DOCSLIB.ORG

Developing and Coordinating Autonomous Agents for Efficient Electricity Markets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Developing and Coordinating Autonomous Agents for Efficient Electricity Markets Developing and Coordinating Autonomous Agents for Efficient Electricity Markets by Andrew Raymond Trueman Perrault A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Computer Science University of Toronto c Copyright 2018 by Andrew Raymond Trueman Perrault Abstract Developing and Coordinating Autonomous Agents for Efficient Electricity Markets Andrew Raymond Trueman Perrault Doctor of Philosophy Department of Computer Science University of Toronto 2018 Whether for environmental, conservation, efficiency, or economic reasons, developing next generation electric power infrastructure is critical. Temporally relevant, granular data from smart meters provide new opportunities for data-driven management of the power grid. New developments|for example, electricity markets with multiple suppliers, the integration of renewable power sources into the system, and spikier demand patterns due to, say, electric vehicles|create new challenges for efficient grid op- eration. Computer science is uniquely positioned to assist with increasingly sophisticated techniques for handling and learning from large amounts of data. The methods of game theory and multi-agent systems provide a natural framework for modeling the competing incentives of electricity market par- ticipants. This thesis focuses on the use of learning, optimization, mechanism design, and preference elicitation methods to coordinate electricity demand and supply while respecting the incentives of market participants. Specifically, we propose an approach where an autonomous agent acts on behalf of each household, coordinating with inhabitants to relay information and make decisions on their behalf about electricity consumption. We focus on three problems that arise in developing such agents: (i) how to coordinate consumers' electricity use, (ii) how to share the costs of consumption among households (via their agents), and (iii) how to gather consumption preference data from consumers. Chapters 3 and 4 focus on different aspects of the first two problems. Both use a matching markets approach. In Chapter 3, we focus on the impact of demand smoothness and peaks on the supplier's cost, and in Chapter 4, on the impact of predictability. In both chapters, we develop new cost sharing schemes that are resilient to certain forms of strategic behavior on the part of the agents and that achieve strong performance in experiments. Chapter 5 studies the third problem. Motivated by control of heating and cooling systems, we present a new approach to preference elicitation, where the cost and accuracy of query responses is dependent on the user's familiarity with the conditions specified in the query. We show that despite the theoretical difficulty in this setting, we can build solvers that perform well in practice. ii Acknowledgements Thank you to my supervisor, Craig Boutilier, for inspiring my research and guiding an abstract vision into something concrete. To my committee, for their invaluable \on the ground" support at tough moments, as well as their outside perspective. To my parents, for endless hours of reading and editing. To my colleagues, collaborators and friends, especially Joanna Drummond, Elizabeth Greville, Marek Janicki, Aleksandr Kazachkov, Omer Lev, Nisarg Shah, Jake Snell, Tyrone Strangway, and Rory Tulk. iii Contents Acknowledgements iii Contents iv 1 Introduction 1 1.1 The Role of Artificial Autonomous Agents . 3 1.2 Experiential Elicitation . 3 1.3 Why Study Electricity in AI? . 4 1.4 Outline . 6 2 Background 8 2.1 Game Theory . 8 2.1.1 Non-Cooperative Game Theory . 8 2.1.2 Cooperative Game Theory . 11 2.1.3 Core Allocations . 12 2.1.4 The Shapley Value . 14 2.1.5 Convex Cooperative Games . 15 2.1.6 The Duality Between Cooperative Games and Markets . 16 2.2 Market Design . 17 2.2.1 Market Design in Economics . 18 2.2.2 Market Design in Computer Science . 19 2.3 Eliciting Preferences of Market Participants . 21 2.3.1 Mechanism Design . 21 2.3.2 The Vickrey-Clarke-Groves Mechanism . 24 2.3.3 Preference Elicitation and Query Types . 26 2.3.4 Query Strategies in Preference Elicitation . 28 2.4 The Smart Grid and the Role of Computer Science . 32 2.4.1 The Path of the Smart Grid . 33 2.4.2 The Technology Path to Deep Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cuts . 34 2.4.3 Artificial Intelligence and the Smart Grid . 36 3 Approximately Stable Pricing for Coordinated Purchasing of Electricity 37 3.1 Introduction . 37 3.2 Setting . 