DOCSLIB.ORG

Maxmin and Minmax

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Maxmin and Minmax Recap Computing Mixed NE Fun Game Maxmin and Minmax Computing Nash Equilibrium; Maxmin Lecture 5 Computing Nash Equilibrium; Maxmin Lecture 5, Slide 1 Recap Computing Mixed NE Fun Game Maxmin and Minmax Lecture Overview 1 Recap 2 Computing Mixed Nash Equilibria 3 Fun Game 4 Maxmin and Minmax Computing Nash Equilibrium; Maxmin Lecture 5, Slide 2 Recap Computing Mixed NE Fun Game Maxmin and Minmax Pareto Optimality Idea: sometimes, one outcome o is at least as good for every agent as another outcome o0, and there is some agent who strictly prefers o to o0 in this case, it seems reasonable to say that o is better than o0 we say that o Pareto-dominates o0. An outcome o∗ is Pareto-optimal if there is no other outcome that Pareto-dominates it. a game can have more than one Pareto-optimal outcome every game has at least one Pareto-optimal outcome Computing Nash Equilibrium; Maxmin Lecture 5, Slide 3 Recap Computing Mixed NE Fun Game Maxmin and Minmax Best Response If you knew what everyone else was going to do, it would be easy to pick your own action Let a−i = a1; : : : ; ai−1; ai+1; : : : ; an . h i now a = (a−i; ai) ∗ Best response: ai BR(a−i) iff ∗ 2 ai Ai; ui(a ; a−i) ui(ai; a−i) 8 2 i ≥ Computing Nash Equilibrium; Maxmin Lecture 5, Slide 4 Recap Computing Mixed NE Fun Game Maxmin and Minmax Nash Equilibrium Now we return to the setting where no agent knows anything about what the others will do Idea: look for stable action profiles. a = a1; : : : ; an is a (\pure strategy") Nash equilibrium iff h i i; ai BR(a−i). 8 2 Computing Nash Equilibrium; Maxmin Lecture 5, Slide 5 Recap Computing Mixed NE Fun Game Maxmin and Minmax Mixed Strategies It would be a pretty bad idea to play any deterministic strategy in matching pennies Idea: confuse the opponent by playing randomly Define a strategy si for agent i as any probability distribution over the actions Ai. pure strategy: only one action is played with positive probability mixed strategy: more than one action is played with positive probability these actions are called the support of the mixed strategy Let the set of all strategies for i be Si Let the set of all strategy profilesbe S = S1 ::: Sn. × × Computing Nash Equilibrium; Maxmin Lecture 5, Slide 6 Recap Computing Mixed NE Fun Game Maxmin and Minmax Utility under Mixed Strategies What is your payoff if all the players follow mixed strategy profile s S? 2 We can't just read this number from the game matrix anymore: we won't always end up in the same cell Instead, use the idea of expected utility from decision theory: X ui(s) = ui(a)P r(a s) j a2A Y P r(a s) = sj(aj) j j2N Computing Nash Equilibrium; Maxmin Lecture 5, Slide 7 Recap Computing Mixed NE Fun Game Maxmin and Minmax Best Response and Nash Equilibrium Our definitions of best response and Nash equilibrium generalize from actions to strategies. Best response: ∗ ∗ s BR(s− ) iff s S ; u (s ; s− ) u (s ; s− ) i 2 i 8 i 2 i i i i ≥ i i i Nash equilibrium: s = s ; : : : ; s is a Nash equilibrium iff i; s BR(s− ) h 1 ni 8 i 2 i Every finite game has a Nash equilibrium! [Nash, 1950] e.g., matching pennies: both players play heads/tails 50%/50% Computing Nash Equilibrium; Maxmin Lecture 5, Slide 8 Recap Computing Mixed NE Fun Game Maxmin and Minmax Lecture Overview 1 Recap 2 Computing Mixed Nash Equilibria 3 Fun Game 4 Maxmin and Minmax Computing Nash Equilibrium; Maxmin Lecture 5, Slide 9 60 3 Competition and Coordination: Normal form games Rock Paper Scissors Rock 0 1 1 Recap Computing Mixed NE − Fun Game Maxmin and Minmax Paper 1 0 1 Computing Mixed Nash Equilibria: Battle− of the Sexes Scissors 1 1 0 − Figure 3.6 Rock, Paper, Scissors game. B F B 2, 1 0, 0 F 0, 0 1, 2 Figure 3.7 Battle of the Sexes game. It's hard in general to compute Nash equilibria, but it's easy 3.2.2 Strategies in normal-form games when you can guess the support We have