Game theory II: Nonzero-sum and cooperative games

Author(s):  
Martin Peterson
Author(s):  
Alfredo Garro

Game Theory (Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944) is a branch of applied mathematics and economics that studies situations (games) where self-interested interacting players act for maximizing their returns; therefore, the return of each player depends on his behaviour and on the behaviours of the other players. Game Theory, which plays an important role in the social and political sciences, has recently drawn attention in new academic fields which go from algorithmic mechanism design to cybernetics. However, a fundamental problem to solve for effectively applying Game Theory in real word applications is the definition of well-founded solution concepts of a game and the design of efficient algorithms for their computation. A widely accepted solution concept of a game in which any cooperation among the players must be selfenforcing (non-cooperative game) is represented by the Nash Equilibrium. In particular, a Nash Equilibrium is a set of strategies, one for each player of the game, such that no player can benefit by changing his strategy unilaterally, i.e. while the other players keep their strategies unchanged (Nash, 1951). The problem of computing Nash Equilibria in non-cooperative games is considered one of the most important open problem in Complexity Theory (Papadimitriou, 2001). Daskalakis, Goldbergy, and Papadimitriou (2005), showed that the problem of computing a Nash equilibrium in a game with four or more players is complete for the complexity class PPAD-Polynomial Parity Argument Directed version (Papadimitriou, 1991), moreover, Chen and Deng extended this result for 2-player games (Chen & Deng, 2005). However, even in the two players case, the best algorithm known has an exponential worst-case running time (Savani & von Stengel, 2004); furthermore, if the computation of equilibria with simple additional properties is required, the problem immediately becomes NP-hard (Bonifaci, Di Iorio, & Laura, 2005) (Conitzer & Sandholm, 2003) (Gilboa & Zemel, 1989) (Gottlob, Greco, & Scarcello, 2003). Motivated by these results, recent studies have dealt with the problem of efficiently computing Nash Equilibria by exploiting approaches based on the concepts of learning and evolution (Fudenberg & Levine, 1998) (Maynard Smith, 1982). In these approaches the Nash Equilibria of a game are not statically computed but are the result of the evolution of a system composed by agents playing the game. In particular, each agent after different rounds will learn to play a strategy that, under the hypothesis of agent’s rationality, will be one of the Nash equilibria of the game (Benaim & Hirsch, 1999) (Carmel & Markovitch, 1996). This article presents SALENE, a Multi-Agent System (MAS) for learning Nash Equilibria in noncooperative games, which is based on the above mentioned concepts.


Author(s):  
Katsushige Fujimoto ◽  

The notions ofk-monotonicity and superadditivity for non-additive measures (e.g., capacity and cooperative games) are used as indices to measure the complementarity of criteria/coalitions in decision-making involving multiple criteria and/or cooperative game theory. To avoid exponential complexity in capacity-based multicriteria decision-making models,k-additive capacities and/or 𝒞-decomposable capacities are often adopted. While, in cooperative game theory, under communication-restricted situations, some coalitions cannot generally be formed. This paper investigates the inheritance of complementary relationships/effects in non-additive measures with restricted domains (or under bounded interactions).


2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 381-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stéphane Airiau

AbstractForming coalitions is a generic means for cooperation: people, robots, web services, resources, firms; they can all improve their performance by joining forces. The use of coalitions has been successful in domains such as task allocations, sensor networks, and electronic marketplaces. Forming efficient coalitions requires the identification of matching synergies between different entities (finding complementary partners, or similar partners, or partners who add diversity). In addition, the different parties must negotiate a fair repartition of the worth created by the coalition. The first part of this paper is a tutorial on cooperative game theory (also called coalitional games). We then survey the different scenarios and the key issues addressed by the multiagent systems community.


ETIKONOMI ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Siti Najma ◽  
Ramadhan Razali ◽  
Harjoni Desky

Employer-labor conflicts are sometimes eternal and challenging to solve. Game theory is one of the essential ideas in settling these conflicts. Furthermore, employer-labor interactions in conflict situations are strategic. In case the employer-labor relationship is non-cooperative, taking place only once, both parties are involved in a prisoner's dilemma situation. In cooperative game theory, the players work together to win the game. Organizational management needs to consider strategic behavior, built-in cooperative games, effective and efficient collaboration between workers and employers. This study examines employer-labor conflict resolution with game theory. It incorporates Islamic ethical values using qualitative research methods. Cooperative games built on employer-labor relations derive from the brotherhood principles (ukhuwah), justice ('adl), and goodness (ihsan) that maximizes cooperation and prevent conflicts.JEL Classification: C70, J01, Z12How to Cite:Najma, S., Ramadhan., & Desky, H. (2020). Arrangements of Employer-Labor Conflicts with Game Theory: Implementation of Islamic Ethic Value. Etikonomi: Jurnal Ekonomi, 19(2), xx – xx. https://doi.org/10.15408/etk.v19i2.15614.


1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 385-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugene Wesley

In this article an application of extended fields of real numbers to the proof of theorems in the theory of cooperative games will be presented. The proofs set forth below involve the use of A. Robinson's theory of nonstandard analysis and are metamathematical in character. Alternative proofs utilizing ordinary topological methods can in fact be carried out quite briefly. However, attempts to apply nonstandard analysis to game theory are relatively novel. For this reason these results may be of interest not only insofar as they present new information on the theory of the kernel of a cooperative game, but also in that they serve to demonstrate the possibility of effectively exploiting nonstandard analysis as a tool for future investigation in this area. It may well turn out that nonstandard analysis could serve as the most natural vehicle through which concepts defined for games with a finite number of players might be extended to games with a continuum of players.


2004 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferenc Forgó

The paper gives a brief account of von Neumann's contribution to the foundation of game theory: definition of abstract games, the minimax theorem for two-person zero-sum games and the stable set solution for cooperative games with side payments. The presentation is self-contained, uses very little mathematical formalism and caters to the nonspecialist. Basic concepts and their implications are in focus. It is also indicated how von Neumann's groundbreaking work initiated further research, and a few unsolved problems are also mentioned.


2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-382
Author(s):  
Vivienne Brown

AbstractThis paper proposes a new interpretation of non-cooperative games that shows why the unilateralism of best-reply reasoning fails to capture the mutuality of strategic interdependence. Drawing on an intersubjective approach to theorizing individual agency in shared context, including a non-individualistic model of common belief without infinite regress, the paper develops a general model of a 2 × 2 simultaneous one-shot non-cooperative game and applies it to games including Hi-Lo, Stag Hunt, Prisoners’ Dilemma, Chicken, BoS and Matching Pennies. Results include High as the rational choice in Hi-Lo, and Cooperate as a possible rational choice in the Prisoners’ Dilemma.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document