Models of Reputation with Bayesian Updating
|
|
- Silvester Bryan
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Models of Reputation with Bayesian Updating Jia Chen 1 The Tariff Game (Downs and Rocke 1996) 1.1 Basic Setting Two states, A and B, are setting the tariffs for trade. The basic setting of the game resembles a coordination game where eliminating tariff is only good when the other party is doing the same. State A has two types, Tough and Weak. Tough type is able to resist domestic protectionist pressure while Weak type will give in to the opposition from the protectionist force. A s type can not be observed by B but B know the parameter of the Bernoulli distribution charaterizing A s type. For both type of A there is possibility that opposition occurs. State B leads the Stackleburg game. The game play is draw in Figure 2.2 on page 32 of Downs and Rocke (1996). 1.2 Repeated Play and Bayesian Updating If the game is played only once, a number of equilibria exists as p, q, and r vary. B may choose to eliminate tariff if the probability of Tough type A is high enough and/or the probability of opposition is low enough. Formally, B s expected payoff for eliminating tariff is given by E[u B ( t)] = p[2(q + r) 4(1 q r)] + (1 p)[2q 4(1 q)] (1.1) Given the payoff of keeping tariff is always 2, B will eliminate tariff iff E[u B ( t)] 2 which simplifies to q + pr 1 3 or p 1 3q p (1.2) 3r A behaves in the way that is best for the immediate payoff. Tough type A will eliminate tariff unless the opposition is strong and Weak type A will eliminate tariff only if the opposition is not present. 333 UCB, Boulder CO Department of Political Science, University of Colorado, Boulder. jiac@colorado.edu. 1
2 The dynamic of the game is changed if the game is played repeated over a infinite horizon. In particular, the Weak type A starts to care about the long run benefits from making up an image of Tough type. The image of a Tough type A is created through the Bayesian updating by B upon observing the behavior of A at the end of each period. If A eliminated tariff, the posterior probability that A is Tough type is given by: Pr(T ough t) = p(q + r) pr + q Given q+r pr+q > 1, Pr(T ough t) > p. Thus eliminating tariff will instantaneously make up the image of a Tough type A. On the other hand, keeping tariff will make Weak type A more likely in the eyes of B in that which is smaller than p. Pr(T ough t) = p(1 q r) 1 q pr, After one period of play, having observed the behavior of A, state B will evaluate the expected payoff of cooperating using the updated belief, Pr(T ough t) and Pr(T ough t). For both types of A, convincing B that her type is Tough and hence induce B to eliminate tariff is always the best strategy. To see this, note if B s belief is such that p < 1 3q 3r, B will keep tariff, resulting in a payoff of 2 for both actors. But if B s belief is such that p 1 3q 3r, B will eliminate tariff believing A is likely enough to be Tough type, from which Weak type A gains the expected utility of 2(q + r) + 4(1 q r) = 4 2(q + r). This is always greater than 2. A Weak type A might be willing to eliminate tariff even in the presence of opposition or even strong opposition as long as it boosts the posterior probability of strong type over p the reputation gains in the future outweigh the instantaneous loss. That is, if or 2 + 2δ 1 δ 4 + 2δ 1 δ δ 1 3, a weak type A is willing to eliminate tariff in the presence of opposition to establish a reputation of being the strong type. As can be verified in the same way, δ has to be greater than.6 to make eliminating tariff by a weak type rational. Question 1.1 Given the incentive of imitating of Weak type A, why cannot A tell from the fact that a player switch from cooperating and defecting back and forth that this player is Weak type and is mimicking and taking advantage of A? 2
3 Hint. The answer hinges on the setting of the game, where even the Tough type A could defect if the opposition is strong. Given the game assumes B cannot observe the level of opposition, B is unable to tell if the defection is by a mimicking Weak type or by a Tough type facing strong domestic opposition. Extension 1. Alter the game setting by allowing B to observe the level of opposition before deciding to eliminate tariff or not: The level of opposition is drawn by Nature at the beginning of the game and sustain for ever. Find the conditions for reputation building. The level of opposition is drawn by Nature at the beginning of each period of the game. Find the conditions for reputation building. Question 1.2 The outcome of the Bayesian updating on B s belief will be different given different observed levels of opposition. How can the game be modified such that reputation still matters when domestic level of opposition is observable? 2 Hegemonic Stability Game (Alt et al. 1988) The game play is described in Figure 1 on page 7 of Alt et al.