so far defined the actions available to each player in a game, but not yet his Forset of BoS,strategies let's, or hislook available foran choices. equilibrium Certainly one where kind of strategy all actions is to select are pure strategy a single action and play it; we call such a strategy a pure strategy, and we will use partthe notation of the we supporthave already developed for actions to represent it. There is, however, another, less obvious type of strategy; a player can choose to randomize over the set of available actions according to some probability distribution; such a strategy is called mixed strategy a mixed strategy. Although it may not be immediately obvious why a player should introduce randomness into his choice of action, in fact in a multi-agent setting the role of mixed strategies is critical. We will return to this when we discuss solution concepts Computing Nashfor Equilibrium; games in Maxmin the next section. Lecture 5, Slide 10 We define a mixed strategy for a normal form game as follows. Definition 3.2.4 Let (N, (A1,...,An), O, µ, u) be a normal form game, and for any set X let Π(X) be the set of all probability distributions over X. Then the set of mixed mixed strategy strategies for player i is Si = Π(Ai). The set of mixed strategy profiles is simply the profiles Cartesian product of the individual mixed strategy sets, S S . 1 × · · · × n By si(ai) we denote the probability that an action ai will be played under mixed strategy si. The subset of actions that are assigned positive probability by the mixed strategy si is called the support of si. Definition 3.2.5 The support of a mixed strategy si for a player i is the set of pure strategies a s (a ) > 0 . { i| i i } c Shoham and Leyton-Brown, 2006 u1(B) = u1(F ) 2p + 0(1 p) = 0p + 1(1 p) − − 1 p = 3 60 3 Competition and Coordination: Normal form games Rock Paper Scissors Rock 0 1 1 Recap Computing Mixed NE − Fun Game Maxmin and Minmax Paper 1 0 1 Computing Mixed Nash Equilibria: Battle− of the Sexes Scissors 1 1 0 − Figure 3.6 Rock, Paper, Scissors game. B F B 2, 1 0, 0 F 0, 0 1, 2 Let player 2 play B with p, F with 1 p. Figure 3.7 Battle of the Sexes game.− If player 1 best-responds with a mixed strategy, player 2 must make him indifferent between F and B (why?) 3.2.2 Strategies in normal-form games We have so far defined the actions available to each player in a game, but not yet his set of strategies, or his available choices. Certainly one kind of strategy is to select pure strategy a single action and play it; we call such a strategy a pure strategy, and we will use the notation we have already developed for actions to represent it. There is, however, another, less obvious type of strategy; a player can choose to randomize over the set of available actions according to some probability distribution; such a strategy is called mixed strategy a mixed strategy. Although it may not be immediately obvious why a player should introduce randomness into his choice of action, in fact in a multi-agent setting the role of mixed strategies is critical. We will return to this when we discuss solution concepts Computing Nashfor Equilibrium; games in Maxmin the next section. Lecture 5, Slide 10 We define a mixed strategy for a normal form game as follows. Definition 3.2.4 Let (N, (A1,...,An), O, µ, u) be a normal form game, and for any set X let Π(X) be the set of all probability distributions over X. Then the set of mixed mixed strategy strategies for player i is Si = Π(Ai). The set of mixed strategy profiles is simply the profiles Cartesian product of the individual mixed strategy sets, S S . 