Ü B U N G S A U F G A B E N. S p i e l t h e o r i e

Similar documents
On Selfish Behavior in CSMA/CA Networks

Math 152: Applicable Mathematics and Computing

Math 152: Applicable Mathematics and Computing

Extensive Form Games I

Lecture Notes on Bargaining

Economics 201B Economic Theory (Spring 2017) Bargaining. Topics: the axiomatic approach (OR 15) and the strategic approach (OR 7).

Long-Run versus Short-Run Player

TWO-PERSON COOPERATIVE GAMES

Mathematical Economics - PhD in Economics

Title: The Castle on the Hill. Author: David K. Levine. Department of Economics UCLA. Los Angeles, CA phone/fax

Network Calculus. A General Framework for Interference Management and Resource Allocation. Martin Schubert

Nash Bargaining in Beamforming Games with Quantized CSI in Two-user Interference Channels

Microeconomics. 2. Game Theory

The Water-Filling Game in Fading Multiple Access Channels

Communication Games on the Generalized Gaussian Relay Channel

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

Game Theory. Bargaining Theory. ordi Massó. International Doctorate in Economic Analysis (IDEA) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB)

Microeconomics for Business Practice Session 3 - Solutions

MS&E 246: Lecture 12 Static games of incomplete information. Ramesh Johari

6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 11: Introduction to Game Theory 3

Bargaining, Contracts, and Theories of the Firm. Dr. Margaret Meyer Nuffield College

COOPERATIVE GAME THEORY: CORE AND SHAPLEY VALUE

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

1 Axiomatic Bargaining Theory

Game Theory Correlated equilibrium 1

6.254 : Game Theory with Engineering Applications Lecture 8: Supermodular and Potential Games

Mixed Nash Equilibria

Economics 209A Theory and Application of Non-Cooperative Games (Fall 2013) Extensive games with perfect information OR6and7,FT3,4and11

Game Theory Review Questions

1 Lattices and Tarski s Theorem

Unique Nash Implementation for a Class of Bargaining Solutions

Lecture: Topics in Cooperative Game Theory

Solutions to Exercises of Section III.1. a (13/4, 3) (22/4, 3/4). b (4, 10/4) (21/4, 2)

Game Theoretic Solutions for Precoding Strategies over the Interference Channel

1 The General Definition

Nash Bargaining in Ordinal Environments

Copyright (C) 2013 David K. Levine This document is an open textbook; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the Creative

Background notes on bargaining

Bargaining Efficiency and the Repeated Prisoners Dilemma. Bhaskar Chakravorti* and John Conley**

Negotiation: Strategic Approach

Economics 703 Advanced Microeconomics. Professor Peter Cramton Fall 2017

Notes on Coursera s Game Theory

Research Article Stackelberg Contention Games in Multiuser Networks

Selfishness vs Altruism vs Balance

Random Extensive Form Games and its Application to Bargaining

Computational complexity of solution concepts

The Core of a Strategic Game *

Computing Solution Concepts of Normal-Form Games. Song Chong EE, KAIST

Game theory Lecture 19. Dynamic games. Game theory

6.254 : Game Theory with Engineering Applications Lecture 7: Supermodular Games

Game Theory. Wolfgang Frimmel. Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium

MS&E 246: Lecture 4 Mixed strategies. Ramesh Johari January 18, 2007

Applied cooperative game theory:

Lower Semicontinuity of the Solution Set Mapping in Some Optimization Problems

4: Dynamic games. Concordia February 6, 2017

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

6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 10: Introduction to Game Theory 2

SF2972 Game Theory Written Exam with Solutions June 10, 2011

Stackelberg oligopoly TU-games: characterization of the core and 1-concavity of the dual game

Solving Extensive Form Games

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

Symmetries and the Complexity of Pure Nash Equilibrium

The Nash Bargaining Solution in Gen Title Cooperative Games. Citation Journal of Economic Theory, 145(6):

Decentralized K-User Gaussian Multiple Access Channels

EC319 Economic Theory and Its Applications, Part II: Lecture 7

Nash Demand Game and the Kalai-Smorodinsky Solution

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

On the Nash Stability in the Hedonic Coalition Formation Games

The Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya School of Economics Advanced Microeconomics Fall Bargaining The Axiomatic Approach

A remark on discontinuous games with asymmetric information and ambiguity

Signaling Design of Two-Way MIMO Full-Duplex Channel: Optimality Under Imperfect Transmit Front-End Chain

Implementation of the Ordinal Shapley Value for a three-agent economy 1

Solution to Tutorial 9

COOPERATIVE GAMES. Department of Economics, MIT. 1. Definitions

A Characterization of the Nash Bargaining Solution Published in Social Choice and Welfare, 19, , (2002)

