delayed grim trigger, players wait one period before implementing the punishment part of the strategy. Specifically, the strategy says to choose C in period 1 and any history in which (C,C) was played in every previous period. If (C,C) is not played in period t, then choose C in period t + 1, and then play D in period t + 2 and every subsequent period. (a) (5 points) Compute the discounted sum of payoffs for two players playing (DGT, DGT) infinitely. (DGT,DGT) Player 1: C,C,C,C... Player 2: C,C,C,C... EU1(DGT; DGT ): 2 + 2δ + 2δ2 + ::: 2 (1−δ) . (b) (5 points) What is the best possible deviation for player 1? What would be the discounted sum of the payoffs for player 1 if he/she plays the deviation instead? The best deviation against the delayed grim trigger (DGT) is AllD. To see this, sup- pose Player 1 deviates in the first period. In the second period, Player 2 will still play C then plays D from period 3 onward. Given that the punishment was triggered in period 1, the best thing for Player 1 to do is to stick with D in every subsequent period. Player 1's discounted sum of payoffs from (AllD, DGT) Player 1: D,D,D,D... Player 2: C,C,D,D... EU1(AllD; DGT ): 3 + 3δ + δ2 + δ3 + ::: δ2 3 + 3δ + (1−δ) . (c) (5 points) Set up the Nash condition. In other words, solve for the values of (between 0 and 1) where (DGT, DGT) can be sustained as an equilibrium. 2 This deviation is rational if: δ2 3 + 3δ + (1−δ) > 2=(1 − δ) 3 − 3δ + 3δ − 3δ2 + δ2 > 2 1 − 2δ2 > 0 1 2 2 > δ q 1 2 > δ. Hence, (DGT,DGT) is a Nash equilibrium if δ ≥ p1=2. 4 Pavlov. In this strategy, except for the first period, the choice of action in period t + 1 depends only on the actions in the last period (period t). The strategy is to play C in the first period, then play C if the actions in the last period were (C,C) or (D,D) and to play D if the actions in the last period were either (C,D) or (D,C). Consider two possible deviations: 1) always defect or 2) play D for the first two periods and then choose C in period 3 onward. (a) (5 points) Compute the discounted sum of payoffs for two players playing (pavlov, pavlov) infinitely. (Pavlov,Pavlov) Player 1: C,C,C,C... Player 2: C,C,C,C... EU1(P avlov; P avlov): 2 + 2δ + 2δ2 + ::: 2 (1−δ) . (b) (5 points) What is the best possible deviation for player 1? What would be the discounted sum of the payoffs for player 1 if he/she plays the deviation instead? Consider the first deviation where Player 1 plays AllD. Player 1's discounted sum of payoffs from (AllD, Pavlov): Player 1: D,D,D,D... Player 2: C,D,C,D... EU1(AllD; P avlov): 3 + δ + 3δ2 + δ3 + ::: 3(1 + δ2 + δ4 + :::) + δ(1 + δ2 + δ4 + :::) Let w = δ2, then 3(1 + w + w2 + w3 + :::) + δ(1 + w + w2 + w3 + :::) 3 δ (1−w) + (1−w) 3+δ (1−δ2) . 3 Next, consider the second deviation where Player 1 plays DDthenC. Player 1's discounted sum of payoffs from (DDthenC, Pavlov) Player 1: D,D,C,C... Player 2: C,D,C,C... EU1(DDthenC; P avlov): 3 + δ + 2δ2 + 2δ3 + ::: 3 + δ + 2δ2(1 + δ + δ2 + :::) 2δ2 3 + δ + (1−δ) . (c) (5 points) Set up the Nash condition. In other words, solve for the values of (between 0 and 1) where (pavlov, pavlov) can be sustained as an equi- librium. The deviation to AllD is rational if: EU1(AllD; P avlov) > EU1(P avlov; P avlov) 3+δ 2 (1−δ2) > (1−δ) 3 − 3δ + δ − δ2 > 2 − 2δ2 1 − 2δ + δ2 > 0 (1 − δ)2 > 0 (1 − δ) > 0 1 > δ This will always be true because for infinite games we assume δ < 1. Hence, the deviation is always rational and (pavlov,pavlov) is not an equilibrium. The deviation to DDthenC is rational if: EU1(DDthenC; P avlov) > EU1(P avlov; P avlov) 2δ2 2 3 + δ + (1−δ) > (1−δ) 3 − 3δ + δ − δ2 + 2δ2 > 2 1 − 2δ + δ2 > 0 (1 − δ)2 > 0 (1 − δ) > 0 1 > δ. This will always be true because for infinite games we assume δ < 1. Hence, the deviation is always rational and (Pavlov,Pavlov) is not an equilibrium. 4 C. Median Voter Theorem 5. Several people sit on a committee (designated by letters A ... H). Each committee member has an ideal point marked by a number. Numbers represent alternatives on a single-dimension. Given this information, find the median of each committee. Medians are determined by ordering numeric values from left to right and canceling the same number of alternatives to the left as you do to the right. The median alternative is the number(s) that remain. a. D=16, E=22, C=57, G=57, F=63, B=100, A=200 median is C=G=57. b. D=16, E=22, C=25, F=63, B=100, A=200 median is the interval from 25 to 63, inclusive, C to F, or [25, 63]. c. D=16, E=22, H=22, C=25, G=57, F=63, B=100, A=200 median is the interval from 25 to 57, inclusive, C to G, or [25, 57]. 