40 iv 3.3 Producer Price Functions (PPFs) . 43 3.3.1 Mixed Integer Program Encoding . 47 3.4 Cost Sharing and Stability Concepts . 50 3.4.1 Cost Sharing under the Marginal-Cost Defection Model . 50 3.4.2 Shapley-Like Payments . 53 3.4.3 Similarity-Based Envy-Free Payments . 54 3.5 Model of Consumer Demand . 56 3.6 Experiments . 58 3.6.1 Shapley-Like Payments . 58 3.6.2 Similarity-Based Envy-Free Payments . 60 3.7 Conclusion and Future Work . 61 4 Multiple-Profile Prediction-of-Use Games 64 4.1 Introduction . 64 4.2 Background . 66 4.2.1 Prediction-of-Use Games . 66 4.3 Multiple-Profile POU Games . 68 4.4 Properties of MPOU Games . 69 4.5 Incentives in MPOU Games . 71 4.6 Manipulation in MPOU Games . 74 4.7 Learning Utility Models . 75 4.8 Experiments . 78 4.8.1 Experimental Setup . 78 4.8.2 Results . 79 4.9 Conclusion and Future Work . 81 5 Experiential Preference Elicitation for Autonomous HVAC Systems 85 5.1 Introduction . 85 5.2 Background . 89 5.3 A Model of Experiential Elicitation . 91 5.4 EE with Relative Value Queries . 96 5.5 Query Response and Cost Model . 100 5.6 Experiments . 101 5.7 Conclusion and Future Work . 106 6 Conclusions and Future Work 109 6.1 Summary . 109 6.2 Future Work . 111 6.2.1 Integrating Chapters 3 and 4 . 111 6.2.2 Rationality of Players . 112 6.2.3 Incentives to Misreport . 113 Bibliography 116 v Chapter 1 Introduction Electricity markets and electricity distribution are the source of many intriguing technical problems for artificial intelligence (AI). Electricity is notable from an economic perspective because it fails to behave like an ideal commodity [Kirschen and Strbac, 2004]. It is delivered through a physical network governed by the laws of physics: the electrical grid. Demand and supply must be balanced continuously to keep the grid functioning (load balancing)|failure results in a long and expensive recovery process. Most load balancing is done outside of markets because of the speed of reaction required, on the order of seconds. Because supply is pooled through the grid, individuals cannot buy from a particular supplier directly. Storage is also very expensive. These elements combine to make electricity markets challenging to operate efficiently, in the economic sense. Our research and intuitions about how free markets lead to high-quality outcomes are difficult to apply in a setting that is sufficiently non-standard. The Nobel laureate Alvin Roth has written extensively on the challenge of defining good rules for in- teractions in markets [Roth, 2002]. He argues that no market operates completely removed from human design or conventions, and that it should be part of the role of economists in society to adjust the rules of markets to optimize outcomes. This area of study is called market design or design economics. While designing these rules is highly dependent on economic theory, there are often key computational chal- lenges in the operation of the market itself. Designed markets frequently do away with the spontaneity of organic ones where market participants choose their own partner with whom to interact. Instead, partic- ipants submit \bids" (which may be non-monetary) to a central authority, which \assigns" transactions to the market participants by running an algorithm. Such markets are referred to as matching markets, since they often match buyers to sellers to maximize economic efficiency or some related objective. More broadly, they coordinate the actions of the market participants. Electricity markets in particular are intensely designed. This design is driven by technical constraints, such as limitations in monitoring technology. For example, with traditional electricity meters, it is impossible to have a pricing scheme that depends on the time of consumption, as these meters do not record when electricity use occurs, only total usage. These markets are an interesting object of study, and Chapters 3 and 4 explore the problem of improving their efficiency from both the economic and computational perspectives. As we propose more complex market rules that increase efficiency, we have to be careful to not disrupt the desirable properties of existing, simple markets. Here two key issues arise. First, the more information an agent reports to the market, the more opportunity the agent has to manipulate the 1 Chapter 1. Introduction 2 outcome of the market by reporting information falsely, which we call misreporting. Second, what is good for the group of agents is not necessarily good for each individual agent|a rational, self-interested agent will take advantage of opportunities to improve its own outcome, potentially by making side deals with other