IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ordeca/v18y2021i2p153-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stochastic Superiority Equilibrium in Game Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Ali Yekkehkhany

    (Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801)

  • Timothy Murray

    (Department of Industrial and Enterprise Systems Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801)

  • Rakesh Nagi

    (Department of Industrial and Enterprise Systems Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801)

Abstract

The definition of best response for a player in the Nash equilibrium is based on maximizing the expected utility given the strategy of the rest of the players in a game. In this work, we consider stochastic games, that is, games with random payoffs, in which a finite number of players engage only once or at most a limited number of times. In such games, players may choose to deviate from maximizing their expected utility. This is because maximizing expected utility strategy does not address the uncertainty in payoffs. We instead define a new notion of a stochastic superiority best response. This notion of best response results in a stochastic superiority equilibrium in which players choose to play the strategy that maximizes the probability of them being rewarded the most in a single round of the game rather than maximizing the expected received reward, subject to the actions of other players. We prove the stochastic superiority equilibrium to exist in all finite games, that is, games with a finite number of players and actions, and numerically compare its performance to Nash equilibrium in finite-time stochastic games. In certain cases, we show the payoff under the stochastic superiority equilibrium is 70% likely to be higher than the payoff under Nash equilibrium.

Suggested Citation

  • Ali Yekkehkhany & Timothy Murray & Rakesh Nagi, 2021. "Stochastic Superiority Equilibrium in Game Theory," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 153-168, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:18:y:2021:i:2:p:153-168
    DOI: 10.1287/deca.2021.0429
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/deca.2021.0429
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/deca.2021.0429?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sugaya, Takuo & Yamamoto, Yuichi, 2020. "Common learning and cooperation in repeated games," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(3), July.
    2. Xing Gao & Weijun Zhong & Shue Mei, 2013. "Information Security Investment When Hackers Disseminate Knowledge," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 352-368, December.
    3. Takeshi Yamazaki, 2009. "The uniqueness of pure-strategy Nash equilibrium in rent-seeking games with risk-averse players," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 139(3), pages 335-342, June.
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    5. Harrington, Joseph Jr., 1986. "A non-cooperative bargaining game with risk averse players and an uncertain finite horizon," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 9-13.
    6. Nizovtsev, Dmitri & Thursby, Marie, 2007. "To disclose or not? An analysis of software user behavior," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 43-64, March.
    7. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65, pages 135-135.
    8. John Gunnar Carlsson & Erick Delage, 2013. "Robust Partitioning for Stochastic Multivehicle Routing," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(3), pages 727-744, June.
    9. Ali Pala & Jun Zhuang, 2019. "Information Sharing in Cybersecurity: A Review," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(3), pages 172-196, September.
    10. Nicholas Barberis & Abhiroop Mukherjee & Baolian Wang, 2016. "Prospect Theory and Stock Returns: An Empirical Test," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 29(11), pages 3068-3107.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Jules H. van Binsbergen & Leslie M. Marx, 2007. "Exploring Relations Between Decision Analysis and Game Theory," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(1), pages 32-40, March.
    13. John A. List, 2004. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 615-625, March.
    14. Soham R. Phade & Venkat Anantharam, 2019. "On the Geometry of Nash and Correlated Equilibria with Cumulative Prospect Theoretic Preferences," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 142-156, June.
    15. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2003. "Risk averse behavior in generalized matching pennies games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 97-113, October.
    16. Ali Yekkehkhany & Ebrahim Arian & Rakesh Nagi & Ilan Shomorony, 2021. "A cost–based analysis for risk–averse explore–then–commit finite–time bandits," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(10), pages 1094-1108, October.
    17. John C. Harsanyi, 1967. "Games with Incomplete Information Played by "Bayesian" Players, I-III Part I. The Basic Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 159-182, November.
    18. Aniruddha Bagchi & Tridib Bandyopadhyay, 2018. "Role of Intelligence Inputs in Defending Against Cyber Warfare and Cyberterrorism," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 174-193, September.
    19. Erick Delage & Yinyu Ye, 2010. "Distributionally Robust Optimization Under Moment Uncertainty with Application to Data-Driven Problems," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(3), pages 595-612, June.
    20. Huseyin Cavusoglu & Srinivasan Raghunathan, 2004. "Configuration of Detection Software: A Comparison of Decision and Game Theory Approaches," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 131-148, September.
    21. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Tano Santos, 2001. "Prospect Theory and Asset Prices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 1-53.
    22. Miguel A. Lejeune, 2012. "Game Theoretical Approach for Reliable Enhanced Indexation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 146-155, June.
    23. Thomas Wiseman, 2005. "A Partial Folk Theorem for Games with Unknown Payoff Distributions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(2), pages 629-645, March.
    24. Kerim Keskin, 2016. "Equilibrium Notions for Agents with Cumulative Prospect Theory Preferences," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 192-208, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    2. Jun Yuan & Qi Xu & Ying Wang, 2023. "Probability weighting in commodity futures markets," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(4), pages 516-548, April.
    3. Vincent Laferrière & David Staubli & Christian Thöni, 2023. "Explaining Excess Entry in Winner-Take-All Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 1050-1069, February.
    4. Remzi Uctum & Georges Prat, 2021. "Modeling ex-ante risk premia in the oil market," Post-Print hal-03513121, HAL.
    5. Arvanitis, Stelios & Scaillet, Olivier & Topaloglou, Nikolas, 2020. "Spanning analysis of stock market anomalies under prospect stochastic dominance," Working Papers unige:134101, University of Geneva, Geneva School of Economics and Management.
    6. Cosemans, Mathijs & Frehen, Rik, 2021. "Salience theory and stock prices: Empirical evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 460-483.
    7. Fang, Yi & Niu, Hui & Lin, Yuen, 2023. "Ex-ante Valuation based on Prospect Theory," MPRA Paper 116386, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Moshe Levy, 2022. "An evolutionary explanation of the Allais paradox," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1545-1574, November.
    9. Doruk İriş, 2016. "Economic Targets And Loss-Aversion In International Environmental Cooperation," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 624-648, July.
    10. Ohk, Seungbin & Ju, Biung-Ghi, 2021. "Capitalizing on prospect theory value: The Asian developed stock markets," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    11. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    12. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    13. Neszveda, G., 2019. "Essays on behavioral finance," Other publications TiSEM 05059039-5236-42a3-be1b-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Theodore T. Allen & Olivia K. Hernand & Abdullah Alomair, 2020. "Optimal Off-line Experimentation for Games," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 277-298, December.
    15. Harris, Richard D. F. & Mazibas, Murat, 2022. "Portfolio optimization with behavioural preferences and investor memory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 296(1), pages 368-387.
    16. Zhong, Xiaoling & Wang, Junbo, 2018. "Prospect theory and corporate bond returns: An empirical study," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-48.
    17. Vicki M. Bier & Simon French, 2020. "From the Editors: Decision Analysis Focus and Trends," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 1-8, March.
    18. Mohammad Enamul Hoque & Soo-Wah Low, 2020. "Industry Risk Factors and Stock Returns of Malaysian Oil and Gas Industry: A New Look with Mean Semi-Variance Asset Pricing Framework," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-28, October.
    19. Nicholas Barberis & Lawrence J. Jin & Baolian Wang, 2021. "Prospect Theory and Stock Market Anomalies," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 76(5), pages 2639-2687, October.
    20. Mattos, Fabio & Garcia, Philip & Pennings, Joost M.E., 2008. "Probability weighting and loss aversion in futures hedging," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 433-452, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:18:y:2021:i:2:p:153-168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.