(1988). The core of the game is the ally(a) s uncertainty about the cost of punishment by the hegemon(h). The cost of punishement, x, is either 1 or 0, following a Bernoulli distribution Bern(w). The ally cannot observe either the realized cost, or the true value of parameter w of the distribution of x. The ally only knows w has a Beta prior distribution: Beta(, β). The ally decides whether to challenge the hegemon by evaluating the probability of the hegemon being a strong type (i.e. the cost of punishment, x, is 0). If the game is played only once, given the prior distribution of w, the ally will challenge if b > β + β. (2.1) And the strong hegemon always punishes and the weak hegemon always acquiesces. But if the game is played repeated with different allies in each peroid, the weak type hegemon may benefit from carrying out costly punishment in return for the reputational gains. If the weak hegemon could imitate the behavior of the strong hegemon, the ally may form posterior belief that is favorable to the weak type hegemon in that it deters challenge from the ally. Assuming x is drawn by Nature at the beginning of each period of the repeated game. This scenario involving reputation building happens when the prior belief prompts the first ally to challenge (i.e. b > +β ) and based on if the challenge is punished by the hegemon, the second ally could potentially be 3
4 detered if the posterior probability of strong hegemon is raised. How can the weak hegemon imitate the behavior of the strong such that the updated belief is favorable? First note that if the weak hegemon always punishes the challenge, the second ally will not be detered because the pooling outcome (both weak and strong punish) did nothing to the prior distribution and ally 2 will still challenge. Not punishing is also not good as it separates the weak hegemon from the strong hegemon in front of the ally and induce challenge. 2.1 Updating with Bayesian Inference The way that the uninformed player update his belief is a little different from what is seen before. Here the uninformed player, the allies, is even ignorant about w, the parameter of the Bernoulli distribution of x. He only knows the prior distribution of w, a Beta distribution. In other words, instead of knowing the distribution of x, allies only know the distribution of the parameter of the +β distribution. Given w Beta(, β), it is obvious E(w) =. The second ally updates his belief about the distribution of w upon observing if punishment took place in the last period. Given the Baysian theorem, the updating equation could be written as follows p t (w r t 1 ) p(r t 1 w) p(w) (2.2) r t 1 = P or P is the response from hegemon (punishment or not) once challenge is observed. Clearly the ally is updating belief regarding w, but not x t 1 itself. This is because x is redrawn at the beginning of every period. Knowing x t 1 equals 0 or 1 is not as helpful as knowing the range of the key parameter of the distribution of x. Special attention should be paid to the likelihood term in Equation 2.2, i.e. p(r t 1 w). This is the probability of observing certain response from the hegemon given the distribution of the types of hegemon. The important thing to keep in mind is that the generation of p(r t 1 w) has to be consistent and does not break the sequential rationality of the hegemon s strategy. Formally, p(p w) = w p(p x = 1) + (1 w) p(p x = 0), (2.3) where p(p x = 1) and p(p x = 0) has to be sequentially rational for both type of hegemon. For example, if the previous challenge is punished and in equilibrium only the strong type hegemon punishes, the likelihood is thus p(p w) = w 0 + (1 w) 1 = 1 w. (2.4) Plugging it into the Bayes formula, it is found that the posterior distribution of w follows Beta(, β + 1). E(w) of the updated distribution is thus 4
5 E(w) = + β + 1 (2.5) Because +β+1 < +β, this could be a good news for the hegemon because if he punishes costly, the second ally is going to update the belief that a weak hegemon is less likely and give up challenging next round. It creates benefits to the hegemon particular when x = 1 is drawn by detering all allies from challenging. Good as it sounds, this scenario cannot yet be an equilibrium, because if the hegemon can profit from costly punishment when x = 0, the likelihood, p(p w), is no longer consistent, i.e. p(p x = 1) 0 and p(p w) 1 w. The whole thing will collapse. The hegemon cannot benefit from always carrying out costly punishment when x = 1. Given p(p x = 1) = 1, the likelihood in the Bayes formula, p(p w), equals one. The posterior distribution is thus identical to the prior distribution. +β If b >, the second ally will challenge despite observing the previous challenge being punished. Since the ally will always challenge whatsoever, hegemon has no reason to punish given x = 0 is drawn. 2.2 Deterance through Randomized Costly Punishment As seen in the above example, the hegemon cannot deter challenge by always carrying out costly punishment because it renders the posterior probability identical to the prior distribution. Yet it is possible for the hegemon to deter challenge through carrying costly punishment probabilistically in equilibrium. This is generalized in an equilibrium where the hegemon always punishes if x = 0 and punishes with probability k if x = 1 and the ally never challenges. We first examine the posterior probability from Bayesian updating if punishment occurs. The likelihood function is now given by: p(p w) =kw + (1 w) (2.6) Plugging it into Equation 2.2 provides the posterior distribution of w. Since it is only the updated E(w) we need to compute for the ally, it can be obtained by taking the posterior distribution as a linear combination of two Beta distribution. That is 5