1 × · · · × n By si(ai) we denote the probability that an action ai will be played under mixed strategy si. The subset of actions that are assigned positive probability by the mixed strategy si is called the support of si. Definition 3.2.5 The support of a mixed strategy si for a player i is the set of pure strategies a s (a ) > 0 . { i| i i } c Shoham and Leyton-Brown, 2006 60 3 Competition and Coordination: Normal form games Rock Paper Scissors Rock 0 1 1 Recap Computing Mixed NE − Fun Game Maxmin and Minmax Paper 1 0 1 Computing Mixed Nash Equilibria: Battle− of the Sexes Scissors 1 1 0 − Figure 3.6 Rock, Paper, Scissors game. B F B 2, 1 0, 0 F 0, 0 1, 2 Let player 2 play B with p, F with 1 p. Figure 3.7 Battle of the Sexes game.− If player 1 best-responds with a mixed strategy, player 2 must make him indifferent between F and B (why?) 3.2.2 Strategies in normal-form games We have so far defined the actionsu available1(B) =to eachu1( playerF ) in a game, but not yet his set of strategies, or his available choices.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Game Theory 2: Extensive-Form Games and Subgame Perfection
    Game Theory 2: Extensive-Form Games and Subgame Perfection 1 / 26 Dynamics in Games How should we think of strategic interactions that occur in sequence? Who moves when? And what can they do at different points in time? How do people react to different histories? 2 / 26 Modeling Games with Dynamics Players Player function I Who moves when Terminal histories I Possible paths through the game Preferences over terminal histories 3 / 26 Strategies A strategy is a complete contingent plan Player i's strategy specifies her action choice at each point at which she could be called on to make a choice 4 / 26 An Example: International Crises Two countries (A and B) are competing over a piece of land that B occupies Country A decides whether to make a demand If Country A makes a demand, B can either acquiesce or fight a war If A does not make a demand, B keeps land (game ends) A's best outcome is Demand followed by Acquiesce, worst outcome is Demand and War B's best outcome is No Demand and worst outcome is Demand and War 5 / 26 An Example: International Crises A can choose: Demand (D) or No Demand (ND) B can choose: Fight a war (W ) or Acquiesce (A) Preferences uA(D; A) = 3 > uA(ND; A) = uA(ND; W ) = 2 > uA(D; W ) = 1 uB(ND; A) = uB(ND; W ) = 3 > uB(D; A) = 2 > uB(D; W ) = 1 How can we represent this scenario as a game (in strategic form)? 6 / 26 International Crisis Game: NE Country B WA D 1; 1 3X; 2X Country A ND 2X; 3X 2; 3X I Is there something funny here? I Is there something funny here? I Specifically, (ND; W )? I Is there something funny here?
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 4 Rationalizability & Nash Equilibrium Road
    Lecture 4 Rationalizability & Nash Equilibrium 14.12 Game Theory Muhamet Yildiz Road Map 1. Strategies – completed 2. Quiz 3. Dominance 4. Dominant-strategy equilibrium 5. Rationalizability 6. Nash Equilibrium 1 Strategy A strategy of a player is a complete contingent-plan, determining which action he will take at each information set he is to move (including the information sets that will not be reached according to this strategy). Matching pennies with perfect information 2’s Strategies: HH = Head if 1 plays Head, 1 Head if 1 plays Tail; HT = Head if 1 plays Head, Head Tail Tail if 1 plays Tail; 2 TH = Tail if 1 plays Head, 2 Head if 1 plays Tail; head tail head tail TT = Tail if 1 plays Head, Tail if 1 plays Tail. (-1,1) (1,-1) (1,-1) (-1,1) 2 Matching pennies with perfect information 2 1 HH HT TH TT Head Tail Matching pennies with Imperfect information 1 2 1 Head Tail Head Tail 2 Head (-1,1) (1,-1) head tail head tail Tail (1,-1) (-1,1) (-1,1) (1,-1) (1,-1) (-1,1) 3 A game with nature Left (5, 0) 1 Head 1/2 Right (2, 2) Nature (3, 3) 1/2 Left Tail 2 Right (0, -5) Mixed Strategy Definition: A mixed strategy of a player is a probability distribution over the set of his strategies. Pure strategies: Si = {si1,si2,…,sik} σ → A mixed strategy: i: S [0,1] s.t. σ σ σ i(si1) + i(si2) + … + i(sik) = 1. If the other players play s-i =(s1,…, si-1,si+1,…,sn), then σ the expected utility of playing i is σ σ σ i(si1)ui(si1,s-i) + i(si2)ui(si2,s-i) + … + i(sik)ui(sik,s-i).