6. Assume that each committee member from the previous problem has single peaked and symmetric utility. Describe the win set for each part of question 1 assuming that the status quo equals 50 [hint: you should have a separate answer for parts a-d of the previous question. Your answer should be in a range of numbers. You “might” use >, $, or interval notation to denote your answer]. Single peaked and symmetric utility allows us to use the corollary to the median voter theorem. This corollary shows that the alternative closer to the median voter wins in pair-wise majority rule. Hence the win set is the set of alternatives closer to the median voter than the status quo is to the median voter. These are marked with vertical lines and indicated below. a. Q <–-16—22-----------------|------57-----63-|----------------------------100-----------------------200---> 50 < W(Q) < 64 (50, 64) b. Q <–-16—22–25------------|--------------63------------------------------100-----------------------200---> Note that the median is 25 to 63 inclusive. Since 50 is in the median, nothing can beat it using pair-wise majority rule. Hence, the win set is empty. c. Q <–-16—22–25-------------|----57-----63------------------------------100-----------------------200---> The median is 25 to 57 inclusive. Since Q is in the median, nothing can beat it using pair-wise majority rule. Hence, the win set is empty. 5 D. Pivotal Politics 7. Pivotal Politics. Assume a game with one chamber, filibuster pivots, a Presidential veto, two-a potential two- thirds override, which proceeds as follows. 1) the median of the sole chamber (m) proposes bill b; 2) the filibuster pivots (fL and fR) successfully filibuster or cloture is invoked; 3) if the bill passes, the President (p) signs or vetoes; and 4) if the bill is vetoed, the veto pivots (vL and vR) override or sustain (as shown in the figure to the right). All alternatives are on a single dimension without bounds. The status quo (q) is one of those alternatives. The actors are in the following locations: p = 0, vL = 5, fL = 10, m = 12, fR = 15, and vR = 17. a. (10 points) Assume the status quo q = 8. What is the policy outcome of this game in sub-game perfect equilibria? In other words, what number results? Why? Explain all of the steps in the backward induction and state the pure strategy, sub-game perfect equilibria for the game.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lecture Notes
    GRADUATE GAME THEORY LECTURE NOTES BY OMER TAMUZ California Institute of Technology 2018 Acknowledgments These lecture notes are partially adapted from Osborne and Rubinstein [29], Maschler, Solan and Zamir [23], lecture notes by Federico Echenique, and slides by Daron Acemoglu and Asu Ozdaglar. I am indebted to Seo Young (Silvia) Kim and Zhuofang Li for their help in finding and correcting many errors. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. 2 Contents 1 Extensive form games with perfect information 7 1.1 Tic-Tac-Toe ........................................ 7 1.2 The Sweet Fifteen Game ................................ 7 1.3 Chess ............................................ 7 1.4 Definition of extensive form games with perfect information ........... 10 1.5 The ultimatum game .................................. 10 1.6 Equilibria ......................................... 11 1.7 The centipede game ................................... 11 1.8 Subgames and subgame perfect equilibria ...................... 13 1.9 The dollar auction .................................... 14 1.10 Backward induction, Kuhn’s Theorem and a proof of Zermelo’s Theorem ... 15 2 Strategic form games 17 2.1 Definition ......................................... 17 2.2 Nash equilibria ...................................... 17 2.3 Classical examples .................................... 17 2.4 Dominated strategies .................................. 22 2.5 Repeated elimination of dominated strategies ................... 22 2.6 Dominant strategies ..................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperative Strategies in Groups of Strangers: an Experiment
    KRANNERT SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana Cooperative Strategies in Groups of Strangers: An Experiment By Gabriele Camera Marco Casari Maria Bigoni Paper No. 1237 Date: June, 2010 Institute for Research in the Behavioral, Economic, and Management Sciences Cooperative strategies in groups of strangers: an experiment Gabriele Camera, Marco Casari, and Maria Bigoni* 15 June 2010 * Camera: Purdue University; Casari: University of Bologna, Piazza Scaravilli 2, 40126 Bologna, Italy, Phone: +39- 051-209-8662, Fax: +39-051-209-8493, [email protected]; Bigoni: University of Bologna, Piazza Scaravilli 2, 40126 Bologna, Italy, Phone: +39-051-2098890, Fax: +39-051-0544522, [email protected]. We thank Jim Engle-Warnick, Tim