Gagen, Michael
(2013):
*Isomorphic Strategy Spaces in Game Theory.*

Preview |
PDF
MPRA_paper_46176.pdf Download (1MB) | Preview |

## Abstract

This book summarizes ongoing research introducing probability space isomorphic mappings into the strategy spaces of game theory. This approach is motivated by discrepancies between probability theory and game theory when applied to the same strategic situation. In particular, probability theory and game theory can disagree on calculated values of the Fisher information, the log likelihood function, entropy gradients, the rank and Jacobian of variable transforms, and even the dimensionality and volume of the underlying probability parameter spaces. These differences arise as probability theory employs structure preserving isomorphic mappings when constructing strategy spaces to analyze games. In contrast, game theory uses weaker mappings which change some of the properties of the underlying probability distributions within the mixed strategy space. Here, we explore how using strong isomorphic mappings to define game strategy spaces can alter rational outcomes in simple games . Specific example games considered are the chain store paradox, the trust game, the ultimatum game, the public goods game, the centipede game, and the iterated prisoner's dilemma. In general, our approach provides rational outcomes which are consistent with observed human play and might thereby resolve some of the paradoxes of game theory.

Item Type: | MPRA Paper |
---|---|

Original Title: | Isomorphic Strategy Spaces in Game Theory |

Language: | English |

Keywords: | non-cooperative game theory, isomorphic probability spaces |

Subjects: | C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C0 - General > C02 - Mathematical Methods C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C72 - Noncooperative Games |