    [Show full text]
  • Algorithms and Collusion - Background Note by the Secretariat
    Unclassified DAF/COMP(2017)4 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 9 June 2017 English - Or. English DIRECTORATE FOR FINANCIAL AND ENTERPRISE AFFAIRS COMPETITION COMMITTEE Cancels & replaces the same document of 17 May 2017. Algorithms and Collusion - Background Note by the Secretariat 21-23 June 2017 This document was prepared by the OECD Secretariat to serve as a background note for Item 10 at the 127th Meeting of the Competition Committee on 21-23 June 2017. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries. More documentation related to this discussion can be found at http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/algorithms-and-collusion.htm Please contact Mr. Antonio Capobianco if you have any questions about this document [E-mail: [email protected]] JT03415748 This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. 2 │ DAF/COMP(2017)4 Algorithms and Collusion Background note by the Secretariat Abstract The combination of big data with technologically advanced tools, such as pricing algorithms, is increasingly diffused in today everyone’s life, and it is changing the competitive landscape in which many companies operate and the way in which they make commercial and strategic decisions. While the size of this phenomenon is to a large extent unknown, there are a growing number of firms using computer algorithms to improve their pricing models, customise services and predict market trends.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Evolutionary Stable Strategy Application of Nash Equilibrium in Biology
    GENERAL ARTICLE Evolutionary Stable Strategy Application of Nash Equilibrium in Biology Jayanti Ray-Mukherjee and Shomen Mukherjee Every behaviourally responsive animal (including us) make decisions. These can be simple behavioural decisions such as where to feed, what to feed, how long to feed, decisions related to finding, choosing and competing for mates, or simply maintaining ones territory. All these are conflict situations between competing individuals, hence can be best understood Jayanti Ray-Mukherjee is using a game theory approach. Using some examples of clas- a faculty member in the School of Liberal Studies sical games, we show how evolutionary game theory can help at Azim Premji University, understand behavioural decisions of animals. Game theory Bengaluru. Jayanti is an (along with its cousin, optimality theory) continues to provide experimental ecologist who a strong conceptual and theoretical framework to ecologists studies mechanisms of species coexistence among for understanding the mechanisms by which species coexist. plants. Her research interests also inlcude plant Most of you, at some point, might have seen two cats fighting. It invasion ecology and is often accompanied with the cats facing each other with puffed habitat restoration. up fur, arched back, ears back, tail twitching, with snarls, growls, Shomen Mukherjee is a and howls aimed at each other. But, if you notice closely, they faculty member in the often try to avoid physical contact, and spend most of their time School of Liberal Studies in the above-mentioned behavioural displays. Biologists refer to at Azim Premji University, this as a ‘limited war’ or conventional (ritualistic) strategy (not Bengaluru. He uses field experiments to study causing serious injury), as opposed to dangerous (escalated) animal behaviour and strategy (Figure 1) [1].
    [Show full text]
  • More Experiments on Game Theory
    More Experiments on Game Theory Syngjoo Choi Spring 2010 Experimental Economics (ECON3020) Game theory 2 Spring2010 1/28 Playing Unpredictably In many situations there is a strategic advantage associated with being unpredictable. Experimental Economics (ECON3020) Game theory 2 Spring2010 2/28 Playing Unpredictably In many situations there is a strategic advantage associated with being unpredictable. Experimental Economics (ECON3020) Game theory 2 Spring2010 2/28 Mixed (or Randomized) Strategy In the penalty kick, Left (L) and Right (R) are the pure strategies of the kicker and the goalkeeper. A mixed strategy refers to a probabilistic mixture over pure strategies in which no single pure strategy is played all the time. e.g., kicking left with half of the time and right with the other half of the time. A penalty kick in a soccer game is one example of games of pure con‡icit, essentially called zero-sum games in which one player’s winning is the other’sloss. Experimental Economics (ECON3020) Game theory 2 Spring2010 3/28 The use of pure strategies will result in a loss. What about each player playing heads half of the time? Matching Pennies Games In a matching pennies game, each player uncovers a penny showing either heads or tails. One player takes both coins if the pennies match; otherwise, the other takes both coins. Left Right Top 1, 1, 1 1 Bottom 1, 1, 1 1 Does there exist a Nash equilibrium involving the use of pure strategies? Experimental Economics (ECON3020) Game theory 2 Spring2010 4/28 Matching Pennies Games In a matching pennies game, each player uncovers a penny showing either heads or tails.