6 E(w t ) =ke(w 1 ) + E(w 0 ) k( + 1) = + β β + 1 k( + 1) + = + β + 1 (2.7) w 0 is the posterior distribution of w given punishment and the ally believes hegemon punishes only if x = 0. E(w 0 ) is obtained from Equation 2.5. w 1 is the posterior distribution of w given punishment and the ally believes hegemon punishes only if x = 1, which is obtained similar to that in Equation 2.5. The next step is find if there exist a range of k such that the second ally prefers not to challenge given the updated belief of E(w t ). The expect utility of challenge is E[u A (C)] = E(w t )[k(b 1) + (1 k)b] + [1 E(w k )](b 1), (2.8) which reduces to E[u A (C)] = E(w t )(1 k) + b 1. (2.9) Thus the ally will not challenge if E(w t )(1 k) + b 1 > 0. Together with (2.7) we can then find the critical value of k to deter the ally from challenging. k = β{1 [b( + β + 1) β]} [b( + β + 1) β] (2.10) Thus the hegemon will punish randomly at the probability of k ɛ upon drawing x = 1 and the second ally is deterred. But note such deterence will only happen if the first ally challenge given the randomized strategy by the hegemon, that is, E(w)(1 k) + b 1 > 0 (2.11) b > k + β + β (2.12) If this is not met the first ally would not challenge and the second ally would do the same as the belief cannot be revised if there is no challenge and the game proceed afterward. In Alt et al(1988) s model the second ally would still challenge given the game is player only twice and the second ally knows the hegemon will not punish if x = 1 is drawn in the last period, thus the belief E(w) = β +β, instead of E(wr ) = k+β +β, applies. The deterrence equilibrium is thus established. As the last case, it is straightforward to check that if b > β+1 nothing the hegemon could do to deter the allies from challenging. +β+1, there is 6
Game Theory. Wolfgang Frimmel. Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium
Game Theory Wolfgang Frimmel Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium / 22 Bayesian Nash equilibrium and dynamic games L M R 3 2 L R L R 2 2 L R L 2,, M,2, R,3,3 2 NE and 2 SPNE (only subgame!) 2 / 22 Non-credible
More informationGovernment 2005: Formal Political Theory I
Government 2005: Formal Political Theory I Lecture 11 Instructor: Tommaso Nannicini Teaching Fellow: Jeremy Bowles Harvard University November 9, 2017 Overview * Today s lecture Dynamic games of incomplete
More informationDefinitions and Proofs
Giving Advice vs. Making Decisions: Transparency, Information, and Delegation Online Appendix A Definitions and Proofs A. The Informational Environment The set of states of nature is denoted by = [, ],
More informationKnown Unknowns: Power Shifts, Uncertainty, and War.
Known Unknowns: Power Shifts, Uncertainty, and War. Online Appendix Alexandre Debs and Nuno P. Monteiro May 10, 2016 he Appendix is structured as follows. Section 1 offers proofs of the formal results
More informationOpting Out in a War of Attrition. Abstract
Opting Out in a War of Attrition Mercedes Adamuz Department of Business, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México and Department of Economics, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Abstract This paper analyzes
More informationTheory Field Examination Game Theory (209A) Jan Question 1 (duopoly games with imperfect information)
Theory Field Examination Game Theory (209A) Jan 200 Good luck!!! Question (duopoly games with imperfect information) Consider a duopoly game in which the inverse demand function is linear where it is positive
More informationOn Reputation with Imperfect Monitoring
On Reputation with Imperfect Monitoring M. W. Cripps, G. Mailath, L. Samuelson UCL, Northwestern, Pennsylvania, Yale Theory Workshop Reputation Effects or Equilibrium Robustness Reputation Effects: Kreps,
More informationBelief-based Learning
Belief-based Learning Algorithmic Game Theory Marcello Restelli Lecture Outline Introdutcion to multi-agent learning Belief-based learning Cournot adjustment Fictitious play Bayesian learning Equilibrium
More informationReview of topics since what was covered in the midterm: Topics that we covered before the midterm (also may be included in final):
Review of topics since what was covered in the midterm: Subgame-perfect eqms in extensive games with perfect information where players choose a number (first-order conditions, boundary conditions, favoring
More information. Introduction to Game Theory Lecture Note 8: Dynamic Bayesian Games. HUANG Haifeng University of California, Merced
.. Introduction to Game Theory Lecture Note 8: Dynamic Bayesian Games HUANG Haifeng University of California, Merced Basic terminology Now we study dynamic Bayesian games, or dynamic/extensive games of
More informationHow Much Evidence Should One Collect?
How Much Evidence Should One Collect? Remco Heesen October 10, 2013 Abstract This paper focuses on the question how much evidence one should collect before deciding on the truth-value of a proposition.
