Lecture 9: The Agent Form of Bayesian Games

Similar documents
Handout on Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium

Games With Incomplete Information: Bayesian Nash Equilibrium

Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium

Equilibrium Selection In Coordination Games

Game Theory. Uncertainty about Payoffs: Bayesian Games. Manar Mohaisen Department of EEC Engineering

Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium

Lecture 2: Learning and Equilibrium Extensive-Form Games

Emanuela Carbonara. 31 January University of Bologna - Department of Economics

Conformity and stereotyping in social groups

What Happens in the Field Stays in the Field: Professionals Do Not Play Minimax in Laboratory Experiments

Information Design, Bayesian Persuasion, and Bayes Correlated Equilibrium

Multiple Equilibria in Tullock Contests *

Answers to Midterm Exam

The Game Prisoners Really Play: Preference Elicitation and the Impact of Communication

Pareto-optimal Nash equilibrium detection using an evolutionary approach

Actor (and network) models

How to weigh the strength of prior information and clarify the expected level of evidence?

Probability II. Patrick Breheny. February 15. Advanced rules Summary

Publicly available solutions for AN INTRODUCTION TO GAME THEORY

THE EMPIRICAL CONTENT OF MODELS WITH SOCIAL INTERACTIONS

Selecting Strategies Using Empirical Game Models: An Experimental Analysis of Meta-Strategies

Generative Adversarial Networks.

Bayesian Analysis of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures in Clinical Medicine

Walras-Bowley Lecture 2003 (extended)

Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences, 3(15)

Thoughts on Social Design

Irrationality in Game Theory

UNIVERSITY OF OSLO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

MTAT Bayesian Networks. Introductory Lecture. Sven Laur University of Tartu

Unlike standard economics, BE is (most of the time) not based on rst principles, but on observed behavior of real people.

Epistemic Game Theory

Game theory for playing games: sophistication in a negative-externality experiment

BAYESIAN ESTIMATORS OF THE LOCATION PARAMETER OF THE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION WITH UNKNOWN VARIANCE

Belief Formation in a Signalling Game without Common Prior: An Experiment

Nash Equilibrium and Dynamics

Strategic Interdependence, Hypothetical Bargaining, and Mutual Advantage in Non-Cooperative Games

The Common Priors Assumption: A comment on Bargaining and the Nature of War

Eliciting Beliefs by Paying in Chance

A short introduction to game theory

Introduction to Game Theory Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems 2015/2016

Nash Equilibrium and Dynamics

Towards a Justification the Principle of Coordination

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Behavioral Game Theory

Be My Guinea Pig: Information Spillovers in a One-Armed Bandit Game

An Experiment to Evaluate Bayesian Learning of Nash Equilibrium Play

Abhimanyu Khan, Ronald Peeters. Cognitive hierarchies in adaptive play RM/12/007

Knowledge is rarely absolutely certain. In expert systems we need a way to say that something is probably but not necessarily true.

Leadership, Followership, and Beliefs About the World: Theory and Experiment

Representing Bayesian Games Without a Common Prior

A Comment on the Absent-Minded Driver Paradox*

Signalling, shame and silence in social learning. Arun Chandrasekhar, Benjamin Golub, He Yang Presented by: Helena, Jasmin, Matt and Eszter

Playing with the Good Guys: A Public Good Game with Endogenous Group Formation

Human HER Process Environment

Lecture 9 Internal Validity

2) {p p is an irrational number that is also rational} 2) 3) {a a is a natural number greater than 6} 3)

Transparency is overrated: communicating in a coordination game with private information

Today s lecture. A thought experiment. Topic 3: Social preferences and fairness. Overview readings: Fehr and Fischbacher (2002) Sobel (2005)

Behavioral Game Theory

Appendix (unedited, as supplied by the authors)

MS&E 226: Small Data

LEARNING AND EQUILIBRIUM, II: EXTENSIVE-FORM GAMES. Simons Institute Economics and Computation Boot Camp UC Berkeley,August 2015 Drew Fudenberg

Leandro Almeida IEP, Campus de Gualtar, Braga, Portugal,

NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES DO TRUST AND TRUSTWORTHINESS PAY OFF? Joel Slemrod Peter Katuscak. Working Paper

Team Reasoning and a Rank-Based Function of Team s Interests

The Evolution of Moral Codes of Behavior

Team Reasoning and a Measure of Mutual Advantage in Games

Experimental Economics Lecture 3: Bayesian updating and cognitive heuristics

CPS331 Lecture: Coping with Uncertainty; Discussion of Dreyfus Reading

A Brief Introduction to Bayesian Statistics

Outline for the Course in Experimental and Neuro- Finance Elena Asparouhova and Peter Bossaerts