Cason, Guillaume Fréchette, Hans Theo Normann, and seminar participants at the ESA in Innsbruck, IMEBE in Bilbao, University of Frankfurt, University of Bologna, University of Siena, and NYU for comments on earlier versions of the paper. This paper was completed while G. Camera was visiting the University of Siena as a Fulbright scholar. Financial support for the experiments was partially provided by Purdue’s CIBER and by the Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance. Abstract We study cooperation in four-person economies of indefinite duration. Subjects interact anonymously playing a prisoner’s dilemma. We identify and characterize the strategies employed at the aggregate and at the individual level. We find that (i) grim trigger well describes aggregate play, but not individual play; (ii) individual behavior is persistently heterogeneous; (iii) coordination on cooperative strategies does not improve with experience; (iv) systematic defection does not crowd-out systematic cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • Games with Delays. a Frankenstein Approach
    Games with Delays – A Frankenstein Approach Dietmar Berwanger and Marie van den Bogaard LSV, CNRS & ENS Cachan, France Abstract We investigate infinite games on finite graphs where the information flow is perturbed by non- deterministic signalling delays. It is known that such perturbations make synthesis problems virtually unsolvable, in the general case. On the classical model where signals are attached to states, tractable cases are rare and difficult to identify. Here, we propose a model where signals are detached from control states, and we identify a subclass on which equilibrium outcomes can be preserved, even if signals are delivered with a delay that is finitely bounded. To offset the perturbation, our solution procedure combines responses from a collection of virtual plays following an equilibrium strategy in the instant- signalling game to synthesise, in a Frankenstein manner, an equivalent equilibrium strategy for the delayed-signalling game. 1998 ACM Subject Classification F.1.2 Modes of Computation; D.4.7 Organization and Design Keywords and phrases infinite games on graphs, imperfect information, delayed monitoring, distributed synthesis 1 Introduction Appropriate behaviour of an interactive system component often depends on events gener- ated by other components. The ideal situation, in which perfect information is available across components, occurs rarely in practice – typically a component only receives signals more or less correlated with the actual events. Apart of imperfect signals generated by the system components, there are multiple other sources of uncertainty, due to actions of the system environment or to unreliable behaviour of the infrastructure connecting the compo- nents: For instance, communication channels may delay or lose signals, or deliver them in a different order than they were emitted.
    [Show full text]
  • Repeated Games
    Repeated games Felix Munoz-Garcia Strategy and Game Theory - Washington State University Repeated games are very usual in real life: 1 Treasury bill auctions (some of them are organized monthly, but some are even weekly), 2 Cournot competition is repeated over time by the same group of firms (firms simultaneously and independently decide how much to produce in every period). 3 OPEC cartel is also repeated over time. In addition, players’ interaction in a repeated game can help us rationalize cooperation... in settings where such cooperation could not be sustained should players interact only once. We will therefore show that, when the game is repeated, we can sustain: 1 Players’ cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma game, 2 Firms’ collusion: 1 Setting high prices in the Bertrand game, or 2 Reducing individual production in the Cournot game. 3 But let’s start with a more "unusual" example in which cooperation also emerged: Trench warfare in World War I. Harrington, Ch. 13 −! Trench warfare in World War I Trench warfare in World War I Despite all the killing during that war, peace would occasionally flare up as the soldiers in opposing tenches would achieve a truce. Examples: The hour of 8:00-9:00am was regarded as consecrated to "private business," No shooting during meals, No firing artillery at the enemy’s supply lines. One account in Harrington: After some shooting a German soldier shouted out "We are very sorry about that; we hope no one was hurt. It is not our fault, it is that dammed Prussian artillery" But... how was that cooperation achieved? Trench warfare in World War I We can assume that each soldier values killing the enemy, but places a greater value on not getting killed.