agents. These actions may in turn reduce the welfare of the group. Economists call this the problem of stability. A stable allocation is one where no agent can benefit by making side deals or taking actions other than those prescribed by the market. Both of these issues are well understood in the abstract, but often require special treatment in any specific market. In Chapter 3, we apply a matching markets perspective to electricity exchange. Our use of matching markets is motivated by their application to supply chains (e.g., Chen and Roma [2010]), where they are used to increase economic efficiency while respecting global constraints on outcomes. Electricity gener- ator cost functions often have a complex structure, including features such as minimum and maximum production levels, multiple generation sources with varying costs, and ramp constraints that constrain production adjustments over time.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Game Theory- Prisoners Dilemma Vs Battle of the Sexes EXCERPTS
    Lesson 14. Game Theory 1 Lesson 14 Game Theory c 2010, 2011 ⃝ Roberto Serrano and Allan M. Feldman All rights reserved Version C 1. Introduction In the last lesson we discussed duopoly markets in which two firms compete to sell a product. In such markets, the firms behave strategically; each firm must think about what the other firm is doing in order to decide what it should do itself. The theory of duopoly was originally developed in the 19th century, but it led to the theory of games in the 20th century. The first major book in game theory, published in 1944, was Theory of Games and Economic Behavior,byJohnvon Neumann (1903-1957) and Oskar Morgenstern (1902-1977). We will return to the contributions of Von Neumann and Morgenstern in Lesson 19, on uncertainty and expected utility. Agroupofpeople(orteams,firms,armies,countries)areinagame if their decision problems are interdependent, in the sense that the actions that all of them take influence the outcomes for everyone. Game theory is the study of games; it can also be called interactive decision theory. Many real-life interactions can be viewed as games. Obviously football, soccer, and baseball games are games.Butsoaretheinteractionsofduopolists,thepoliticalcampaignsbetweenparties before an election, and the interactions of armed forces and countries. Even some interactions between animal or plant species in nature can be modeled as games. In fact, game theory has been used in many different fields in recent decades, including economics, political science, psychology, sociology, computer science, and biology. This brief lesson is not meant to replace a formal course in game theory; it is only an in- troduction.
    [Show full text]
  • Quasilinear Approximations
    Quasilinear approximations Marek Weretka ∗ August 2, 2018 Abstract This paper demonstrates that the canonical stochastic infinite horizon framework from both the macro and finance literature, with sufficiently patient consumers, is in- distinguishable in ordinal terms from a simple quasilinear economy. In particular, with a discount factor approaching one, the framework converges to a quasilinear limit in its preferences, allocation, prices, and ordinal welfare. Consequently, income effects associated with economic policies vanish, and equivalent and compensating variations coincide and become approximately additive for a set of temporary policies. This ordi- nal convergence holds for a large class of potentially heterogenous preferences that are in Gorman polar form. The paper thus formalizes the Marshallian conjecture, whereby quasilinear approximation is justified in those settings in which agents consume many commodities (here, referring to consumption in many periods), and unifies the general and partial equilibrium schools of thought that were previously seen as distinct. We also provide a consumption-based foundation for normative analysis based on social surplus. Key words: JEL classification numbers: D43, D53, G11, G12, L13 1 Introduction One of the most prevalent premises in economics is the ongoing notion that consumers be- have rationally. The types of rational preferences studied in the literature, however, vary considerably across many fields. The macro, financial and labor literature typically adopt consumption-based preferences within a general equilibrium framework, while in Industrial Organization, Auction Theory, Public Finance and other fields, the partial equilibrium ap- proach using quasilinear preferences is much more popular. ∗University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Economics, 1180 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706.
