IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v109y2002i1p175-19210.1023-a1016352202713.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Imperfect Inspection Games Over Time

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Rothenstein
  • Shmuel Zamir

Abstract

We consider an inspection game played on a continuous finite time interval. The inspector wishes to detect a violation as soon as possible after it has been made by the operator. The loss to the inspector is assumed to be linear in the duration of the time elapsed between the violation and its detection. This paper is mostly an extension of Diamond's models for a single inspection, which includes the uncertainty aspect, by relaxing the assumption that the inspection is perfect. Here the inspection is imperfect; it has a Type One Error which means that the inspector may call a false alarm (with probability α), and a Type Two Error which means that the inspection may fail to detect (with probability β) a violation which did occur. In addition we will assume that the inspection is silent, i.e., the operator is unaware of the inspection when it takes place, unless the inspector calls a false alarm. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Rothenstein & Shmuel Zamir, 2002. "Imperfect Inspection Games Over Time," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 175-192, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:109:y:2002:i:1:p:175-192:10.1023/a:1016352202713
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1016352202713
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1016352202713
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1016352202713?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yael Deutsch & Boaz Golany, 2016. "Multiple agents finitely repeated inspection game with dismissals," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 237(1), pages 7-26, February.
    2. Avenhaus, Rudolf & Krieger, Thomas, 2013. "Distributing inspections in space and time – Proposed solution of a difficult problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 712-719.
    3. Yang, Zhisen & Yang, Zaili & Yin, Jingbo & Qu, Zhuohua, 2018. "A risk-based game model for rational inspections in port state control," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 477-495.
    4. Anthony Rossiter & Susan M Hester, 2017. "Designing Biosecurity Inspection Regimes to Account for Stakeholder Incentives: An Inspection Game Approach," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(301), pages 277-301, June.
    5. Harstad, Bård, 2016. "The market for conservation and other hostages," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 124-151.
    6. Stamatios Katsikas & Vassili Kolokoltsov & Wei Yang, 2016. "Evolutionary Inspection and Corruption Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-25, October.
    7. Puneet Agarwal & Kyle Hunt & Shivasubramanian Srinivasan & Jun Zhuang, 2020. "Fire Code Inspection and Compliance: A Game-Theoretic Model Between Fire Inspection Agencies and Building Owners," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(3), pages 208-226, September.
    8. D׳Agostino, Elena & Seidmann, Daniel J., 2016. "Protecting buyers from fine print," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 42-54.
    9. Páez-Pérez, David & Sánchez-Silva, Mauricio, 2016. "A dynamic principal-agent framework for modeling the performance of infrastructure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(2), pages 576-594.
    10. Yael Deutsch & Boaz Golany, 2016. "Multiple agents finitely repeated inspection game with dismissals," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 237(1), pages 7-26, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:annopr:v:109:y:2002:i:1:p:175-192:10.1023/a:1016352202713. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.