Msc Micro I exam. Lecturer: Todd Kaplan.

Similar documents
Ph.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program May 2012

Theory of Auctions. Carlos Hurtado. Jun 23th, Department of Economics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

EC319 Economic Theory and Its Applications, Part II: Lecture 2

x 1 1 and p 1 1 Two points if you just talk about monotonicity (u (c) > 0).

Lecture 6 Games with Incomplete Information. November 14, 2008

Game Theory. Monika Köppl-Turyna. Winter 2017/2018. Institute for Analytical Economics Vienna University of Economics and Business

EconS Microeconomic Theory II Midterm Exam #2 - Answer Key

Game theory lecture 4. September 24, 2012

Introduction to Game Theory

Chapter 2. Equilibrium. 2.1 Complete Information Games

Introduction to Game Theory Lecture Note 2: Strategic-Form Games and Nash Equilibrium (2)

UC Berkeley Haas School of Business Game Theory (EMBA 296 & EWMBA 211) Summer 2016

Two hours UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER SCHOOL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE. Date: Thursday 17th May 2018 Time: 09:45-11:45. Please answer all Questions.

Economics 703 Advanced Microeconomics. Professor Peter Cramton Fall 2017

Ph.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program June 2016

Recitation #2 (August 31st, 2018)

Behavioral Economics

PhD Qualifier Examination

Lecture 10: Mechanism Design

CS364B: Frontiers in Mechanism Design Lecture #2: Unit-Demand Bidders and Walrasian Equilibria

Lecture Note II-3 Static Games of Incomplete Information. Games of incomplete information. Cournot Competition under Asymmetric Information (cont )

Economics 3012 Strategic Behavior Andy McLennan October 20, 2006

The Revenue Equivalence Theorem 1

Advanced Economic Theory Lecture 9. Bilateral Asymmetric Information. Double Auction (Chatterjee and Samuelson, 1983).

MS&E 246: Lecture 18 Network routing. Ramesh Johari

Online Appendix for "Auctions in Markets: Common Outside Options and the Continuation Value Effect" Not intended for publication

CS 598RM: Algorithmic Game Theory, Spring Practice Exam Solutions

NTU IO (I) : Auction Theory and Mechanism Design II Groves Mechanism and AGV Mechansim. u i (x, t i, θ i ) = V i (x, θ i ) + t i,

University of Warwick, Department of Economics Spring Final Exam. Answer TWO questions. All questions carry equal weight. Time allowed 2 hours.

Lecture 6: Communication Complexity of Auctions

Static (or Simultaneous- Move) Games of Complete Information

EconS 501 Final Exam - December 10th, 2018

Second Welfare Theorem

Chapter 2. Equilibrium. 2.1 Complete Information Games

Second Price Auctions with Differentiated Participation Costs

Uncertainty. Michael Peters December 27, 2013

Recitation 2-09/01/2017 (Solution)

Game Theory. Solutions to Problem Set 4

Microeconomics II Lecture 4: Incomplete Information Karl Wärneryd Stockholm School of Economics November 2016

On the Unique D1 Equilibrium in the Stackelberg Model with Asymmetric Information Janssen, M.C.W.; Maasland, E.

Algorithmic Game Theory and Applications. Lecture 4: 2-player zero-sum games, and the Minimax Theorem

Industrial Organization Lecture 7: Product Differentiation

Robert Wilson (1977), A Bidding Model of Perfect Competition, Review of Economic

Non-zero-sum Game and Nash Equilibarium

GARP and Afriat s Theorem Production

Lecture 4. 1 Examples of Mechanism Design Problems

Game Theory and Algorithms Lecture 2: Nash Equilibria and Examples

SF2972 Game Theory Exam with Solutions March 15, 2013

EECS 495: Combinatorial Optimization Lecture Manolis, Nima Mechanism Design with Rounding

Algorithmic Game Theory and Applications

Auctions. data better than the typical data set in industrial organization. auction game is relatively simple, well-specified rules.

Introduction to Game Theory

Lecture Notes on Game Theory

Game Theory. Professor Peter Cramton Economics 300

Game Theory and Rationality

Core-selecting package auctions. Han Dong, Hajir Roozbehani

Suggested solutions to the 6 th seminar, ECON4260

Interdependent Value Auctions with an Insider Bidder 1

Homework #6 (10/18/2017)

CS 573: Algorithmic Game Theory Lecture date: April 11, 2008

ECO 199 GAMES OF STRATEGY Spring Term 2004 Precepts Week 7 March Questions GAMES WITH ASYMMETRIC INFORMATION QUESTIONS

Bayesian Games and Mechanism Design Definition of Bayes Equilibrium

Game Theory for Linguists

Area I: Contract Theory Question (Econ 206)

Mechanism Design: Bayesian Incentive Compatibility

Sealed-bid first-price auctions with an unknown number of bidders

Computing Minmax; Dominance

FIRST PRICE AUCTIONS WITH GENERAL INFORMATION STRUCTURES: IMPLICATIONS FOR BIDDING AND REVENUE. Dirk Bergemann, Benjamin Brooks, and Stephen Morris