    [Show full text]
  • Role Assignment for Game-Theoretic Cooperation ⋆
    Role Assignment for Game-Theoretic Cooperation ? Catherine Moon and Vincent Conitzer Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA Abstract. In multiagent systems, often agents need to be assigned to different roles. Multiple aspects should be taken into account for this, such as agents' skills and constraints posed by existing assignments. In this paper, we focus on another aspect: when the agents are self- interested, careful role assignment is necessary to make cooperative be- havior an equilibrium of the repeated game. We formalize this problem and provide an easy-to-check necessary and sufficient condition for a given role assignment to induce cooperation. However, we show that finding whether such a role assignment exists is in general NP-hard. Nevertheless, we give two algorithms for solving the problem. The first is based on a mixed-integer linear program formulation. The second is based on a dynamic program, and runs in pseudopolynomial time if the number of agents is constant. However, the first algorithm is much, much faster in our experiments. 1 Introduction Role assignment is an important problem in the design of multiagent systems. When multiple agents come together to execute a plan, there is generally a natural set of roles in the plan to which the agents need to be assigned. There are, of course, many aspects to take into account in such role assignment. It may be impossible to assign certain combinations of roles to the same agent, for example due to resource constraints. Some agents may be more skilled at a given role than others. In this paper, we assume agents are interchangeable and instead consider another aspect: if the agents are self-interested, then the assignment of roles has certain game-theoretic ramifications.
    [Show full text]
  • Interactively Solving Repeated Games. a Toolbox
    Interactively Solving Repeated Games: A Toolbox Version 0.2 Sebastian Kranz* March 27, 2012 University of Cologne Abstract This paper shows how to use my free software toolbox repgames for R to analyze infinitely repeated games. Based on the results of Gold- luecke & Kranz (2012), the toolbox allows to compute the set of pure strategy public perfect equilibrium payoffs and to find optimal equilib- rium strategies for all discount factors in repeated games with perfect or imperfect public monitoring and monetary transfers. This paper explores various examples, including variants of repeated public goods games and different variants of repeated oligopolies, like oligopolies with many firms, multi-market contact or imperfect monitoring of sales. The paper also explores repeated games with infrequent external auditing and games were players can secretly manipulate signals. On the one hand the examples shall illustrate how the toolbox can be used and how our algorithms work in practice. On the other hand, the exam- ples may in themselves provide some interesting economic and game theoretic insights. *[email protected]. I want to thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through SFB-TR 15 for financial support. 1 CONTENTS 2 Contents 1 Overview 4 2 Installation of the software 5 2.1 Installing R . .5 2.2 Installing the package under Windows 32 bit . .6 2.3 Installing the package for a different operating system . .6 2.4 Running Examples . .6 2.5 Installing a text editor for R files . .7 2.6 About RStudio . .7 I Perfect Monitoring 8 3 A Simple Cournot Game 8 3.1 Initializing the game .
    [Show full text]
  • New Perspectives on Time Inconsistency
    Behavioural Macroeconomic Policy: New perspectives on time inconsistency Michelle Baddeley July 19, 2019 Abstract This paper brings together divergent approaches to time inconsistency from macroeconomic policy and behavioural economics. Developing Barro and Gordon’s models of rules, discretion and reputation, behavioural discount functions from behavioural microeconomics are embedded into Barro and Gordon’s game-theoretic analysis of temptation versus enforce- ment to construct an encompassing model, nesting combinations of time consistent and time inconsistent preferences. The analysis presented in this paper shows that, with hyperbolic/quasi-hyperbolic discounting, the enforceable range of inflation targets is narrowed. This suggests limits to the effectiveness of monetary targets, under certain conditions. The pa- per concludes with a discussion of monetary policy implications, explored specifically in the light of current macroeconomic policy debates. JEL codes: D03 E03 E52 E61 Keywords: time-inconsistency behavioural macroeconomics macroeconomic policy 1 Introduction Contrasting analyses of time inconsistency are presented in macroeconomic pol- icy and behavioural economics - the first from a rational expectations perspec- tive [12, 6, 7], and the second building on insights from behavioural economics arXiv:1907.07858v1 [econ.TH] 18 Jul 2019 about bounded rationality and its implications in terms of present bias and hyperbolic/quasi-hyperbolic discounting [13, 11, 8, 9, 18]. Given the divergent assumptions about rational choice across these two approaches, it is not so sur- prising that there have been few attempts to reconcile these different analyses of time inconsistency. This paper fills the gap by exploring the distinction between inter-personal time inconsistency (rational expectations models) and intra-personal time incon- sistency (behavioural economic models).