More informationEquilibrium Refinements
Equilibrium Refinements Mihai Manea MIT Sequential Equilibrium In many games information is imperfect and the only subgame is the original game... subgame perfect equilibrium = Nash equilibrium Play starting
More information6.891 Games, Decision, and Computation February 5, Lecture 2
6.891 Games, Decision, and Computation February 5, 2015 Lecture 2 Lecturer: Constantinos Daskalakis Scribe: Constantinos Daskalakis We formally define games and the solution concepts overviewed in Lecture
More informationEC319 Economic Theory and Its Applications, Part II: Lecture 7
EC319 Economic Theory and Its Applications, Part II: Lecture 7 Leonardo Felli NAB.2.14 27 February 2014 Signalling Games Consider the following Bayesian game: Set of players: N = {N, S, }, Nature N strategy
More informationWars of Attrition with Budget Constraints
Wars of Attrition with Budget Constraints Gagan Ghosh Bingchao Huangfu Heng Liu October 19, 2017 (PRELIMINARY AND INCOMPLETE: COMMENTS WELCOME) Abstract We study wars of attrition between two bidders who
More informationEntry under an Information-Gathering Monopoly Alex Barrachina* June Abstract
Entry under an Information-Gathering onopoly Alex Barrachina* June 2016 Abstract The effects of information-gathering activities on a basic entry model with asymmetric information are analyzed. In the
More information1 A simple example. A short introduction to Bayesian statistics, part I Math 217 Probability and Statistics Prof. D.
probabilities, we ll use Bayes formula. We can easily compute the reverse probabilities A short introduction to Bayesian statistics, part I Math 17 Probability and Statistics Prof. D. Joyce, Fall 014 I
More informationModule 16: Signaling
Module 16: Signaling Information Economics (Ec 515) George Georgiadis Players with private information can take some action to signal their type. Taking this action would distinguish them from other types.
More informationKlaus Kultti Hannu Salonen Demented Prisoners. Aboa Centre for Economics
Klaus Kultti Hannu Salonen Demented Prisoners Aboa Centre for Economics Discussion Paper No. 43 Turku 2009 Copyright Author(s) ISSN 1796-3133 Printed in Uniprint Turku 2009 Klaus Kultti Hannu Salonen Demented
More informationWhen to Ask for an Update: Timing in Strategic Communication
When to Ask for an Update: Timing in Strategic Communication Work in Progress Ying Chen Johns Hopkins University Atara Oliver Rice University March 19, 2018 Main idea In many communication situations,
More information6 Evolution of Networks
last revised: March 2008 WARNING for Soc 376 students: This draft adopts the demography convention for transition matrices (i.e., transitions from column to row). 6 Evolution of Networks 6. Strategic network
More informationDiscrete Mathematics and Probability Theory Spring 2014 Anant Sahai Note 10
EECS 70 Discrete Mathematics and Probability Theory Spring 2014 Anant Sahai Note 10 Introduction to Basic Discrete Probability In the last note we considered the probabilistic experiment where we flipped
More informationLimit pricing models and PBE 1
EconS 503 - Advanced Microeconomics II Limit pricing models and PBE 1 1 Model Consider an entry game with an incumbent monopolist (Firm 1) and an entrant (Firm ) who analyzes whether or not to join the
More informationFirst Prev Next Last Go Back Full Screen Close Quit. Game Theory. Giorgio Fagiolo
Game Theory Giorgio Fagiolo giorgio.fagiolo@univr.it https://mail.sssup.it/ fagiolo/welcome.html Academic Year 2005-2006 University of Verona Summary 1. Why Game Theory? 2. Cooperative vs. Noncooperative
More informationDeceptive Advertising with Rational Buyers
Deceptive Advertising with Rational Buyers September 6, 016 ONLINE APPENDIX In this Appendix we present in full additional results and extensions which are only mentioned in the paper. In the exposition
More informationCooperation in Social Dilemmas through Position Uncertainty
Cooperation in Social Dilemmas through Position Uncertainty Andrea Gallice and Ignacio Monzón Università di Torino and Collegio Carlo Alberto North American Summer Meetings of the Econometric Society St.
More informationFormalizing Probability. Choosing the Sample Space. Probability Measures
Formalizing Probability Choosing the Sample Space What do we assign probability to? Intuitively, we assign them to possible events (things that might happen, outcomes of an experiment) Formally, we take
More informationGame Theory: Spring 2017
Game Theory: Spring 2017 Ulle Endriss Institute for Logic, Language and Computation University of Amsterdam Ulle Endriss 1 Plan for Today So far, our players didn t know the strategies of the others, but
More informationOnline Addendum for Dynamic Procurement, Quantity Discounts, and Supply Chain Efficiency
Online Addendum for Dynamic Procurement, Quantity Discounts, and Supply Chain Efficiency Feryal Erhun Pınar Keskinocak Sridhar Tayur Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University,
More informationMeaning, Evolution and the Structure of Society
Meaning, Evolution and the Structure of Society Roland Mühlenbernd November 7, 2014 OVERVIEW Game Theory and Linguistics Pragm. Reasoning Language Evolution GT in Lang. Use Signaling Games Replicator Dyn.