Item ID: | 46176 |

Depositing User: | Michael Gagen |

Date Deposited: | 14 Apr 2013 07:00 |

Last Modified: | 05 Oct 2019 13:58 |

References: | [1] J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1944. [2] J. F. Nash. Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 36(1):48–49, 1950. [3] J. Nash. Non-cooperative games. Annals of Mathematics, 54(2):286–295, 1951. [4] H. W. Kuhn. Extensive games and the problem of information. In H. W. Kuhn and A. W. Tucker, editors, Contributions to the Theory of Games, Volume II, Princeton Annals of Mathematical Studies, No. 28, Princeton, 1953. Princeton University Press. [5] S. Hart. Games in extensive and strategic forms. In R. J. Aumann and S. Hart, editors, Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, pages 19–40, Amsterdam, 1992. North Holland. [6] R. Selten. A reexamination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games. International Journal of Game Theory, 4:25–55, 1975. [7] D. Chatterjee. Abstract Algebra. Prentice-Hall, New Delhi, 2005. [8] K. Ito. Introduction to Probability Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984. [9] R. M. Gray. Probability, Random Processes and Ergodic Processes. Springer, Dordrecht, 2009. [10] P. Walters. An Introduction to Ergodic Theory. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982. [11] E. Sernesi. Linear Algebra: A Geometric Approach. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, 1993. [12] H.-O. Georgii. Stochastics: Introduction to Probability and Statistics. de Gruyter, Berlin, 2008. [13] F. Burk. Lebesgue Measure and Integration: An Introduction. New York, Wiley, 1998. [14] M. Hayashi. Quantum Information: An Introduction. Springer, Berlin, 2006. [15] P. E. Pfeiffer. Probability for Application. Springer, New York, 1990. [16] A. Gersho and R. M. Gray. Vector Quantization and Signal Compression. Springer, London, 1991. [17] M. Insall, T. Rowland, and E. W. Weisstein. Embedding. From MathWorld—A Wolfram Web Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Embedding.html, 2009. [18] F. P. Ramsey. A mathematical theory of savings. Economic Journal, 38(152):543– 559, 1928. [19] D. G. Kelly. Introduction to Probability. Macmillan, New York, 1994. [20] T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas. Elements of Information Theory. Wiley, New York, 1991. [21] E. van Damme. Strategic equilibrium. In R. J. Aumann and S. Hart, editors, Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, pages 1521–1596, Amsterdam, 1992. North Holland. [22] J. Pinter. Global Optimization. From MathWorld– A Wolfram Web Resource, created by Eric W. Weisstein. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GlobalOptimization.html. [23] R. J. Aumann. Subjectivity and correlation in randomized strategies. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 1:67–96, 1974. [24] P. Milgrom and J. Roberts. Predation, reputation, and entry deterrence. Journal of Economic Theory, 27:280–312, 1982. [25] R. Selten. The chain store paradox. Theory and Decision, 9:127–159, 1978. [26] R. W. Rosenthal. Games of perfect information, predatory pricing and the chainstore paradox. Journal of Economic Theory, 25:92–100, 1981. [27] D. M. Kreps and R. Wilson. Reputation, and imperfect information. Journal of Economic Theory, 27:253–279, 1982. [28] L. H. Davis. No chain store paradox. Theory and Decision, 18(2):139–144, 1985. [29] W. Trockel. The chain-store paradox revisited. Theory and Decision, 21(2):163– 179, 1986. [30] R. Wilson. Strategic models of entry deterrence. In R. J. Aumann and S. Hart, editors, Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, pages 305–329, Amsterdam, 1992. North Holland. [31] D. M. Kreps. Corporate culture and economic theory. In J. E. Alt and K. A. Shepsle, editors, Perspectives on Positive Political Economy, page 1, Cambridge, UK, 1990. Cambridge University. [32] J. Berg. Turst, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behaviour, 10:122–142, 1995. [33] B. King-Casas, D. Tomlin, C. Anen, C. F. Camerer, S. R. Quartz, and P. R. Montague. Getting to know you: Reputation and trust in a two-person economic exchange. Science, 308:78–83, 2005. [34] W. G¨uth, R. Schmittberger, and B. Schwarze. An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3(4):367–388, 1982. [35] I. Stahl. Bargaining Theory. Economic Research Institute, Stockholm, 1972. [36] A. Rubinstein. Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica, 50:97–109, 1982. [37] K. Binmore, A. Shaked, and J. Sutton. Testing noncooperative bargaining theory: A preliminary study. American Economic Review, 75:1178–1180, 1985. [38] J. Ochs and A. E. Roth. An experimental study of sequential bargaining. American Economic Review, 79(3):355–384, 1989. [39] G. E. Bolton. A comparative model of bargaining: Theory and evidence. American Economic Review, 81(5):1096–1136, 1991. [40] H. Oosterbeek, R. Sloof, and G. van de Kuilen. Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 7:171–188, 2004. [41] E. Hoffman, K. A. McCabe, and V. L. Smith. On expectations and the monetary stakes in ultimatum games. International Journal of Game Theory, 25(3):289–302, 1996. [42] R. Slonim and A. E. Roth. Learning in high stakes ultimatum games: An experiment in the Slovak republic. Econometrica, 66(3):569–596, 1998. [43] L. A. Cameron. Raising the stakes in the ultimatum game: Experimental evidence from Indonesia. Economic Inquiry, 37(1):47–59, 1999. [44] A. E. Roth, V. Prasnikar, M. Okuno-Fujiwara, and S. Zamir. Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo. American Economic Review, 81(5):1068–1095, 1991. [45] J. Henrich. Does culture matter in economic behavior? Ultimatum game bargaining among the Machiguenga of the Peruvian Amazon. American Economic Review, 90(4):973–979, 2000. [46] R. H. Thaler. The ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(4):195– 206, 1988. [47] A. E. Roth. Bargaining experiments. In J. Kagel and A. E. Roth, editors, Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton, NJ, 1995. Princeton University Press. [48] C. Camerer and R. H. Thaler. Anomalies - ultimatums, dictators and manners. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2):209–219, 1995. [49] S. Zamir. Rationality and emotions in ultimatum bargaining. mimeo, Lecture, Conf´erence Des Annales, June 19, 2000. [50] E. Winter and S. Zamir. An experiment with ultimatum bargaining in a changing environment. The Hebrew University, Center for Rationality and Interactive Decision Theory, DP No. 159, 1997. [51] B. J. Ruffle. More is better, but fair is fair: Tipping in dictator and ultimatum games. Games and Economic Behavior, 23(2):247–265, 1998. [52] V. Prasnikar and A. E. Roth. Considerations of fairness and strategy: Experimental data from sequential games. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(3):865–888, 1992. [53] M. Rabin. Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. American Economic Review, 83(5):1281–1302, 1993. [54] G. Loewenstein, I. Samuel, C. Camerer, and L. Babcock. Self-serving assessments of fairness and pretrial bargaining. Journal of Legal Studies, 22:135–159, 1993. [55] R. Forsythe, J. L. Horowitz, N. E. Savin, and M. Sefton. Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6(3):347–369, 1994. [56] S. Blount. When social outcomes aren’t fair: The effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(2):131– 144, 1995. [57] G. E. Bolton and A. Ockenfels. ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. American Economic Review, 90(1):166–193, 2000. [58] J. H. Kagel, C. Kim, and D. Moser. Fairness in ultimatum games with asymmetric information and asymmetric payoffs. Games and Economic Behavior, 13(1):100– 110, 1996. [59] S. J. Burnell, L. Evans, and S. Yao. The ultimatum game: Optimal strategies without fairness. Games and Economic Behavior, 26:221–252, 1999. [60] M. Dufwenberg and G. Kirchsteiger. A theory of sequential reciprocity. mimeo, CentER for Economic Research, Tilberg, 1998. [61] A. Falk and U. Fischbacher. A theory of reciprocity. Institute for Empirical Research in Economics: Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. 6, See http://www.unizh.ch/iew/wp/, 2000. [62] G. Kirchsteiger. The role of envy in ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 25(3):373–390, 1994. [63] G. E. Bolton and R. Zwick. Anonymity versus punishment in ultimatum bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior, 10:95–121, 1995. [64] E. Fehr and K. M. Schmidt. A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114:817–868, 1999. [65] D. Levine. Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Review of Economic Dynamics, 1:593–622, 1998. [66] E. Hoffman, K. McCabe, K. Shachat, and V. Smith. Preferences, property rights and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7:346–380, 1994. [67] A. E. Roth and I. Erev. Learning in extensive form games: Experimental data and simple dynamic models in the intermediate term. Games and Economic Behavior, 8(1):164–212, 1995. [68] J. Gale, K. G. Binmore, and L. Samuelson. Learning to be imperfect: The ultimatum game. Games and Economic Behavior, 8(1):56–90, 1995. [69] N. J. Vriend. Will reasoning improve learning? Economics Letters, 55(1):9–18, 1997. [70] J. Duffy and N. Feltovich. Does observation of others affect learning in strategic environments? An experimental study. International Journal of Game Theory, 28(1):131–152, 1999. [71] M. A. Nowak, K. M. Page, and K. Sigmund. Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game. Science, 289:1773–1775, 2000. [72] S. Huck and J. Oechssler. The indirect evolutionary approach to explaining fair allocations. Games and Economic Behavior, 28:13–24, 1999. [73] W. G¨uth and M. Yaari. An evolutionary approach to explain reciprocal behavior in a simple strategic game. In U. Witt, editor, Explaining Process and Change: Appproaches to Evolutionary Economics, pages 23–34, Ann Arbor, 1992. [74] R. Peters. Evolutionary stability in the ultimatum game. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9(4):315–324, 2000. [75] G. Hardin. The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162:1243–1248, 1968. [76] E. Fehr and S. Gachter. Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. American Economic Review, 90:980–994, 2000. [77] M. A. Nowak and K. Sigmund. Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature, 393:573–577, 1998. [78] C. Wedekind and M. Milinski. Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science, 288:850–852, 2000. [79] E. Fehr and U. Fischbacher. Social norms and human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(4):185–190, 2004. [80] M. A. Nowak and K. Sigmund. Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437:1291– 1298, 2005. [81] R. Beausoleil K.-Y. Chen, T. Hogg. A practical quantum mechanism for the public goods game. Eprint Archive:quant-phys/0301013 (See http://arxiv.org/abs/quantph/ 0301013), 2003. [82] D. M. Kreps. A Course in Microeconomic Theory. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York, 1990. [83] R. McKelvey and T. Palfrey. An experimental study of the centipede game. Econometrica, 60(4):803–836, 1992. [84] R. Nagel and F. F. Tang. An experimental study on the centipede game in normal form: An investigation on learning. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42:356– 384, 1998. [85] K. Binmore. Modeling rational players: Part I. Economics and Philosophy, 3:179– 214, 1987. [86] K. Binmore. Modeling rational players: Part II. Economics and Philosophy, 4:9–55, 1988. [87] K. Binmore. Rationality in the centipede. In R. Fagin, editor, Theoretical Aspects Of Rationality And Knowledge (TARK 1994): Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, pages 150–159, Pacific Grove, California, 1994. Morgan Kaufmann. [88] R. J. Aumann. Backward induction and common knowledge of rationality. Games and Economic Behavior, 8:6–19, 1995. [89] K. Binmore. A note on backward induction. Games and Economic Behavior, 17:135–137, 1996. [90] R. J. Aumann. Reply to Binmore. Games and Economic Behavior, 17:138–146, 1996. [91] R. J. Aumann. Note on the centipede game. Games and Economic Behavior, 23:97–105, 1998. [92] P. Pettit and R. Sugden. The backward induction paradox. The Journal of Philosophy, 136(4):169–182, 1999. [93] J. Broome and W. Rabinowicz. Backwards induction in the centipede game. Analysis, 59(4):237–242, 1999. [94] J. H. Sobel. Backward-induction arguments: A paradox regained. Philosophy of Science, 60(1):114–133, 1993. [95] K. Sigmund and M. A. Nowak. A tale of two selves. Science, 290:949–950, 2000. [96] R. Cooper, D. V. De Jong, R. Forsythe, and T. W. Ross. Cooperation without reputation: Experimental evidence from prisoner’s dilemma games. Games and Economic Behavior, 12(2):187–218, 1996. [97] M. Milinski and C. Wedekind. Working memory constrains human cooperation in the prisoner’s dilemma. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95(23):13755–13758, 1998. [98] D. D. Davis and C. A. Holt. Equilibrium cooperation in two-stage games: Experimental evidence. International Journal of Game Theory, 28(1):89–109, 1999. [99] R. T. A. Croson. Thinking like a game theorist: Factors affecting the frequency of equilibrium play. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 41(3):299–314, 2000. [100] R. Radner. Collusive behaviour in non-cooperative epsilon-equilibria in oligopolies with long but finite lives. Journal of Economic Theory, 22:136–154, 1980. [101] R. Radner. Can bounded rationality resolve the prisoner’s dilemma. In A. Mas- Colell and W. Hildenbrand, editors, Essays in Honor of Gerard Debreu, pages 387–399, Amsterdam, 1986. North-Holland. [102] F. Vegaredondo. Bayesian boundedly rational agents play the finitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma. Theory and Decision, 36(2):187–206, 1994. [103] S. W. Harborne Jr. Common belief of rationality in the finitely repeated prisoners’ dilemma. Games and Economic Behavior, 19(1):133–143, 1997. [104] N. Anthonisen. Strong rationalizability for two-player noncooperative games. Economic Theory, 13:143–169, 1999. [105] E. Fehr and U. Fischbacher. The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425:785–791, 2003. [106] R. Axelrod. The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York, 1984. [107] J. C. Harsanyi. Games with incomplete information played by “Bayesian” players. Management Science, 14(3):159–182, 1967. [108] D. M. Kreps, P. Milgrom, J. Roberts, and R. Wilson. Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Economic Theory, 27:245–252, 1982. [109] D. Fudenberg and E. Maskin. The Folk Theorem in repeated games with discounting and incomplete information. Econometrica, 54:533–554, 1986. [110] R. Sarin. Simple play in the prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 40(1):105–113, 1999. [111] A. Neyman. Cooperation in repeated games when the number of stages is not known. Econometrica, 67(1):45–64, 1999. [112] A. Neyman. Bounded complexity justifies cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma. Economics Letters, 19:227–229, 1985. [113] A. Rubinstein. Finite automata play the repeated prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Economic Theory, 39:83–96, 1986. [114] I.-K. Cho and H. Li. How complex are networks playing repeated games. Economic Theory, 13:93–123, 1999. [115] H. Raff and D. Schmidt. Cumbersome coordination in repeated games. International Journal of Game Theory, 29(1):101–118, 2000. [116] R. Evans and J. P. Thomas. Reputation and experimentation in repeated games with two long-run players. Econometrica, 65(5):1153–1173, 1997. [117] C. L. Sheng. A note on the prisoner dilemma. Theory and Decision, 36(3):233–246, 1994. [118] E. Groes, H. J. Jacobsen, and B. Sloth. Adaptive learning in extensive form games and sequential equilibria. Economic Theory, 13:125–142, 1999. [119] Q. A. Song and A. Kandel. A fuzzy approach to strategic games. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 7(6):634–642, 1999. [120] N. Howard. Paradoxes of Rationality: Theory of Metagames and Political Behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1971. [121] A. Rapoport. Escape from paradox. Scientific American, 217:50–56, July 1967. [122] P. D. Straffin. Game Theory and Strategy. Mathematical Association of America, Washington, 1993. [123] J. Eisert, M. Wilkens, and M. Lewenstein. Quantum games and quantum strategies. Physical Review Letters, 83(15):3077–3080, 1999. [124] J. von Neumann. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1955. First published in 1932. |

URI: | https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/46176 |