Cheap Talk Games with two types

Procedural Concerns in Psychological Games

Joint Metrizability of Spaces on Families of Subspaces

Behavioral Game Theory

Transparency is overrated: communicating in a coordination game with private information

DEVELOPING THE RESEARCH FRAMEWORK Dr. Noly M. Mascariñas

Simple Mechanisms and Preferences for Honesty

User Subscription Dynamics and Revenue Maximization in Communications Markets

Finding Information Sources by Model Sharing in Open Multi-Agent Systems 1

The Role of Implicit Motives in Strategic Decision-Making: Computational Models of Motivated Learning and the Evolution of Motivated Agents

NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES ASYMMETRIC SOCIAL INTERACTION IN ECONOMICS: CIGARETTE SMOKING AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES,

Be My Guinea Pig: Information Spillovers in a One-Armed Bandit Game

Explicit versus Implicit Contracts for Dividing the Benefits of Cooperation. 30 October Abstract

CARISMA-LMS Workshop on Statistics for Risk Analysis

Bayesian Estimations from the Two-Parameter Bathtub- Shaped Lifetime Distribution Based on Record Values

CONVERGENCE: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF TEACHING AND LEARNING IN REPEATED GAMES

A Cognitive Model of Strategic Deliberation and Decision Making

Simpson s paradox (or reversal paradox)

Testing models with models: The case of game theory. Kevin J.S. Zollman

Bayes Linear Statistics. Theory and Methods

Price and Quality with a Conscientious Worker

Noisy Introspection in the Game

Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches

Anticipating Information Projection: An Experimental Investigation

Empirical game theory of pedestrian interaction for autonomous vehicles

Game theory and epidemiology

Beliefs on Inequality in Rural India. Julia Seiermann The Graduate Institute, Geneva

Cooperation in a Prisoners Dilemma with Losses. Results from an Experimental Study.

Essays on Behavioral and Experimental Game Theory. Ye Jin. A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the. requirements for the degree of

Transcription:

Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9: The Agent Form of Bayesian Games (see Osborne, 2009, Sect 9.2.2) Dr. Michael Trost Department of Applied Microeconomics December 20, 2013 Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 1 / 23

Strategic form Nash equilibrium As stated in Theorem 8.4, the Bayesian equilibria of a Bayesian game are the Nash equilibria of its strategic form. Hence, a route of figuring out the set of Bayesian equilibria of a Bayesian game is to accomplish following steps: 1 transform the Bayesian game into its strategic form 2 find the Nash equilibria of this strategic game. Theorem 8.4 establishes that these Nash equilibria are the Bayesian equilibria of the Bayesian game. Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 2 / 23

Agent form of a Bayesian game In this lecture, we point to an alternative route of figuring out the Bayesian equilibria. This method is based on the transformation of a Bayesian game into its agent form. Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 3 / 23

Agent form of a Bayesian game The agent form of a Bayesian game is a strategic game in which the players are agents of the players of the Bayesian game. Each agent represents a player of the Bayesian game who is endowed with specific information about the actual state of the world. Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 4 / 23

Agent form Nash equilibrium Similar to Theorem 8.4, the Nash equilibria of the agent form prove to be the Bayesian equilibria of the Bayesian game, and vice versa. Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 5 / 23

Agent form Nash equilibrium This result opens an alternative route for finding the Bayesian equilibria. It runs as follows: 1 transform the Bayesian game into its agent form. 2 figure out all Nash equilibria of the agent form. According to the previous claim, these Nash equilibria represent all Bayesian equilibria of the Bayesian game. Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 6 / 23

Transformation of Bayesian games In order to transform the Bayesian game into its agent form, the following concepts are needed: signal function, agent of a player, posterior beliefs. Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 7 / 23

Signal function A signal function τ i of player i I is a function that specifies the information (the signal) the player receives in the actual state of the word. Formally, τ i : Ω Π i where τ i (ω) := P i (ω) holds for every state ω Ω. Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 8 / 23

Exercise: Bank run game EXERCISE: Determine the signal functions of our bank run game with asymmetric information. signal function of A τ A : signal function of B τ B : Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 9 / 23

Agent of a player An agent t i of a player i I is represented by the pair t i := (i, P i ) where i reveals the identity of the player behind this agent P i Π i is an information cell which specifies the information this agent of i has. The combination t i := (i, P i ) is also referred to as a type of player i. Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 10 / 23