More informationCommunity Enforcement beyond the Prisoner s Dilemma
Community Enforcement beyond the Prisoner s Dilemma Joyee Deb New York University Julio González-Díaz University of Santiago de Compostela PRELIMINARY (April 2010) Abstract We study two-player games played
More informationWhen to Ask for an Update: Timing in Strategic Communication. National University of Singapore June 5, 2018
When to Ask for an Update: Timing in Strategic Communication Ying Chen Johns Hopkins University Atara Oliver Rice University National University of Singapore June 5, 2018 Main idea In many communication
More informationKnowing What Others Know: Coordination Motives in Information Acquisition
Knowing What Others Know: Coordination Motives in Information Acquisition Christian Hellwig and Laura Veldkamp UCLA and NYU Stern May 2006 1 Hellwig and Veldkamp Two types of information acquisition Passive
More informationCS 361: Probability & Statistics
October 17, 2017 CS 361: Probability & Statistics Inference Maximum likelihood: drawbacks A couple of things might trip up max likelihood estimation: 1) Finding the maximum of some functions can be quite
More informationPOLICY GAMES. u t = θ 0 θ 1 π t + ε t. (1) β t (u 2 t + ωπ 2 t ). (3) π t = g t 1 + ν t. (4) g t = θ 1θ 0 ω + θ 2 1. (5)
Eco504, Part II Spring 2004 C. Sims POLICY GAMES The policy authority believes In fact, though, 1. THE SAN JOSE MODEL u t = θ 0 θ 1 π t + ε t. (1) u t = ū α (π t E t 1 π t ) + ξ t. (2) They minimize 2.
More informationBayesian inference. Fredrik Ronquist and Peter Beerli. October 3, 2007
Bayesian inference Fredrik Ronquist and Peter Beerli October 3, 2007 1 Introduction The last few decades has seen a growing interest in Bayesian inference, an alternative approach to statistical inference.
More informationGame Theory. Monika Köppl-Turyna. Winter 2017/2018. Institute for Analytical Economics Vienna University of Economics and Business
Monika Köppl-Turyna Institute for Analytical Economics Vienna University of Economics and Business Winter 2017/2018 Static Games of Incomplete Information Introduction So far we assumed that payoff functions
More informationCSC321 Lecture 18: Learning Probabilistic Models
CSC321 Lecture 18: Learning Probabilistic Models Roger Grosse Roger Grosse CSC321 Lecture 18: Learning Probabilistic Models 1 / 25 Overview So far in this course: mainly supervised learning Language modeling
More informationPerfect Bayesian Equilibrium
Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium For an important class of extensive games, a solution concept is available that is simpler than sequential equilibrium, but with similar properties. In a Bayesian extensive
More informationGame Theory and Rationality
April 6, 2015 Notation for Strategic Form Games Definition A strategic form game (or normal form game) is defined by 1 The set of players i = {1,..., N} 2 The (usually finite) set of actions A i for each
More informationA Note on the Existence of Ratifiable Acts
A Note on the Existence of Ratifiable Acts Joseph Y. Halpern Cornell University Computer Science Department Ithaca, NY 14853 halpern@cs.cornell.edu http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/halpern August 15, 2018
More informationIntroduction to Game Theory
Introduction to Game Theory Part 3. Dynamic games of incomplete information Chapter 3. Job Market Signaling Ciclo Profissional 2 o Semestre / 2011 Graduação em Ciências Econômicas V. Filipe Martins-da-Rocha
More informationLecture 4: Lower Bounds (ending); Thompson Sampling
CMSC 858G: Bandits, Experts and Games 09/12/16 Lecture 4: Lower Bounds (ending); Thompson Sampling Instructor: Alex Slivkins Scribed by: Guowei Sun,Cheng Jie 1 Lower bounds on regret (ending) Recap from
More informationGame Theory. 2.1 Zero Sum Games (Part 2) George Mason University, Spring 2018
Game Theory 2.1 Zero Sum Games (Part 2) George Mason University, Spring 2018 The Nash equilibria of two-player, zero-sum games have various nice properties. Minimax Condition A pair of strategies is in
More informationBounded Rationality, Strategy Simplification, and Equilibrium
Bounded Rationality, Strategy Simplification, and Equilibrium UPV/EHU & Ikerbasque Donostia, Spain BCAM Workshop on Interactions, September 2014 Bounded Rationality Frequently raised criticism of game
More information1 The General Definition