    [Show full text]
  • Prisoners of Reason Game Theory and Neoliberal Political Economy
    C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/6549131/WORKINGFOLDER/AMADAE/9781107064034PRE.3D iii [1–28] 11.8.2015 9:57PM Prisoners of Reason Game Theory and Neoliberal Political Economy S. M. AMADAE Massachusetts Institute of Technology C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/6549131/WORKINGFOLDER/AMADAE/9781107064034PRE.3D iv [1–28] 11.8.2015 9:57PM 32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, ny 10013-2473, usa Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107671195 © S. M. Amadae 2015 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2015 Printed in the United States of America A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Amadae, S. M., author. Prisoners of reason : game theory and neoliberal political economy / S.M. Amadae. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-1-107-06403-4 (hbk. : alk. paper) – isbn 978-1-107-67119-5 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Game theory – Political aspects. 2. International relations. 3. Neoliberalism. 4. Social choice – Political aspects. 5. Political science – Philosophy. I. Title. hb144.a43 2015 320.01′5193 – dc23 2015020954 isbn 978-1-107-06403-4 Hardback isbn 978-1-107-67119-5 Paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party Internet Web sites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such Web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Repeated Games
    REPEATED GAMES 1 Early PD experiments In 1950, Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher (at RAND) devised an experiment to test Nash’s theory about defection in a two-person prisoners’ dilemma. Experimental Design – They asked two friends to play the PD 100 times. – They measured the success of Nash’s equilibrium concept by counting the number of times the players chose {D;D}. 2 Flood and Dresher’s results Player 1 cooperated in 68 rounds Player 2 cooperated in 78 rounds Both cooperated in 60 of last 89 rounds Flood Dresher Nash 3 Flood and Dresher’s results Player 1 cooperated in 68 rounds Player 2 cooperated in 78 rounds Both cooperated in 60 of last 89 rounds Wait a Ha! That jerk I can’tI’mOh a be Ha! Nash second... Nash was genius...%&@#!wrong! was wrong! wrong! Flood Dresher Nash 4 Nash’s response “If this experiment were conducted with various different players rotating the competition and with no information given to a player of what choices the others have been making until the end of all trials, then the experimental results would have been quite different, for this modification of procedure would remove the interaction between the trials.” 5 Nash’s response “The flaw in this experiment as a test of equilibrium point theory is that the experiment really amounts to having the players play one large multimove game. One cannot...think of the thing as a sequence of independent games...there is too much interaction.” In other words, Nash said that repeating the game changes the game itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Design and Walrasian Equilibrium†
    Market Design and Walrasian Equilibriumy Faruk Gul, Wolfgang Pesendorfer and Mu Zhang Princeton University April 2019 Abstract We establish the existence of Walrasian equilibrium for economies with many discrete goods and possibly one divisible good. Our goal is not only to study Walrasian equilibria in new settings but also to facilitate the use of market mechanisms in resource alloca- tion problems such as school choice or course selection. We consider all economies with quasilinear gross substitutes preferences. We allow agents to have limited quantities of the divisible good (limited transfers economies). We also consider economies without a divisible good (nontransferable utility economies). We show the existence and efficiency of Walrasian equilibrium in limited transfers economies and the existence and efficiency of strong (Walrasian) equilibrium in nontransferable utility economies. Finally, we show that various constraints on minimum and maximum levels of consumption and aggregate constraints of the kind that are relevant for school choice or course selection problems can be accommodated by either incorporating these constraints into individual preferences or by incorporating a suitable production technology into nontransferable utility economies. y This research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation. 1. Introduction In this paper, we establish the existence of Walrasian equilibrium in economies with many discrete goods and either with a limited quantity of one divisible good or without any divisible goods. Our goal is not only to study Walrasian equilibria in new settings but also to facilitate the use of market mechanisms in resource allocation problems such as school choice or course selection. To this end, we develop techniques for analyzing allocation problems in economies with or without transfers and for incorporating additional constraints into allocation rules.
    [Show full text]
  • Substitution and Income Effect
    Intermediate Microeconomic Theory: ECON 251:21 Substitution and Income Effect Alternative to Utility Maximization We have examined how individuals maximize their welfare by maximizing their utility. Diagrammatically, it is like moderating the individual’s indifference curve until it is just tangent to the budget constraint. The individual’s choice thus selected gives us a demand for the goods in terms of their price, and income. We call such a demand function a Marhsallian Demand function. In general mathematical form, letting x be the quantity of a good demanded, we write the Marshallian Demand as x M ≡ x M (p, y) . Thinking about the process, we can reverse the intuition about how individuals maximize their utility. Consider the following, what if we fix the utility value at the above level, but instead vary the budget constraint? Would we attain the same choices? Well, we should, the demand thus achieved is however in terms of prices and utility, and not income. We call such a demand function, a Hicksian Demand, x H ≡ x H (p,u). This method means that the individual’s problem is instead framed as minimizing expenditure subject to a particular level of utility. Let’s examine briefly how the problem is framed, min p1 x1 + p2 x2 subject to u(x1 ,x2 ) = u We refer to this problem as expenditure minimization. We will however not consider this, safe to note that this problem generates a parallel demand function which we refer to as Hicksian Demand, also commonly referred to as the Compensated Demand. Decomposition of Changes in Choices induced by Price Change Let’s us examine the decomposition of a change in consumer choice as a result of a price change, something we have talked about earlier.