CS 798: Multiagent Systems

6.891 Games, Decision, and Computation February 5, Lecture 2

Industrial Organization, Fall 2011: Midterm Exam Solutions and Comments Date: Wednesday October

REPUTATION IN REPEATED SECOND-PRICE AUCTIONS. Sushil Bikhchandani. Abstract

Theory Field Examination Game Theory (209A) Jan Question 1 (duopoly games with imperfect information)

Field Exam: Advanced Theory

EC3224 Autumn Lecture #04 Mixed-Strategy Equilibrium

MA Game Theory 2005, LSE

Thus far, we ve made four key assumptions that have greatly simplified our analysis:

Basic Game Theory. Kate Larson. January 7, University of Waterloo. Kate Larson. What is Game Theory? Normal Form Games. Computing Equilibria

Game Theory. Greg Plaxton Theory in Programming Practice, Spring 2004 Department of Computer Science University of Texas at Austin

Game Theory Review Questions

Expected Utility Framework

CS599: Algorithm Design in Strategic Settings Fall 2012 Lecture 12: Approximate Mechanism Design in Multi-Parameter Bayesian Settings

MATH 56A SPRING 2008 STOCHASTIC PROCESSES

The ambiguous impact of contracts on competition in the electricity market Yves Smeers

Answers to Spring 2014 Microeconomics Prelim

Game Theory Correlated equilibrium 1

Game Theory DR. ÖZGÜR GÜRERK UNIVERSITY OF ERFURT WINTER TERM 2012/13. Strict and nonstrict equilibria

SF2972 Game Theory Written Exam with Solutions June 10, 2011

Game Theory Fall 2003

Advanced Microeconomics

Cournot Competition Under Asymmetric Information

An auction with finite types

Lecture Notes: Math Refresher 1

Spring 2016 Network Science. Solution of Quiz I

A Review of Auction Theory: Sequential Auctions and Vickrey Auctions

First price auctions with general information structures: Implications for bidding and revenue

Second Price Auctions with Valuations and Participation Costs Both Privately Informed

Outline for today. Stat155 Game Theory Lecture 17: Correlated equilibria and the price of anarchy. Correlated equilibrium. A driving example.

Area I: Contract Theory Question (Econ 206)

Second Price Auctions with Valuations and Participation Costs Both Privately Informed

Transcription:

Msc Micro I 204-205 exam. Lecturer: Todd Kaplan. Please answer exactly 5 questions. Answer one question from each of sections: A, B, C, and D and answer one additional question from any of the sections A, B, C, or D. For instance, answering, 4, 6, 7, 8 is valid. Answering, 3, 4, 5, 7 is also valid. Answering, 2, 3, 4, 5 is not valid. GOOD LUCK! Section A.. Does strong transitivity and completeness imply weak transitivity? Explain. No. Take the example of where someone is indifferent between prices that are different by 50 cents or less but care about differences larger than this. Strong transitivity holds since if p b > p a +50 and p c > p b + 50, we have p c > p a + 50. However, weak transitivity does not hold since indifference transitivity does not hold. More formally, we may have x y and y z yet x z but this does not violate strong transitivity since we don t have x y, y z, etc. This does violate weak transitivity since we have z y and y x but not z x. 2. We showed on the homework that if independence (and weak transitivity hold) then the following Property holds. Property P: for all L, L, L, L and x we have if L L and L L, then xl + ( x)l xl + ( x)l. Now show that if P and Independence hold, then weak transitivity holds. Say L L 2 and L 2 L 3. If Property P holds, then we can choose L = L, L = L 2, L = L 2, L = L 3 and x = /2. Thus, L 2 + L 2 2 L 2 2 + L 2 3. By Independence, we have L L 3. Section B. 3. Ari likes to have similar things. He prefers bundle x to y if and only if min{ x2+, x+ y2+, y+ }. For the following provide both an x+ x2+ y+ y2+ answer and an argument supporting your answer. (i) Draw the indifference curves. (ii) Does Ari s preferences satisfy transitivity? (iii) Does Ari s preferences satisfy convexity? (iv) Does Ari s preferences satisfy weak monotonicity? (v) Does Ari s preferences satisfy continuity?