6 The Principle of Optimality

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

Game Theory: introduction and applications to computer networks

Spectrum Sharing Games on the Interference Channel

Writing Game Theory in L A TEX

SF2972 Game Theory Exam with Solutions March 15, 2013

Transboundary Externalities and Property Rights: An International River Pollution Model

Game Theory: Spring 2017

Econ 618: Correlated Equilibrium

Interval values for strategic games in which players cooperate

Refinements - change set of equilibria to find "better" set of equilibria by eliminating some that are less plausible

Distributed power allocation for D2D communications underlaying/overlaying OFDMA cellular networks

Methodologies for Analyzing Equilibria in Wireless Games

Computational Properties of Quasi-Strict Equilibrium

Implementing the Nash Programin Stochastic Games

Game Theory. Professor Peter Cramton Economics 300

Convexity of Bertrand oligopoly TU-games with differentiated products

Individual Rationality in Collective Choice

EconS Advanced Microeconomics II Handout on Subgame Perfect Equilibrium (SPNE)

Information Theory Meets Game Theory on The Interference Channel

Game theory is a field of applied mathematics that

A Multi-Leader Stackelberg Game for Two-Hop Systems with Wireless Energy Transfer

Correlated Equilibria: Rationality and Dynamics

Static Model of Decision-making over the Set of Coalitional Partitions

Chapter 9. Mixed Extensions. 9.1 Mixed strategies

Transcription:

T E C H N I S C H E U N I V E R S I T Ä T D R E S D E N F A K U L T Ä T E L E K T R O T E C H N I K U N D I N F O R M A T I O N S T E C H N I K Ü B U N G S A U F G A B E N S p i e l t h e o r i e by Alessio Zappone Prof. Eduard A. Jorswieck Lehrstuhl Theoretische Nachrichtentechnik

Fakultät Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik Institut für Nachrichtentechnik Lehrstuhl Theoretische Nachrichtentechnik Prof. Eduard A. Jorswieck, Alessio Zappone 20.10.2014 1. Übung zur Lehrveranstaltung Spieltheorie Exercise 1: Answer the following questions: 1. What is a game in strategic form? 2. What is a non-cooperative game? 3. What is a static game? 4. What is a game with complete information? 5. What is a pure strategy and a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium? Exercise 2: For the two-player, non-cooperative games represented by the following payoff matrices, determine pure-strategy and mixed-strategy Nash equilibria. a) Player 2 D C D (4,4) (10,2) Player 1 C (2,10) (8,8) b) Player 2 D C D (0,0) (10,2) Player 1 C (2,10) (6,6) c) Player 2 R P S R (0,0) (-1,1) (1,-1) Player 1 P (1,-1) (0,0) (-1,1) S (-1,1) (1,-1) (0,0) d) Player 2 P Q R S P (0,7) (2,5) (7,0) (0,1) Player 1 Q (5,2) (3,3) (5,2) (0,1) R (0,0) (2,5) (0,7) (0,1) S (7,0) (0,-2) (0,0) (10,-1)

Exercise 3: Consider one Base Station (BS) and two mobiles which communicate with the BS in two-phases. The channel coefficients are h 1 = 1 und h 2 = 0.5 and the noise power is σ 2. In the first phase (MAC pahse), MS 1 and MS 2 tune the transmit power p [0; 1] and q [0; 1], respectively. The corresponding achievable rates for MS 1 and MS 2 are ) R1 MAC p = log 2 (1 + σ 2 + 0.5q and ( R2 MAC = log 2 1 + 0.5q ) σ 2. + p In the second phase, the BS transmits the powers (1 p) und (1 q) to serve MS 1 and MS 2, respectively. The corresponding achievable rates are ) R1 BC 1 p = log 2 (1 + σ 2 + (1 q) and ( ) R2 BC 0.5(1 q) = log 2 1 + σ 2. + 0.5(1 p) The two mobiles do not cooperate with each other and their goal is to choose p and q to maximize their utilities, defined as the achievable sum-rate in the two phases. Formulate the problem as a non-cooperative game and compute the NE of the game.