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperation in the Finitely Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma
    Cooperation in the Finitely Repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma Matthew Embrey Guillaume R. Fr´echette Sevgi Yuksel U. of Sussex ................................ NYU ................................... UCSB June, 2017 Abstract More than half a century after the first experiment on the finitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma, evidence on whether cooperation decreases with experience–as suggested by backward induction–remains inconclusive. This paper provides a meta-analysis of prior experimental research and reports the results of a new experiment to elucidate how coop- eration varies with the environment in this canonical game. We describe forces that a↵ect initial play (formation of cooperation) and unraveling (breakdown of cooperation). First, contrary to the backward induction prediction, the parameters of the repeated game have a significant e↵ect on initial cooperation. We identify how these parameters impact the value of cooperation–as captured by the size of the basin of attraction of Always Defect–to account for an important part of this e↵ect. Second, despite these initial di↵erences, the evolution of behavior is consistent with the unraveling logic of backward induction for all parameter combinations. Importantly, despite the seemingly contradictory results across studies, this paper establishes a systematic pattern of behavior: subjects converge to use threshold strategies that conditionally cooperate until a threshold round; and conditional on establishing cooperation, the first defection round moves earlier with experience. Sim- ulation results generated from a learning model estimated at the subject level provide insights into the long-term dynamics and the forces that slow down the unraveling of cooperation. We wish to thank the editor, anonymous referees, James Andreoni, Yoella Bereby-Meyer, Russell Cooper, Pedro Dal B´o, Douglas DeJong, Robert Forsythe, Drew Fudenberg, Daniel Friedman, P.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 19: Infinitely Repeated Games
    Lecture 19 Thursday, May 07, 2020 3:46 PM Lecture19… Lecture 19: Infinitely Repeated Games Mauricio Romero Lecture 19: Infinitely Repeated Games Introduction to Infinitely Repeated Games Lecture 19: Infinitely Repeated Games Introduction to Infinitely Repeated Games Ii'- One of the features of finitely repeated games was that if the stage game had a unique Nash equilibrium, then the only subgame perfect Nash equilibrium was the re petition of that unique stage game Nash equilibrium Iii- One of the features of finitely repeated games was that if the stage game had a unique Nash equilibrium, t hen t he only subgame perfect Nash equilibrium was the repetition of that unique stage game Nash equilibrium Iii- This happened because there was a last period from which we could induct backwards (and there was a domino effect!) Iii- One of the features of finitely repeated games was that if the stage game had a unique Nash equilibrium, t hen t he only subgame perfect Nash equilibrium was the repetition of that unique stage game Nash equilibrium Iii- This happened because there wa s a last period from whi ch we could induct backwards (and t here was a domino effect!) Iii- When the game is instead ~ted, this argument no longer applies since there is no such thing as a last period Iii- Lets first define what an infinitely repeated game is .,_ Lets first define what an infinitely repeated game is Iii- We start with a stage game whose utilities are given by u1 . u2 .. ... Un Iii- Lets first define what an infinitely repeated game is Iii- We start with a stage game whose utilities are given by u1.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Theory Field Exam, August 2013