(i) all indifference curves are two rays symmetric around the 45 degree line. For instance, y = 2x + and y = (x )/2 form one indifference curve. The slope increases for the one above the 45 degree line as they start further away from the origin. (ii) yes, x y and y z implies min{ x2+ and min{ y2+ z2+, y+ y+ y2+, x+ x+ x2+ y2+ y+, y+ y2+ }, z+ x2+ } = min{, x+ z+ z2+ x+ x2+ x z. (iii) Yes. Intuitively closer to the 45 degree line is better. A convex combination of two points cannot be further away. It is easy to show this with a picture on the indifference curves. (Note they don t need to formally show this, it will be too messy). (iv) No, we have (, 2) (, 3). (v). Yes,B(z) and W (z) are closed sets. You can see this again from the indifference curves. 4. Crazy Chris has strictly monotonic preferences and chose a sure chance of $3800 over a 80% chance of $6000. He also chose a 40% chance of $5500 over a 50% chance of $4000. Show how Crazy Chris cannot have vnm expected utility. Show how by using different weights of probability (with a w(p) function) can explain his choice. By choosing a sure chance of $3800 over a 80% chance of $6000, if Chris had vnm preferences, then u(3800) 0.8u(6000) + 0.2u(0). By choosing a 40% chance of $5500 over a 50% chance of $4000, if Chris had vnm preferences, then 0.4u(5500) + 0.6u(0) 0.5u(4000) + 0.5u(0). Multiplying this latter inequality by 2 on each side and combining the u(0) terms yields 0.8u(5500) + 0.2u(0) u(4000). However we have u(4000) > u(3800), so 0.8u(5500) + 0.2u(0) u(4000) > u(3800) 0.8u(6000) + 0.2u(0). z2+ z+, z+ z2+ } = This implies that u(5500) > u(6000), which can t happen with monotonic preferences. With a w(p) function this can be consistent. Take utility u(x) = x and w(0.5)=0.5. The two choices become 3800 w(0.8)6000 and 2

w(0.4)5500 2000. If w(0.8) = 0.6 and w(0.4) = 0.45 works (overweighting small probabilities and underweighting high probabilities). Section C. 5. Take an uncertain environment with three possible outcomes:, 2, and 3. Utility for these outcomes is as follows: u() = 4, u(2) =, u(3) =. Utility over a lottery is vnm expected utility except when one probability is strictly less than /4 on an outcome, it is treated as 0. For instance, if there is a 5/6 chance of outcome, the utility is 5u() = 0 6 3 What does the indifference curve going through the point (,, ) look 3 3 3 like when represented in a triangle? Explain your answer. We as long as all probability is greater than /4, we have p + p2 + p3 = and 4p +p2 +p3 = 2. Eliminating p3 yields 4p+p2+-p-p2=2 or 3p=. So it is a line parallel to the 2-3 side going through the middle of the triangle. When it reaches the point of p2=2/3-/4=5/2 and p3=/4, it jumps to the line 4p+p2=2. This has points of (/3,2/3,0) and moves toward the point (/2,0,/2) until it hits the point where p3=/4. Similar for the other side. 6. Sam has vnm preferences. He is playing a game show where one of two suitcases will be opened. In suitcase A, there is a /2 chance of million dollars and /2 chance of nothing. In suitcase B, there is a 3/4 chance of million dollars and a /4 chance of nothing. Show that if he has a p chance of suitcase A and a (-p) chance of suitcase B, his utility is p U(A) + ( p) U(B) (using only the definition of vnm and that with vnm the utility of a complex lottery is equal to its utility of the reduced form lottery). According to the definition of vnm U(p A + ( p) B) = (p + 2 ( p) 3)u( million) + (p + ( p) )u(0). 4 2 4 Rearranging yields p( u( million) + u(0)) + ( p)( 3 u( million) + 2 2 4 u(0)). Again according to the definition of vnm u( million)+ u(0) = 4 2 2 U(A) and 3u( million) + u(0) = U(B). Thus, we have the answer. 4 4 Section D. 7. Auctions: You are bidding in a first-price auction for a painting by Monet against two other bidders. Each of you has a private, independent value v i for such a painting that is drawn uniformly from [0, ] (in billions of shekels). There is a probability of /2 that the painting is a fake and worthless to all. What is your equilibrium bid function? If this was 3

instead for charity and an all-pay auction was used, what would be your equilibrium bid function? Each bidder would wish to choose b to maximize his expected profits P robwin(b) ( 2 v i + 2 0 b). Assuming the others bid b(v) = α v, we have expected profits equals The first-order condition is ( b a )2 ( 2 v i + 2 0 b). 2( b a )( a ) ( 2 v i b) ( b a )2 = 0 This simplies to or b a = 2 a ( 2 v i b) b = v i 3 For the all-pay auction, a bidder solves max ṽ 2 v ṽ 2 b(ṽ). The FOC is v 2 = b (v). Integrating and setting the constant to zero yields b(v) = v3 3. 8. Game Theory: Consider the following prisoners dilemma in simple payoffs. \2 C D 5 8 C 5 0 0 2 D 8 2 Utility over payoffs for each player i is u i (x i, x i ) = x i a max{x i x i, 0} b max{x i x i, 0} where a, b 0 and a b. For what values of a and b is (C, C) a Nash equilibrium? For which of these values is (D, D) also a Nash equilibria? Explain. 4

(C, C) will be a Nash Equilibrium whenever u i (5, 5) u i (8, 0) (since there would not be an incentive to deviate). We have u i (5, 5) = 5 and u i (8, 0) = 8 b 8. Thus, for (C, C) to be an equilibrium we must have 5 8 b b 3. (D, D) will be an equilibrium whenever u i (2, 2) u i (0, 8). We have u i (2, 2) = 2 and u i (8, 0) = a 8. The inequality u i (2, 2) u i (0, 8) is always satisfied. 5