Exercise 4: Consider two mobile stations MS 1 and MS 2 which communicate with a base station BS. The transmit for the mobiles are p 1 [0; P max ] and p 2 [0; P max ], with P max the maximum feasible transmit power for both mobiles. The noise power for each communication link is 1 and the channel power gains are h 1 and h 2. Mobiles MS 1 and MS 2 consume a hardware power of P c,1 and P c,2 to operate the devices. Each mobile is interested in maximizing its energy efficiency, defined as the ratio of the achievable rate over the consumed power. ( ) log 1 + p 1h 1 1+p 2 h 2 EE 1 = p 1 + P c,1 ( ) log 1 + p 2h 2 1+p 1 h 1 EE 2 = p 2 + P c,2 1. Formulate the problem as a non-cooperative game in normal form. 2. Establish whether the game admits a Nash equilibrium. Exercise 5: Give the definitions of: 1. Potential game. 2. Supermodular game. Exercise 6: Consider the same communication system as in Exercise 4, but assume now that the utility function of p mobile i is u i = f( i h i 1+p i h i ) cp i, with i = {1, 2}, and c a positive parameter. Formulate the problem as a non-cooperative game in normal form and find conditions on the function f such that the game is supermodular.

Exercise 7: Given the following two games with perfect information in extensive form 1. Write down the components of the game. 2. Write the game in strategic form. 3. Find the Nash equilibria. 4. Calculate the subgame perfect equilibria. Exercise 8: Consider two mobile stations MS 1 and MS 2, which communicate to a base station BS. Each MS i can choose whether to transmit a power p i = P or to not transmit, i.e. p i = 0. The BS implements a successive interference cancellation receiver and chooses whether to decode MS 1 first (1 2) or MS 2 first (2 1). The utility of MS i is: i j. The utility of the BS is with µ 0. { log(1 + pi ) µp i if j i u MSi = log(1 + p i 1+p j ) µp i if i j, u BS = µ(p 1 + p 2 ), 1. Formulate the game in extensive form. 2. Find the subgame perfect equilibria of the game.

Exercise 9: Define the following axioms 1. Linearity 2. Symmetry 3. Pareto Efficiency 4. Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives Exercise 10: Given a convex and compact payoff region U R 2 and d U, describe the Nash bargaining solution f(u, d). Exercise 11: Consider two communication pairs each composed of a transmitter (BS) and a receiver (MS), and both sharing two parallel frequency bands. The channel coefficients are α 11 = α 22 = β 11 = β 22 = 1, α 12 = α 21 = β 12 = β 21 = 0.5. The noise power in both bands is 1. Transmitter 1 transmits with power π 1 [0, 1] in the first band and a with power 1 π 1 [0, 1] in the second band. Transmitter 2 transmits with power π 2 [0, 1] in the first band and a with power 1 π 2 [0, 1] in the second band. The utility function for each communication system is the maximum achievable rate treating interference as noise. ( R 1 (π 1, π 2 ) = log 2 1 + π ) ( 1α 11 + log 2 1 + (1 π ) 1)β 11 1 + π 2 α 21 ( R 2 (π 1, π 2 ) = log 2 1 + π 2α 22 1 + π 1 α 12 1. Find the Nash equilibrium of the game 1 + (1 π 2 )β 21 ) ( + log 2 1 + (1 π ) 2)β 22 1 + (1 π 1 )β 12 2. Calculate the Nash bargaining solution of the game using the Nash equilibrium as a conflict point.

Exercise 12: Answer the following questions 1. What are coalitional games? 2. What is the difference between transferable utility and non-transferable utility? Exercise 13: Define the following concepts. 1. Core. 2. Nucleolus. Exercise 14: Each of n factories draws water from a lake and discharges waste into the same lake. Each factory requires clean water and pays kc to clean its water supply, where k is the number of factories that do not treat their waste before discharging it into the lake. The cost of treating the waste is b, with c b nc. 1. Model this situation as a coalitional game under the assumption that the worth v(s) of a coalition S is the highest payoff that v(s) can guarantee. 2. Find the conditions under which the game has a nonempty core and conditions under which the core is a singleton.

Exercise 15: Compute the Shapley value for the game {1, 2, 3, 4}, v wherein v({1, 2, 3, 4}) = 3 v(s) = 0 if S contains at most one player in {1, 2, 3} v(s) = 2 otherwise Exercise 16: Consider three men M = {m 1, m 2, m 3 } and three women W = {w 1, w 2, w 3 }. The preferences of men and women are given as follows P (m 1 ) = w 1, w 2, w 3 P (w 1 ) = m 2, m 1, m 3 P (m 2 ) = w 2, w 1, w 3 P (w 2 ) = m 1, m 2, m 3 P (m 3 ) = w 1, w 2, w 3 P (w 3 ) = m 1, m 2, m 3 Is the matching [(m 1, w 3 ), (m 2, w 2 ), (m 3, w 1 )] stable? Is the matching [(m 1, w 1 ), (m 2, w 2 ), (m 3, w 3 )] stable? Find two stable matchings.