MS&E 336 Lecture 1: Dynamic games Ramesh Johari April 4, 2007 1 The General Definition A dynamic game (or extensive game, or game in extensive form) consists of: A set of players N; A set H of sequences
More informationECO421: Reputation. Marcin P ski. March 29, 2018
ECO421: Reputation Marcin P ski March 29, 2018 Plan Chain store game Model of reputation Reputations in innite games Applications Model No pure strategy equilibria Mixed strategy equilibrium Basic model
More informationEvolutionary Dynamics and Extensive Form Games by Ross Cressman. Reviewed by William H. Sandholm *
Evolutionary Dynamics and Extensive Form Games by Ross Cressman Reviewed by William H. Sandholm * Noncooperative game theory is one of a handful of fundamental frameworks used for economic modeling. It
More information: Cryptography and Game Theory Ran Canetti and Alon Rosen. Lecture 8
0368.4170: Cryptography and Game Theory Ran Canetti and Alon Rosen Lecture 8 December 9, 2009 Scribe: Naama Ben-Aroya Last Week 2 player zero-sum games (min-max) Mixed NE (existence, complexity) ɛ-ne Correlated
More informationSequential Games with Incomplete Information
Sequential Games with Incomplete Information Debraj Ray, November 6 For the remaining lectures we return to extensive-form games, but this time we focus on imperfect information, reputation, and signalling
More informationIndustrial Organization Lecture 3: Game Theory
Industrial Organization Lecture 3: Game Theory Nicolas Schutz Nicolas Schutz Game Theory 1 / 43 Introduction Why game theory? In the introductory lecture, we defined Industrial Organization as the economics
More informationApplied Bayesian Statistics STAT 388/488
STAT 388/488 Dr. Earvin Balderama Department of Mathematics & Statistics Loyola University Chicago August 29, 207 Course Info STAT 388/488 http://math.luc.edu/~ebalderama/bayes 2 A motivating example (See
More information05 the development of a kinematics problem. February 07, Area under the curve
Area under the curve Area under the curve refers from the region the line (curve) to the x axis 1 2 3 From Graphs to equations Case 1 scatter plot reveals no apparent relationship Types of equations Case
More information1 Web Appendix: Equilibrium outcome under collusion (multiple types-multiple contracts)
1 Web Appendix: Equilibrium outcome under collusion (multiple types-multiple contracts) We extend our setup by allowing more than two types of agent. The agent s type is now β {β 1, β 2,..., β N }, where
More informationIntroduction to Game Theory
COMP323 Introduction to Computational Game Theory Introduction to Game Theory Paul G. Spirakis Department of Computer Science University of Liverpool Paul G. Spirakis (U. Liverpool) Introduction to Game
More informationLectures Road Map
Lectures 0 - Repeated Games 4. Game Theory Muhamet Yildiz Road Map. Forward Induction Examples. Finitely Repeated Games with observable actions. Entry-Deterrence/Chain-store paradox. Repeated Prisoners
More informationProbability theory basics
Probability theory basics Michael Franke Basics of probability theory: axiomatic definition, interpretation, joint distributions, marginalization, conditional probability & Bayes rule. Random variables:
More informationCostly Social Learning and Rational Inattention
Costly Social Learning and Rational Inattention Srijita Ghosh Dept. of Economics, NYU September 19, 2016 Abstract We consider a rationally inattentive agent with Shannon s relative entropy cost function.
More informationMisinformation. March Abstract
Misinformation Li, Hao University of British Columbia & University of Toronto Wei Li University of British Columbia & University of California, Riverside March 2010 Abstract We model political campaigns
More informationBayesian Statistics. State University of New York at Buffalo. From the SelectedWorks of Joseph Lucke. Joseph F. Lucke
State University of New York at Buffalo From the SelectedWorks of Joseph Lucke 2009 Bayesian Statistics Joseph F. Lucke Available at: https://works.bepress.com/joseph_lucke/6/ Bayesian Statistics Joseph
More informationPOLICY GAMES. u t = θ 0 θ 1 π t + ε t. (1) β t (u 2 t + ωπ 2 t ). (3)
Eco5, Part II Spring C. Sims POLICY GAMES The policy authority believes 1. THE SAN JOSE MODEL u t = θ θ 1 π t + ε t. (1) In fact, though, u t = ū α (π t E t 1 π t ) + ξ t. () They minimize. POLICYMAKERS
More informationPerfect Bayesian Equilibrium. Definition. The single-crossing property. This is a draft; me with comments, typos, clarifications, etc.
