Bounded rationality, strategy simplification, and equilibrium
It is frequently suggested that predictions made by game theory could be improved by considering computational restrictions when modeling agents. Under the supposition that players in a game may desire to balance maximization of payoff with minimization of strategy complexity, Rubinstein and co-authors studied forms of Nash equilibrium where strategies are maximally simplified in that no strategy can be further simplified without sacrificing payoff. Inspired by this line of work, we introduce a notion of equilibrium whereby strategies are also maximally simplified, but with respect to a simplification procedure that is more careful in that a player will not simplify if the simplification incents other players to deviate. We study such equilibria in two-player machine games in which players choose finite automata that succinctly represent strategies for repeated games; in this context, we present techniques for establishing that an outcome is at equilibrium and present results on the structure of equilibria. Copyright Springer-Verlag 2013
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.
Volume (Year): 42 (2013)
Issue (Month): 3 (August)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00182/index.htm|
|Order Information:||Web: http://link.springer.de/orders.htm|
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.:
- Rubinstein, Ariel, 1986.
"Finite automata play the repeated prisoner's dilemma,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 83-96, June.
- Ariel Rubinstein, 1997. "Finite automata play the repeated prisioners dilemma," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1639, David K. Levine.
- Gossner, O., 1999.
"Repeated Games played by Cryptographically Sophesticated Players,"
99-07, Paris X - Nanterre, U.F.R. de Sc. Ec. Gest. Maths Infor..
- GOSSNER, Olivier, 1998. "Repeated games played by cryptographically sophisticated players," CORE Discussion Papers 1998035, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- O. Gossner, 1999. "Repeated games played by cryptographically sophisticated players," THEMA Working Papers 99-07, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
- Binmore, Ken, 1988. "Modeling Rational Players: Part II," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(01), pages 9-55, April.
- Tennenholtz, Moshe, 2004. "Program equilibrium," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 363-373, November.
- Ben-porath, Elchanan, 1990. "The complexity of computing a best response automaton in repeated games with mixed strategies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-12, March.
- Lance Fortnow & Rahul Santhanam, 2009. "Bounding Rationality by Discounting Time," Discussion Papers 1481, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Ehud Kalai & William Stanford, 1986.
"Finite Rationality and Interpersonal Complexity in Repeated Games,"
679, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Kalai, Ehud & Stanford, William, 1988. "Finite Rationality and Interpersonal Complexity in Repeated Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(2), pages 397-410, March.
- Ran Spiegler, 2001.
"Testing Threats in Repeated Games,"
Economics Working Papers
0009, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
- Ran Spiegler, 2002. "Testing Threats in Repeated Games," Levine's Working Paper Archive 391749000000000445, David K. Levine.
- Spiegler, R., 2001. "Testing Threats in Repeated Games," Papers 2001-28, Tel Aviv.
- Ran Spiegler, 2002. "Testing Threats in Repeated Games," NajEcon Working Paper Reviews 391749000000000445, www.najecon.org.
- Binmore, Ken, 1987. "Modeling Rational Players: Part I," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(02), pages 179-214, October.
- Neyman, Abraham, 1985. "Bounded complexity justifies cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners' dilemma," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 227-229.
- 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).
- 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.
- Gilboa, Itzhak, 1988. "The complexity of computing best-response automata in repeated games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 342-352, August.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jogath:v:42:y:2013:i:3:p:593-611. 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: (Sonal Shukla)or (Christopher F Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.