Adaptation and complexity in repeated games
The paper presents a learning model for two-player infinitely repeated games. In an inference step players construct minimally complex inferences of strategies based on observed play, and in an adaptation step players choose minimally complex best responses to an inference. When players randomly select an inference from a probability distribution with full support the set of steady states is a subset of the set of Nash equilibria in which only stage game Nash equilibria are played. When players make 'cautious' inferences the set of steady states is the subset of self-confirming equilibria with Nash outcome paths. When players use different inference rules, the set of steady states can lie between the previous two cases.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ran Spiegler, 2002. "Equilibrium in Justifiable Strategies: A Model of Reason-based Choice in Extensive-form Games," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(3), pages 691-706.
- Eliaz, Kfir, 2003.
"Nash equilibrium when players account for the complexity of their forecasts,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 286-310, August.
- Eliaz, K., 2001. "Nash Equilibrium When Players Account for the Complexity of their Forecasts," Papers 2001-6, Tel Aviv.
- Jehiel, Philippe, 1998. "Learning to Play Limited Forecast Equilibria," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 274-298, February.
- Volij, Oscar, 2002.
"In Defense of Defect,"
Staff General Research Papers Archive
10125, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Spiegler, Ran, 2004.
"Simplicity of beliefs and delay tactics in a concession game,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 200-220, April.
- Ran Spiegler, 2003. "Simplicity of Beliefs and Delay Tactics in a Concession Game," Levine's Working Paper Archive 506439000000000208, David K. Levine.
- Fudenberg, Drew & Levine, David K, 1993.
Econometric Society, vol. 61(3), pages 523-45, May.
- Kalyan Chatterjee & Hamid Sabourian, 1998.
"Multiperson Bargaining and Strategic Complexity,"
CRIEFF Discussion Papers
9808, Centre for Research into Industry, Enterprise, Finance and the Firm.
- Banks, J.S. & Sundaram, R.K., 1989.
"Repeated Games, Finite Automata, And Complexity,"
RCER Working Papers
183, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
- Hamid Sabourian, 2000. "Bargaining and Markets: Complexity and the Walrasian Outcome," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1249, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Binmore, Kenneth G. & Samuelson, Larry, 1992. "Evolutionary stability in repeated games played by finite automata," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 278-305, August.
- Ariel Rubinstein, 1997.
"Finite automata play the repeated prisioners dilemma,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
1639, David K. Levine.
- Rubinstein, Ariel, 1986. "Finite automata play the repeated prisoner's dilemma," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 83-96, June.
- Fudenberg, Drew & Maskin, Eric, 1986. "The Folk Theorem in Repeated Games with Discounting or with Incomplete Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(3), pages 533-54, May.
- Philippe Jehiel, 2001. "Limited Foresight May Force Cooperation," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 68(2), pages 369-391.
- Jeheil Phillippe, 1995. "Limited Horizon Forecast in Repeated Alternate Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 497-519, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:63:y:2008:i:1:p:166-187. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.