Economics 0c: week This is a draft; email me with comments, typos, clarifications, etc. Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium We are by now familiar with the concept of Bayesian Nash equilibrium: agents are best
More informationCS 361: Probability & Statistics
March 14, 2018 CS 361: Probability & Statistics Inference The prior From Bayes rule, we know that we can express our function of interest as Likelihood Prior Posterior The right hand side contains the
More informationBargaining with Periodic Participation Costs
Bargaining with Periodic Participation Costs Emin Karagözoğlu Shiran Rachmilevitch July 4, 017 Abstract We study a bargaining game in which a player needs to pay a fixed cost in the beginning of every
More informationLecture Slides - Part 4
Lecture Slides - Part 4 Bengt Holmstrom MIT February 2, 2016. Bengt Holmstrom (MIT) Lecture Slides - Part 4 February 2, 2016. 1 / 65 Mechanism Design n agents i = 1,..., n agent i has type θ i Θ i which
More informationGame Theory. Professor Peter Cramton Economics 300
Game Theory Professor Peter Cramton Economics 300 Definition Game theory is the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent and rational decision makers. Rational: each
More informationBayesian Inference for Normal Mean
Al Nosedal. University of Toronto. November 18, 2015 Likelihood of Single Observation The conditional observation distribution of y µ is Normal with mean µ and variance σ 2, which is known. Its density
More informationIntrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation Roland Bénabou Jean Tirole. Review of Economic Studies 2003 Bénabou and Tirole Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation 1 / 30 Motivation Should a child be rewarded for passing
More informationBayesian Games and Mechanism Design Definition of Bayes Equilibrium
Bayesian Games and Mechanism Design Definition of Bayes Equilibrium Harsanyi [1967] What happens when players do not know one another s payoffs? Games of incomplete information versus games of imperfect
More informationLecture : Probabilistic Machine Learning
Lecture : Probabilistic Machine Learning Riashat Islam Reasoning and Learning Lab McGill University September 11, 2018 ML : Many Methods with Many Links Modelling Views of Machine Learning Machine Learning
More informationPersuasion Under Costly Lying
Persuasion Under Costly Lying Teck Yong Tan Columbia University 1 / 43 Introduction Consider situations where agent designs learning environment (i.e. what additional information to generate) to persuade
More informationLecture 10: Mechanism Design
Computational Game Theory Spring Semester, 2009/10 Lecture 10: Mechanism Design Lecturer: Yishay Mansour Scribe: Vera Vsevolozhsky, Nadav Wexler 10.1 Mechanisms with money 10.1.1 Introduction As we have
More informationBasic Game Theory. Kate Larson. January 7, University of Waterloo. Kate Larson. What is Game Theory? Normal Form Games. Computing Equilibria
Basic Game Theory University of Waterloo January 7, 2013 Outline 1 2 3 What is game theory? The study of games! Bluffing in poker What move to make in chess How to play Rock-Scissors-Paper Also study of
More informationGame Theory Lecture 10+11: Knowledge
Game Theory Lecture 10+11: Knowledge Christoph Schottmüller University of Copenhagen November 13 and 20, 2014 1 / 36 Outline 1 (Common) Knowledge The hat game A model of knowledge Common knowledge Agree
More informationReputations. Larry Samuelson. Yale University. February 13, 2013
Reputations Larry Samuelson Yale University February 13, 2013 I. Introduction I.1 An Example: The Chain Store Game Consider the chain-store game: Out In Acquiesce 5, 0 2, 2 F ight 5,0 1, 1 If played once,
More informationMS&E 246: Lecture 17 Network routing. Ramesh Johari
MS&E 246: Lecture 17 Network routing Ramesh Johari Network routing Basic definitions Wardrop equilibrium Braess paradox Implications Network routing N users travel across a network Transportation Internet
More informationA (Brief) Introduction to Game Theory
A (Brief) Introduction to Game Theory Johanne Cohen PRiSM/CNRS, Versailles, France. Goal Goal is a Nash equilibrium. Today The game of Chicken Definitions Nash Equilibrium Rock-paper-scissors Game Mixed
More informationPatience and Ultimatum in Bargaining
Patience and Ultimatum in Bargaining Björn Segendorff Department of Economics Stockholm School of Economics PO Box 6501 SE-113 83STOCKHOLM SWEDEN SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance No
More informationTheorem 1.7 [Bayes' Law]: Assume that,,, are mutually disjoint events in the sample space s.t.. Then Pr( )
Theorem 1.7 [Bayes' Law]: Assume that,,, are mutually disjoint events in the sample space s.t.. Then Pr Pr = Pr Pr Pr() Pr Pr. We are given three coins and are told that two of the coins are fair and the
More information1 Bayesian Linear Regression (BLR)
Statistical Techniques in Robotics (STR, S15) Lecture#10 (Wednesday, February 11) Lecturer: Byron Boots Gaussian Properties, Bayesian Linear Regression 1 Bayesian Linear Regression (BLR) In linear regression,
More informationUsing Probability to do Statistics.