    [Show full text]
  • Game Theory]: Basics of Game Theory
    Artificial Intelligence Methods for Social Good M2-1 [Game Theory]: Basics of Game Theory 08-537 (9-unit) and 08-737 (12-unit) Instructor: Fei Fang [email protected] Wean Hall 4126 1 5/8/2018 Quiz 1: Recap: Optimization Problem Given coordinates of 푛 residential areas in a city (assuming 2-D plane), denoted as 푥1, … , 푥푛, the government wants to find a location that minimizes the sum of (Euclidean) distances to all residential areas to build a hospital. The optimization problem can be written as A: min |푥푖 − 푥| 푥 푖 B: min 푥푖 − 푥 푥 푖 2 2 C: min 푥푖 − 푥 푥 푖 D: none of above 2 Fei Fang 5/8/2018 From Games to Game Theory The study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent decision makers Used in economics, political science etc 3/72 Fei Fang 5/8/2018 Outline Basic Concepts in Games Basic Solution Concepts Compute Nash Equilibrium Compute Strong Stackelberg Equilibrium 4 Fei Fang 5/8/2018 Learning Objectives Understand the concept of Game, Player, Action, Strategy, Payoff, Expected utility, Best response Dominant Strategy, Maxmin Strategy, Minmax Strategy Nash Equilibrium Stackelberg Equilibrium, Strong Stackelberg Equilibrium Describe Minimax Theory Formulate the following problem as an optimization problem Find NE in zero-sum games (LP) Find SSE in two-player general-sum games (multiple LP and MILP) Know how to find the method/algorithm/solver/package you can use for solving the games Compute NE/SSE by hand or by calling a solver for small games 5 Fei Fang 5/8/2018 Let’s Play! Classical Games
    [Show full text]
  • The Three Types of Collusion: Fixing Prices, Rivals, and Rules Robert H
    University of Baltimore Law ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law All Faculty Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 2000 The Three Types of Collusion: Fixing Prices, Rivals, and Rules Robert H. Lande University of Baltimore School of Law, [email protected] Howard P. Marvel Ohio State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, and the Law and Economics Commons Recommended Citation The Three Types of Collusion: Fixing Prices, Rivals, and Rules, 2000 Wis. L. Rev. 941 (2000) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES THE THREE TYPES OF COLLUSION: FIXING PRICES, RIVALS, AND RULES ROBERTH. LANDE * & HOWARDP. MARVEL** Antitrust law has long held collusion to be paramount among the offenses that it is charged with prohibiting. The reason for this prohibition is simple----collusion typically leads to monopoly-like outcomes, including monopoly profits that are shared by the colluding parties. Most collusion cases can be classified into two established general categories.) Classic, or "Type I" collusion involves collective action to raise price directly? Firms can also collude to disadvantage rivals in a manner that causes the rivals' output to diminish or causes their behavior to become chastened. This "Type 11" collusion in turn allows the colluding firms to raise prices.3 Many important collusion cases, however, do not fit into either of these categories.
    [Show full text]
  • Kranton Duke University
    The Devil is in the Details – Implications of Samuel Bowles’ The Moral Economy for economics and policy research October 13 2017 Rachel Kranton Duke University The Moral Economy by Samuel Bowles should be required reading by all graduate students in economics. Indeed, all economists should buy a copy and read it. The book is a stunning, critical discussion of the interplay between economic incentives and preferences. It challenges basic premises of economic theory and questions policy recommendations based on these theories. The book proposes the path forward: designing policy that combines incentives and moral appeals. And, therefore, like such as book should, The Moral Economy leaves us with much work to do. The Moral Economy concerns individual choices and economic policy, particularly microeconomic policies with goals to enhance the collective good. The book takes aim at laws, policies, and business practices that are based on the classic Homo economicus model of individual choice. The book first argues in great detail that policies that follow from the Homo economicus paradigm can backfire. While most economists would now recognize that people are not purely selfish and self-interested, The Moral Economy goes one step further. Incentives can amplify the selfishness of individuals. People might act in more self-interested ways in a system based on incentives and rewards than they would in the absence of such inducements. The Moral Economy warns economists to be especially wary of incentives because social norms, like norms of trust and honesty, are critical to economic activity. The danger is not only of incentives backfiring in a single instance; monetary incentives can generally erode ethical and moral codes and social motivations people can have towards each other.
