IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jgames/v13y2022i6p73-d959996.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Characterizing Agent Behavior in Revision Games with Uncertain Deadline

Author

Listed:
  • Zhuohan Wang

    (School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610056, China)

  • Dong Hao

    (School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610056, China)

Abstract

Revision game is a very recent advance in dynamic game theory and it can be used to analyze the trading in the pre-opening stock market. In such games, players prepare actions that will be implemented at a given deadline, before which they may have opportunities to revise actions. For the first time, we study the role of the deadline in revision games, which is the core component that distinguishes revision games from classic games. We introduce the deadline distribution into revision game model and characterize the sufficient and necessary condition for players’ strategies to constitute an equilibrium. The equilibrium strategy with respect to the deadline uncertainty is given by a simple differential equation set. Governed by this differential equation set, players initially fully cooperate, and the cooperation level decreases as time progresses. The uncertainty has a great impact on players’ behavior. As the uncertainty increases, players become more risk averse, in the sense that they prefer lower mutual cooperation rate rather than higher payoff with higher uncertainty. Specifically, they will not stay in full cooperation for a long time, while after they deviate from the full cooperation, they adjust their plans more slowly and cautiously. The deadline uncertainty can improve the competition and avoid collusion in games, which could be utilized for auction design and pre-opening stock market regulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhuohan Wang & Dong Hao, 2022. "Characterizing Agent Behavior in Revision Games with Uncertain Deadline," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:13:y:2022:i:6:p:73-:d:959996
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/13/6/73/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/13/6/73/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gensbittel, Fabien & Lovo, Stefano & Renault, Jérôme & Tomala, Tristan, 2018. "Zero-sum revision games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 504-522.
    2. Anderson, Simon P. & Renault, Regis, 2003. "Efficiency and surplus bounds in Cournot competition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 253-264, December.
    3. Sailer, Katharina, 2006. "Searching the eBay Marketplace," Discussion Papers in Economics 1234, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    4. Ockenfels, Axel & Roth, Alvin E., 2006. "Late and multiple bidding in second price Internet auctions: Theory and evidence concerning different rules for ending an auction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 297-320, May.
    5. Kreps, David M. & Wilson, Robert, 1982. "Reputation and imperfect information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 253-279, August.
    6. Xiaoyan Ni, Sophie & Pearson, Neil D. & Poteshman, Allen M., 2005. "Stock price clustering on option expiration dates," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 49-87, October.
    7. Itay Goldstein & Alexander Guembel, 2008. "Manipulation and the Allocational Role of Prices," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 75(1), pages 133-164.
    8. Lovo , Stefano & Tomala , Tristan, 2015. "Markov Perfect Equilibria in Stochastic Revision Games," HEC Research Papers Series 1093, HEC Paris.
    9. , & , & , & ,, 2014. "Asynchronicity and coordination in common and opposing interest games," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(2), May.
    10. Alvin E. Roth & Axel Ockenfels, 2002. "Last-Minute Bidding and the Rules for Ending Second-Price Auctions: Evidence from eBay and Amazon Auctions on the Internet," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1093-1103, September.
    11. Sascha Füllbrunn & Abdolkarim Sadrieh, 2012. "Sudden Termination Auctions—An Experimental Study," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 519-540, June.
    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. Sofia Moroni, 2020. "Existence of Trembling hand perfect and sequential equilibrium in Stochastic Games," Working Paper 6837, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.
    2. Sofia Moroni, 2019. "Existence of trembling hand perfect and sequential equilibrium in games with stochastic timing of moves," Working Paper 6757, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.
    3. Sofia Moroni, 2016. "Sniping in Proxy Auctions with Deadlines," Working Paper 5875, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh.
    4. Luís Cabral & Ali Hortacsu, 2004. "The Dynamics of Seller Reputation: Theory and Evidence from eBay," Working Papers 04-05, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    5. Hortacsu, Ali, 2005. "Trust and Reputation on eBay: Micro and Macro Perspectives," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt8vj7d50q, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    6. Dong Hao & Qi Shi & Jinyan Su & Bo An, 2021. "Cooperation, Retaliation and Forgiveness in Revision Games," Papers 2112.02271, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    7. Gary Bolton & Ben Greiner & Axel Ockenfels, 2013. "Engineering Trust: Reciprocity in the Production of Reputation Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 265-285, January.
    8. Bolton, Gary E. & Ockenfels, Axel, 2012. "Behavioral economic engineering," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 665-676.
    9. Peter Boatwright & Sharad Borle & Joseph B. Kadane, 2010. "Common Value vs. Private Value Categories in Online Auctions: A Distinction Without a Difference?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 86-98, March.
    10. Kevin Hasker & Robin Sickles, 2010. "eBay in the Economic Literature: Analysis of an Auction Marketplace," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 37(1), pages 3-42, August.
    11. Axel Ockenfels, 2009. "Marktdesign und Experimentelle Wirtschaftsforschung," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 10(s1), pages 31-53, May.
    12. Sascha Füllbrunn, 2007. "Collusion or Sniping in simultaneous ascending Auctions," FEMM Working Papers 07025, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    13. Yevgeny Tsodikovich, 2021. "The worst-case payoff in games with stochastic revision opportunities," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 300(1), pages 205-224, May.
    14. März, Armin & Lachner, Michael & Heumann, Christian G. & Schumann, Jan H. & von Wangenheim, Florian, 2021. "How You Remind Me! The Influence of Mobile Push Notifications on Success Rates in Last-Minute Bidding," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 11-24.
    15. Jennifer Brown & John Morgan, 2009. "How Much Is a Dollar Worth? Tipping versus Equilibrium Coexistence on Competing Online Auction Sites," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 117(4), pages 668-700, August.
    16. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Georg Kirchsteiger & Markus Walzl, 2010. "On the Evolution of Market Institutions: The Platform Design Paradox," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(543), pages 215-243, March.
    17. Patrick Bajari & Ali Hortaçsu, 2004. "Economic Insights from Internet Auctions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(2), pages 457-486, June.
    18. Bose, Subir & Daripa, Arup, 2017. "Shills and snipes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 507-516.
    19. Sascha Füllbrunn & Tibor Neugebauer & Andreas Nicklisch, 2020. "Underpricing of initial public offerings in experimental asset markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1002-1029, December.
    20. Sascha Füllbrunn & Tibor Neugebauer, 2007. "An experimental investigation of collusion in hard-close auctions: partners and friends," FEMM Working Papers 07024, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.

    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:gam:jgames:v:13:y:2022:i:6:p:73-:d:959996. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.