    Theory Field Examination Behavioral economics (219A) Aug. 2013 Problem 1. Suppose that Jay (“J”)will live for T = 3 periods (periods 1, 2, and 3). In each of these three periods he chooses whether to consume sugary drinks, at = 1; or not to consume sugary drinks, at = 0: Sugary drinks are addictive, and J (who can get such drinks for free and has no other source of pleasure or displeasure in life) has preferences in each of periods 1, 2, and 3 of the form: ut(at = 0 at 1 = 0) = 0 j ut(at = 1 at 1 = 0) = 1 j ut(at = 0 at 1 = 1) = j 1 ut(at = 1 at 1 = 1) = 1 j These preferences capture the notion that consuming in the previous period makes J addicted: it means he gets less utility from continuing to consume sugary drinks than he does from consuming for the …rst time –he no longer gets the burst of pleasure and even gets a “hangover” – , but withdrawing is very unpleasant. J dies at the beginning of Period 4, and his utility from that point on doesn’tdepend on what he does in his lifetime. Importantly, assume that a0 = 0 in all parts below: J is born unaddicted. Suppose that J has (quasi-)hyperbolic discounting preferences with < 1 and = 1. J might be either sophisticated or naive. For all questions below, don’tworry about specifying behavior for any knife-edge values of that makes J indi¤erent among choices in any contingency. a) What will J do in Period 3, as a function of , whether he is sophisticated or naive, and whether he enters the period having chosen a2 = 0 or a2 = 1 in the previous period? Brie‡y give an intuition for you answer.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Game Theory: a Renaissance
    games Review Evolutionary Game Theory: A Renaissance Jonathan Newton ID Institute of Economic Research, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan; [email protected] Received: 23 April 2018; Accepted: 15 May 2018; Published: 24 May 2018 Abstract: Economic agents are not always rational or farsighted and can make decisions according to simple behavioral rules that vary according to situation and can be studied using the tools of evolutionary game theory. Furthermore, such behavioral rules are themselves subject to evolutionary forces. Paying particular attention to the work of young researchers, this essay surveys the progress made over the last decade towards understanding these phenomena, and discusses open research topics of importance to economics and the broader social sciences. Keywords: evolution; game theory; dynamics; agency; assortativity; culture; distributed systems JEL Classification: C73 Table of contents 1 Introduction p. 2 Shadow of Nash Equilibrium Renaissance Structure of the Survey · · 2 Agency—Who Makes Decisions? p. 3 Methodology Implications Evolution of Collective Agency Links between Individual & · · · Collective Agency 3 Assortativity—With Whom Does Interaction Occur? p. 10 Assortativity & Preferences Evolution of Assortativity Generalized Matching Conditional · · · Dissociation Network Formation · 4 Evolution of Behavior p. 17 Traits Conventions—Culture in Society Culture in Individuals Culture in Individuals · · · & Society 5 Economic Applications p. 29 Macroeconomics, Market Selection & Finance Industrial Organization · 6 The Evolutionary Nash Program p. 30 Recontracting & Nash Demand Games TU Matching NTU Matching Bargaining Solutions & · · · Coordination Games 7 Behavioral Dynamics p. 36 Reinforcement Learning Imitation Best Experienced Payoff Dynamics Best & Better Response · · · Continuous Strategy Sets Completely Uncoupled · · 8 General Methodology p. 44 Perturbed Dynamics Further Stability Results Further Convergence Results Distributed · · · control Software and Simulations · 9 Empirics p.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Game Theory
    Publicly•available solutions for AN INTRODUCTION TO GAME THEORY Publicly•available solutions for AN INTRODUCTION TO GAME THEORY MARTIN J. OSBORNE University of Toronto Copyright © 2012 by Martin J. Osborne All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Martin J. Osborne. This manual was typeset by the author, who is greatly indebted to Donald Knuth (TEX), Leslie Lamport (LATEX), Diego Puga (mathpazo), Christian Schenk (MiKTEX), Ed Sznyter (ppctr), Timothy van Zandt (PSTricks), and others, for generously making superlative software freely available. The main font is 10pt Palatino. Version 6: 2012-4-7 Contents Preface xi 1 Introduction 1 Exercise 5.3 (Altruistic preferences) 1 Exercise 6.1 (Alternative representations of preferences) 1 2 Nash Equilibrium 3 Exercise 16.1 (Working on a joint project) 3 Exercise 17.1 (Games equivalent to the Prisoner’s Dilemma) 3 Exercise 20.1 (Games without conflict) 3 Exercise 31.1 (Extension of the Stag Hunt) 4 Exercise 34.1 (Guessing two-thirds of the average) 4 Exercise 34.3 (Choosing a route) 5 Exercise 37.1 (Finding Nash equilibria using best response functions) 6 Exercise 38.1 (Constructing best response functions) 6 Exercise 38.2 (Dividing money) 7 Exercise 41.1 (Strict and nonstrict Nash equilibria) 7 Exercise 47.1 (Strict equilibria and dominated actions) 8 Exercise 47.2 (Nash equilibrium and weakly dominated
    [Show full text]