    [Show full text]
  • 8. Maxmin and Minmax Strategies
    CMSC 474, Introduction to Game Theory 8. Maxmin and Minmax Strategies Mohammad T. Hajiaghayi University of Maryland Outline Chapter 2 discussed two solution concepts: Pareto optimality and Nash equilibrium Chapter 3 discusses several more: Maxmin and Minmax Dominant strategies Correlated equilibrium Trembling-hand perfect equilibrium e-Nash equilibrium Evolutionarily stable strategies Worst-Case Expected Utility For agent i, the worst-case expected utility of a strategy si is the minimum over all possible Husband Opera Football combinations of strategies for the other agents: Wife min u s ,s Opera 2, 1 0, 0 s-i i ( i -i ) Football 0, 0 1, 2 Example: Battle of the Sexes Wife’s strategy sw = {(p, Opera), (1 – p, Football)} Husband’s strategy sh = {(q, Opera), (1 – q, Football)} uw(p,q) = 2pq + (1 – p)(1 – q) = 3pq – p – q + 1 We can write uw(p,q) For any fixed p, uw(p,q) is linear in q instead of uw(sw , sh ) • e.g., if p = ½, then uw(½,q) = ½ q + ½ 0 ≤ q ≤ 1, so the min must be at q = 0 or q = 1 • e.g., minq (½ q + ½) is at q = 0 minq uw(p,q) = min (uw(p,0), uw(p,1)) = min (1 – p, 2p) Maxmin Strategies Also called maximin A maxmin strategy for agent i A strategy s1 that makes i’s worst-case expected utility as high as possible: argmaxmin ui (si,s-i ) si s-i This isn’t necessarily unique Often it is mixed Agent i’s maxmin value, or security level, is the maxmin strategy’s worst-case expected utility: maxmin ui (si,s-i ) si s-i For 2 players it simplifies to max min u1s1, s2 s1 s2 Example Wife’s and husband’s strategies
    [Show full text]
  • Collusion Constrained Equilibrium
    Theoretical Economics 13 (2018), 307–340 1555-7561/20180307 Collusion constrained equilibrium Rohan Dutta Department of Economics, McGill University David K. Levine Department of Economics, European University Institute and Department of Economics, Washington University in Saint Louis Salvatore Modica Department of Economics, Università di Palermo We study collusion within groups in noncooperative games. The primitives are the preferences of the players, their assignment to nonoverlapping groups, and the goals of the groups. Our notion of collusion is that a group coordinates the play of its members among different incentive compatible plans to best achieve its goals. Unfortunately, equilibria that meet this requirement need not exist. We instead introduce the weaker notion of collusion constrained equilibrium. This al- lows groups to put positive probability on alternatives that are suboptimal for the group in certain razor’s edge cases where the set of incentive compatible plans changes discontinuously. These collusion constrained equilibria exist and are a subset of the correlated equilibria of the underlying game. We examine four per- turbations of the underlying game. In each case,we show that equilibria in which groups choose the best alternative exist and that limits of these equilibria lead to collusion constrained equilibria. We also show that for a sufficiently broad class of perturbations, every collusion constrained equilibrium arises as such a limit. We give an application to a voter participation game that shows how collusion constraints may be socially costly. Keywords. Collusion, organization, group. JEL classification. C72, D70. 1. Introduction As the literature on collective action (for example, Olson 1965) emphasizes, groups often behave collusively while the preferences of individual group members limit the possi- Rohan Dutta: [email protected] David K.
    [Show full text]
  • Oligopolistic Competition
    Lecture 3: Oligopolistic competition EC 105. Industrial Organization Mattt Shum HSS, California Institute of Technology EC 105. Industrial Organization (Mattt Shum HSS,Lecture California 3: Oligopolistic Institute of competition Technology) 1 / 38 Oligopoly Models Oligopoly: interaction among small number of firms Conflict of interest: Each firm maximizes its own profits, but... Firm j's actions affect firm i's profits PC: firms are small, so no single firm’s actions affect other firms’ profits Monopoly: only one firm EC 105. Industrial Organization (Mattt Shum HSS,Lecture California 3: Oligopolistic Institute of competition Technology) 2 / 38 Oligopoly Models Oligopoly: interaction among small number of firms Conflict of interest: Each firm maximizes its own profits, but... Firm j's actions affect firm i's profits PC: firms are small, so no single firm’s actions affect other firms’ profits Monopoly: only one firm EC 105. Industrial Organization (Mattt Shum HSS,Lecture California 3: Oligopolistic Institute of competition Technology) 2 / 38 Oligopoly Models Oligopoly: interaction among small number of firms Conflict of interest: Each firm maximizes its own profits, but... Firm j's actions affect firm i's profits PC: firms are small, so no single firm’s actions affect other firms’ profits Monopoly: only one firm EC 105. Industrial Organization (Mattt Shum HSS,Lecture California 3: Oligopolistic Institute of competition Technology) 2 / 38 Oligopoly Models Oligopoly: interaction among small number of firms Conflict of interest: Each firm maximizes its own profits, but... Firm j's actions affect firm i's profits PC: firms are small, so no single firm’s actions affect other firms’ profits Monopoly: only one firm EC 105.
    [Show full text]