Al Nosedal. University of Toronto. November 5, 2015 Milk and honey and hemoglobin Animal experiments suggested that honey in a diet might raise hemoglobin level. A researcher designed a study involving
More informationBayesian Inference. Introduction
Bayesian Inference Introduction The frequentist approach to inference holds that probabilities are intrinsicially tied (unsurprisingly) to frequencies. This interpretation is actually quite natural. What,
More informationUC Berkeley Haas School of Business Game Theory (EMBA 296 & EWMBA 211) Summer Social learning and bargaining (axiomatic approach)
UC Berkeley Haas School of Business Game Theory (EMBA 296 & EWMBA 211) Summer 2015 Social learning and bargaining (axiomatic approach) Block 4 Jul 31 and Aug 1, 2015 Auction results Herd behavior and
More informationMA Game Theory 2005, LSE
MA. Game Theor, LSE Problem Set The problems in our third and final homework will serve two purposes. First, the will give ou practice in studing games with incomplete information. Second (unless indicated
More informationA Bandit Model of Two-Dimensional Uncertainty
A Bandit Model of Two-Dimensional Uncertainty Rationalizing Mindsets Inga Deimen Julia Wirtz Universität Bonn February 15, 2016 Abstract We analyze a new type of bandit where an agent is confronted with
More informationIterated Strict Dominance in Pure Strategies
Iterated Strict Dominance in Pure Strategies We know that no rational player ever plays strictly dominated strategies. As each player knows that each player is rational, each player knows that his opponents
More informationGuilt in Games. P. Battigalli and M. Dufwenberg (AER, 2007) Presented by Luca Ferocino. March 21 st,2014
Guilt in Games P. Battigalli and M. Dufwenberg (AER, 2007) Presented by Luca Ferocino March 21 st,2014 P. Battigalli and M. Dufwenberg (AER, 2007) Guilt in Games 1 / 29 ADefinitionofGuilt Guilt is a cognitive
More informationSatisfaction Equilibrium: Achieving Cooperation in Incomplete Information Games
Satisfaction Equilibrium: Achieving Cooperation in Incomplete Information Games Stéphane Ross and Brahim Chaib-draa Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering Laval University, Québec (Qc),
More informationMS&E 246: Lecture 4 Mixed strategies. Ramesh Johari January 18, 2007
MS&E 246: Lecture 4 Mixed strategies Ramesh Johari January 18, 2007 Outline Mixed strategies Mixed strategy Nash equilibrium Existence of Nash equilibrium Examples Discussion of Nash equilibrium Mixed
More informationBayes Correlated Equilibrium and Comparing Information Structures
Bayes Correlated Equilibrium and Comparing Information Structures Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris Spring 2013: 521 B Introduction game theoretic predictions are very sensitive to "information structure"
More informationBinomial Data, Axioms of Probability, and Bayes Rule. n! Pr(k successes in n draws)' k!(n&k)! Bk (1&B) n&k
Prof. Green Intro Stats // Fall 1998 Binomial Data, Axioms of Probability, and Bayes Rule In this class, we link two sets of topics, sampling and probability. To do so coherently, we must blend ideas from
More informationChapter 2. Equilibrium. 2.1 Complete Information Games
Chapter 2 Equilibrium Equilibrium attempts to capture what happens in a game when players behave strategically. This is a central concept to these notes as in mechanism design we are optimizing over games
More informationMS&E 246: Lecture 12 Static games of incomplete information. Ramesh Johari
MS&E 246: Lecture 12 Static games of incomplete information Ramesh Johari Incomplete information Complete information means the entire structure of the game is common knowledge Incomplete information means
More informationChapter 2. Equilibrium. 2.1 Complete Information Games
Chapter 2 Equilibrium The theory of equilibrium attempts to predict what happens in a game when players behave strategically. This is a central concept to this text as, in mechanism design, we are optimizing
More informationDiscrete Binary Distributions
Discrete Binary Distributions Carl Edward Rasmussen November th, 26 Carl Edward Rasmussen Discrete Binary Distributions November th, 26 / 5 Key concepts Bernoulli: probabilities over binary variables Binomial:
More informationOn Renegotiation-Proof Collusion under Imperfect Public Information*
Journal of Economic Theory 85, 38336 (999) Article ID jeth.998.500, available online at http:www.idealibrary.com on NOTES, COMMENTS, AND LETTERS TO THE EDITOR On Renegotiation-Proof Collusion under Imperfect
More informationECO 199 GAMES OF STRATEGY Spring Term 2004 Precepts Week 7 March Questions GAMES WITH ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION QUESTIONS
ECO 199 GAMES OF STRATEGY Spring Term 2004 Precepts Week 7 March 22-23 Questions GAMES WITH ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION QUESTIONS Question 1: In the final stages of the printing of Games of Strategy, Sue Skeath
More informationEcon 618: Correlated Equilibrium
Econ 618: Correlated Equilibrium Sunanda Roy 1 Basic Concept of a Correlated Equilibrium MSNE assumes players use a random device privately and independently, that tells them which strategy to choose for
More informationSender s Small Concern for Credibility and Receiver s Dilemma
April 2012 Sender s Small Concern for Credibility and Receiver s Dilemma Hanjoon Michael Jung The Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica Abstract We model a dilemma that receivers face when a sender has
More informationSuggested solutions to the 6 th seminar, ECON4260
1 Suggested solutions to the 6 th seminar, ECON4260 Problem 1 a) What is a public good game? See, for example, Camerer (2003), Fehr and Schmidt (1999) p.836, and/or lecture notes, lecture 1 of Topic 3.
More information