IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jgames/v9y2018i4p85-d178016.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ex Post Nash Equilibrium in Linear Bayesian Games for Decision Making in Multi-Environments

Author

Listed:
  • Abbas Edalat

    (Department of Computing, Imperial College London, London SW7 2RH, UK)

  • Samira Hossein Ghorban

    (School of Computer Science, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Lavasani Av., P.O. Box 19395-5746, Tehran, Iran)

  • Ali Ghoroghi

    (Department of Computing, Imperial College London, London SW7 2RH, UK
    Current address: Department of Computer Engineering, University of Science and Culture, Bahar Ave., P.O. Box 14619-681, Tehran, Iran.)

Abstract

We show that a Bayesian game where the type space of each agent is a bounded set of m -dimensional vectors with non-negative components and the utility of each agent depends linearly on its own type only is equivalent to a simultaneous competition in m basic games which is called a uniform multigame. The type space of each agent can be normalised to be given by the ( m − 1 ) -dimensional simplex. This class of m -dimensional Bayesian games, via their equivalence with uniform multigames, can model decision making in multi-environments in a variety of circumstances, including decision making in multi-markets and decision making when there are both material and social utilities for agents as in the Prisoner’s Dilemma and the Trust Game. We show that, if a uniform multigame in which the action set of each agent consists of one Nash equilibrium inducing action per basic game has a pure ex post Nash equilibrium on the boundary of its type profile space, then it has a pure ex post Nash equilibrium on the whole type profile space. We then develop an algorithm, linear in the number of types of the agents in such a multigame, which tests if a pure ex post Nash equilibrium on the vertices of the type profile space can be extended to a pure ex post Nash equilibrium on the boundary of its type profile space in which case we obtain a pure ex post Nash equilibrium for the multigame.