Actual agent Consider some Bayesian game Γ and let ω Ω be some state of the world. In state ω, the player i receives the signal τ i and, thus, player i is of type (i, τ i (ω)). We term (i, τ i (ω)) the type (agent) of player i at state ω. Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 11 / 23

Exercise: Bank run game EXERCISE: Determine the set of agents of our bank run game with asymmetric information. set of agents of A T A := set of agents of B T B := Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 12 / 23

Posterior belief Let p i the prior of player i and P i Π i an information cell of player i I. The conditional probability measure p i (. P i ), which is defined by p i (E P i ) := p i(e P i ) p i (P i ) for every E Ω, is called the posterior belief of player i at information P i, or synonymously, the belief of the agent (i, P i ). Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 13 / 23

Belief of an agent Let t := (i, P i ) be an agent of Bayesian game Γ where p i denotes the prior of player i. Sometimes the belief of agent t is denoted simply by p t. That is, we define p t := p i (. P i ). Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 14 / 23

Exercise: Bank run game EXERCISE: Determine the beliefs of the agents of our bank run game with asymmetric information. belief of agent (A, {profit}) belief of agent (A, {loss}) belief of agent (B, {profit}) p A (. {profit}) : p A (. {loss}) : p B (. {profit, loss}) : Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 15 / 23

Agent form of a Bayesian game Definition 9.1 The agent form of a Bayesian game Γ := (I, Ω, (Π i ) i I, (p i ) i I, (A i ) i I, ( i ) i I ) is the strategic game Γ := (T, (A t) t T, ( t) t T ) consisting of a set T := i I T i of agents, for each agent t := (i, P i ) T, a set A t := A i of actions, for each agent t := (i, P i ) T, a preference relation t on A := t T A t which is representable by utility function U t(a) := ω Ω u i ( (a(i,τ i (ω))) i I, ω ) p i (ω P i ) where a := (a t ) t T A is some profile of agents actions, τ i the signal function of player i and u i the Bernoulli utility function of player i. Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 16 / 23

Agent form of a Bayesian game As stated in the previous definition, the agent form of Bayesian game is a strategic game with the following properties: the set of players is the set of agents. the action sets of the agents are the action sets of the Bayesian players behind these agents. the utility functions of the agents give the expected utilities resulting from the Bernoulli utilities of the Bayesian players behind these agents and from the beliefs of the agents. Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 17 / 23

Exercise: Bank run game EXERCISE: Determine the agent form of our bank run game with asymmetric information. set of agents action sets T := A t : preferences t: Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 18 / 23

Exercise: Bank run game EXERCISE: Depict the agent form of our bank run game with asymmetric information. withdraw retain withdraw retain withdraw retain withdraw retain Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 19 / 23

Characterization of Bayesian equilibrium Theorem 9.2 Let s := (s i ) i I be a strategy profile of Bayesian game Γ and a := (a t ) t T an action profile of the agent form game of Γ so that holds for every state ω Ω. a (i,p i (ω)) = s i (ω) Then, strategy profile s is a Bayesian equilibrium of the Bayesian game Γ if and only if action profile a is a Nash equilibrium of the agent form of Γ. Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 20 / 23

Agent form Nash equilibrium The previous theorem says that a Bayesian equilibrium of a Bayesian game is representable as a Nash equilibrium of its agent form. Due to this result the agent form of the Bayesian game can be used to figure out its Bayesian equilibria. As we will see, this method is often applied to solving Bayesian games. Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 21 / 23

Exercise: Bank run game EXERCISE: Determine the Nash equilibrium of the agent form of our bank run with asymmetric information. Agent (A, {profit}) Agent (A, {profit}) Agent (A, {loss}) withdraw retain withdraw (8.00,6.00,7.50) (8.00,4.00,8.50) retain (12.00,6.00,9.00) (12.00,4.00,10.00) Agent (B, {profit, loss}) withdraws Agent (A, {loss}) withdraw retain withdraw (10.00,10.00,10.00) (10.00,7.00,10.75) retain (12.00,10.00,10.00) (12.00,7.00,10.75) Agent (B, {profit, loss}) retains Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 22 / 23

Exercise: Bank run game EXERCISE: Deduce the Bayesian equilibrium of our bank run game from the Nash equilibrium of the agent form. The unique Bayesian equilibrium consists of the strategies sa : s A (profit) := s B : s B (profit) := sa (loss) := s B (loss) := Dr. Michael Trost Microeconomics I: Game Theory Lecture 9 23 / 23