    [Show full text]
  • Preferences and Utility
    Preferences and Utility Simon Board§ This Version: October 6, 2009 First Version: October, 2008. These lectures examine the preferences of a single agent. In Section 1 we analyse how the agent chooses among a number of competing alternatives, investigating when preferences can be represented by a utility function. In Section 2 we discuss two attractive properties of preferences: monotonicity and convexity. In Section 3 we analyse the agent’s indiÆerence curves and ask how she makes tradeoÆsbetweendiÆerent goods. Finally, in Section 4 we look at some examples of preferences, applying the insights of the earlier theory. 1 The Foundation of Utility Functions 1.1 A Basic Representation Theorem Suppose an agent chooses from a set of goods X = a, b, c, . For example, one can think of { } these goods as diÆerent TV sets or cars. Given two goods, x and y, the agent weakly prefers x over y if x is at least as good as y.To avoid us having to write “weakly prefers” repeatedly, we simply write x < y. We now put some basic structure on the agent’s preferences by adopting two axioms.1 Completeness Axiom: For every pair x, y X,eitherx y, y x, or both. 2 < < §Department of Economics, UCLA. http://www.econ.ucla.edu/sboard/. Please email suggestions and typos to [email protected]. 1An axiom is a foundational assumption. 1 Eco11, Fall 2009 Simon Board Transitivity Axiom: For every triple x, y, z X,ifx y and y z then x z. 2 < < < An agent has complete preferences if she can compare any two objects.
    [Show full text]
  • A Beautiful Math : John Nash, Game Theory, and the Modern Quest for a Code of Nature / Tom Siegfried
    A BEAUTIFULA BEAUTIFUL MATH MATH JOHN NASH, GAME THEORY, AND THE MODERN QUEST FOR A CODE OF NATURE TOM SIEGFRIED JOSEPH HENRY PRESS Washington, D.C. Joseph Henry Press • 500 Fifth Street, NW • Washington, DC 20001 The Joseph Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academies Press, was created with the goal of making books on science, technology, and health more widely available to professionals and the public. Joseph Henry was one of the founders of the National Academy of Sciences and a leader in early Ameri- can science. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this volume are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences or its affiliated institutions. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Siegfried, Tom, 1950- A beautiful math : John Nash, game theory, and the modern quest for a code of nature / Tom Siegfried. — 1st ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-309-10192-1 (hardback) — ISBN 0-309-65928-0 (pdfs) 1. Game theory. I. Title. QA269.S574 2006 519.3—dc22 2006012394 Copyright 2006 by Tom Siegfried. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Preface Shortly after 9/11, a Russian scientist named Dmitri Gusev pro- posed an explanation for the origin of the name Al Qaeda. He suggested that the terrorist organization took its name from Isaac Asimov’s famous 1950s science fiction novels known as the Foun- dation Trilogy. After all, he reasoned, the Arabic word “qaeda” means something like “base” or “foundation.” And the first novel in Asimov’s trilogy, Foundation, apparently was titled “al-Qaida” in an Arabic translation.
    [Show full text]
  • Benchmark Two-Good Utility Functions
    Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute Utrecht School of Economics Utrecht University Janskerkhof 12 3512 BL Utrecht The Netherlands telephone +31 30 253 9800 fax +31 30 253 7373 website www.koopmansinstitute.uu.nl The Tjalling C. Koopmans Institute is the research institute and research school of Utrecht School of Economics. It was founded in 2003, and named after Professor Tjalling C. Koopmans, Dutch-born Nobel Prize laureate in economics of 1975. In the discussion papers series the Koopmans Institute publishes results of ongoing research for early dissemination of research results, and to enhance discussion with colleagues. Please send any comments and suggestions on the Koopmans institute, or this series to [email protected] ontwerp voorblad: WRIK Utrecht How to reach the authors Please direct all correspondence to the first author. Kris de Jaegher Utrecht University Utrecht School of Economics Janskerkhof 12 3512 BL Utrecht The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected] This paper can be downloaded at: http://www.koopmansinstitute.uu.nl Utrecht School of Economics Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute Discussion Paper Series 07-09 Benchmark Two-Good Utility Functions Kris de Jaeghera a Utrecht School of Economics Utrecht University February 2007 Abstract Benchmark two-good utility functions involving a good with zero income elasticity and unit income elasticity are well known. This paper derives utility functions for the additional benchmark cases where one good has zero cross-price elasticity, unit own-price elasticity, and zero own price elasticity. It is shown how each of these utility functions arises from a simple graphical construction based on a single given indifference curve.