Suggested Citation

  • Abbas Edalat & Samira Hossein Ghorban & Ali Ghoroghi, 2018. "Ex Post Nash Equilibrium in Linear Bayesian Games for Decision Making in Multi-Environments," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-24, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:9:y:2018:i:4:p:85-:d:178016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/9/4/85/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/9/4/85/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Khadjavi, Menusch & Lange, Andreas, 2013. "Prisoners and their dilemma," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 163-175.
    2. Johnson, Noel D. & Mislin, Alexandra A., 2011. "Trust games: A meta-analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 865-889.
    3. Holmstrom, Bengt & Myerson, Roger B, 1983. "Efficient and Durable Decision Rules with Incomplete Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(6), pages 1799-1819, November.
    4. Harris Milton & Townsend, Robert M, 1981. "Resource Allocation under Asymmetric Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 33-64, January.
    5. Joseph T. Howson, Jr. & Robert W. Rosenthal, 1974. "Bayesian Equilibria of Finite Two-Person Games with Incomplete Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 313-315, November.
    6. Vijay Krishna & Motty Perry, 1997. "Efficient Mechanism Design," Game Theory and Information 9703010, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 28 Apr 1998.
    7. Dirk Bergemann & Stephen Morris, 2012. "Ex Post Implementation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Robust Mechanism Design The Role of Private Information and Higher Order Beliefs, chapter 3, pages 97-152, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Martin Shubik, 1970. "Game theory, behavior, and the paradox of the Prisoner's Dilemma: three solutions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 14(2), pages 181-193, June.
    9. Baumann, Leonie, 2021. "A model of weighted network formation," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(1), January.
    10. McKelvey, Richard D. & McLennan, Andrew, 1996. "Computation of equilibria in finite games," Handbook of Computational Economics, in: H. M. Amman & D. A. Kendrick & J. Rust (ed.), Handbook of Computational Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 2, pages 87-142, Elsevier.
    11. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    12. Bulow, Jeremy I & Geanakoplos, John D & Klemperer, Paul D, 1985. "Multimarket Oligopoly: Strategic Substitutes and Complements," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(3), pages 488-511, June.
    13. Cremer, Jacques & McLean, Richard P, 1985. "Optimal Selling Strategies under Uncertainty for a Discriminating Monopolist When Demands Are Interdependent," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(2), pages 345-361, March.
    14. Ananish Chaudhuri & Lata Gangadharan, 2007. "An Experimental Analysis of Trust and Trustworthiness," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(4), pages 959-985, April.
    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. M. Yenmez, 2015. "Incentive compatible market design with applications," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(3), pages 543-569, August.
    2. Claude d'Aspremont & Jacques Crémer & Louis-André Gérard-Varet, 2003. "Correlation, independence, and Bayesian incentives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 21(2), pages 281-310, October.
    3. Cox, James C. & Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Neururer, Daniel, 2016. "What is trustworthiness and what drives it?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 197-218.
    4. Rodriguez-lara, Ismael, 2015. "Equal distribution or equal payoffs? Reciprocity and inequality aversion in the investment game," MPRA Paper 63313, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Arnstein Aassve & Pierluigi Conzo & Francesco Mattioli, 2021. "Was Banfield right? New insights from a nationwide laboratory experiment," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(5), pages 1029-1064, November.
    6. Bejarano, Hernán & Gillet, Joris & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2021. "Trust and trustworthiness after negative random shocks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    7. Kamas, Linda & Preston, Anne, 2015. "Can social preferences explain gender differences in economic behavior?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 525-539.
    8. van den Akker, Olmo R. & van Assen, Marcel A.L.M. & van Vugt, Mark & Wicherts, Jelte M., 2020. "Sex differences in trust and trustworthiness: A meta-analysis of the trust game and the gift-exchange game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    9. Avtonomov, Y. & Elizarova, E., 2016. "Trust, Expectations and Optimism Bias: an Experimental Study," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 29(1), pages 27-53.
    10. Calabuig, Vicente & Fatas, Enrique & Olcina, Gonzalo & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2016. "Carry a big stick, or no stick at all," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 153-171.
    11. Hernan Bejarano & Joris Gillet & Ismael Rodriguez-Lara, 2020. "Trust and Trustworthiness After Negative Random Shocks," Working Papers 20-25, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    12. Chaudhuri, Ananish & Li, Yaxiong & Paichayontvijit, Tirnud, 2016. "What’s in a frame? Goal framing, trust and reciprocity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 117-135.
    13. Kamas, Linda & Preston, Anne, 2012. "Distributive and reciprocal fairness: What can we learn from the heterogeneity of social preferences?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 538-553.
    14. Ismael Rodriguez-Lara, 2018. "No evidence of inequality aversion in the investment game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-16, October.
    15. Póvoa, Angela Cristiane Santos & Pech, Wesley & Woiciekovski, Edinéia, 2020. "Trust and social preferences: A cross-cultural experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    16. Gabriele Bellucci, 2022. "A Model of Trust," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-27, May.
    17. Vicente Calabuig & Enrique Fatas & Gonzalo Olcina & Ismael Rodriguez-Lara, 2013. "Carry a big stick, or no stick at all An experimental analysis of trust and capacity of punishment," Discussion Papers in Economic Behaviour 0413, University of Valencia, ERI-CES.
    18. Ziqiang Xin & Guofang Liu, 2013. "Homo Economicus Belief Inhibits Trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-5, October.
    19. Tatiana Kozitsina & Anna Mikhaylova & Anna Komkova & Anastasia Peshkovskaya & Anna Sedush & Olga Menshikova & Mikhail Myagkov & Ivan Menshikov, 2020. "Ethnicity and gender influence the decision making in a multinational state: The case of Russia," Papers 2012.01272, arXiv.org.
    20. Rémi Suchon & Marie Claire Villeval, 2017. "Does upward mobility harm trust?," Post-Print halshs-01659021, HAL.

    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:9:y:2018:i:4:p:85-:d:178016. 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.