    [Show full text]
  • Game Theory and Its Practical Applications
    University of Northern Iowa UNI ScholarWorks Presidential Scholars Theses (1990 – 2006) Honors Program 1997 Game theory and its practical applications Angela M. Koos University of Northern Iowa Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy Copyright ©1997 Angela M. Koos Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pst Part of the Other Economics Commons Recommended Citation Koos, Angela M., "Game theory and its practical applications" (1997). Presidential Scholars Theses (1990 – 2006). 100. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pst/100 This Open Access Presidential Scholars Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Program at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Presidential Scholars Theses (1990 – 2006) by an authorized administrator of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Game Theory and its Practical Applications A Presidential Scholar Senior Thesis University of Northern Iowa by Angela M. Koos Spring 1997 Dr. Ken Brown, 7 Dfrte Thesis and Major Advisor ,~-,, Dr. Ed Rathmell, Date Chair of Presidential Scholars Board Table of Contents Section Page(s) I. Historical Overview 1 I.A. Early Contributions to Game Theory 1 - 3 LB. John von Neumann, the RAND Corporation, and the Arms Race 3 - 7 LC. John Nash 7 - 8 I.D. Other Contributions to Game Theory 9 II. Defining Game Theory 9 - 12 II.A. Formal Representations of Games 12 - 13 II.A. I. Extensive Form 13 - 24 II.A.2. Normal Form 24 - 25 III. The Minimax Theorem 25 - 26 III.A. Preliminary Comments 26 - 27 III.B. The Theorem 27 - 28 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Is Behavioral Game Theory a Game for Economists? the Concept of Beliefs in Equilibrium∗
    Why is behavioral game theory a game for economists? The concept of beliefs in equilibrium∗ Michiru Nagatsu Chiara Lisciandray May 7, 2021 Abstract The interdisciplinary exchange between economists and psychologists has so far been more active and fruitful in the modifications of Expected Util- ity Theory than in those of Game Theory. We argue that this asymmetry may be explained by economists' specific way of doing equilibrium analysis of aggregate-level outcomes in their practice, and by psychologists' reluctance to fully engage with such practice. We focus on the notion of belief that is em- bedded in economists' practice of equilibrium analysis, more specifically Nash equilibrium, and argue that its difference from the psychological counterpart is one of the factors that makes interdisciplinary exchange in behavioral game theory more difficult. 1 Introduction One of the most influential texts published in the behavioral and social sciences in the first half of the twentieth century was, according to many, Von Neumann and Morgenstern's (vNM) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (1944). Not only did the book lay the foundation of game theory, which has become the essential research tool in contemporary economics, it also influenced several other disciplines beyond economics, from political science to linguistics and biology. Two of the most important contributions of Theory of Games and Economic Be- havior to economics are the axiomatic derivation of expected utility (in the second edition of 1947) and the minimax solution to zero-sum games. John Nash general- ized vNM's existence proof of equilibrium in non-zero-sum games in 1951, thereby ∗To appear in Egashira, Taishido, Hands and M¨aki(eds.) (2018) A Genealogy of Self-interest in Economics (Springer).
    [Show full text]
  • Algorithmic Collusion in the Digital Single Market
    This is a repository copy of EU Competition Policy: Algorithmic Collusion in the Digital Single Market. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/160267/ Article: Stewart-Moreno, Alexander (2020) EU Competition Policy: Algorithmic Collusion in the Digital Single Market. York Law Review, 1. pp. 49-82. 10.15124/yao-y99rnjtm Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ EU Competition Policy: Algorithmic Collusion in the Digital Single Market Alexander Stewart-Moreno Abstract E-commerce promises a digital environment with ‘more perfect’ market characteristics. Although consumers may benefit from digital efficiencies, firms’ exploitation of such benefits may require new policy to regulate in line with the European Commission’s Digital Single Market Strategy. Price-setting algorithms are central to this dichotomy, as faster and more transparent pricing strategies could conceivably maintain algorithmic price-fixing cartels – which Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union may prove inadequate in tackling.
    [Show full text]