Nash equilibrium computation of two-network zero-sum games with event-triggered communication

Author(s):  
Hongyun Xiong ◽  
Jiangxiong Han ◽  
Xiaohong Nian ◽  
Shiling Li
2016 ◽  
Vol 61 (10) ◽  
pp. 2920-2935 ◽  
Author(s):  
Youcheng Lou ◽  
Yiguang Hong ◽  
Lihua Xie ◽  
Guodong Shi ◽  
Karl Henrik Johansson

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1(J)) ◽  
pp. 69-81
Author(s):  
Jung S. You

A mixed strategy, a strategy of unpredictable actions, is applicable to business, politics, and sports. Playing mixed strategies, however, poses a challenge, as the game theory involves calculating probabilities and executing random actions. I test i.i.d. hypotheses of the mixed strategy Nash equilibrium with the simplest experiments in which student participants play zero-sum games in multiple iterations and possibly figure out the optimal mixed strategy (equilibrium) through the games. My results confirm that most players behave differently from the Nash equilibrium prediction for the simplest 2x2 zero-sum game (matching-pennies) and 3x3 zero-sum game (e.g., the rock-paper-scissors game). The results indicate the need to further develop theoretical models that explain a non-Nash equilibrium behavior.


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Stefan Ankirchner ◽  
Christophette Blanchet-Scalliet ◽  
Kai Kümmel

We set up a game theoretical model to analyze the optimal attacking intensity of sports teams during a game. We suppose that two teams can dynamically choose among more or less offensive actions and that the scoring probability of each team depends on both teams’ actions. We assume a zero sum setting and characterize a Nash equilibrium in terms of the unique solution of an Isaacs equation. We present results from numerical experiments showing that a change in the score has a strong impact on strategies, but not necessarily on scoring intensities. We give examples where strategies strongly depend on the score, the scoring intensities not at all.


2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 1185-1201
Author(s):  
Florian Brandl ◽  
Felix Brandt

Developing normative foundations for optimal play in two‐player zero‐sum games has turned out to be surprisingly difficult, despite the powerful strategic implications of the minimax theorem. We characterize maximin strategies by postulating coherent behavior in varying games. The first axiom, called consequentialism, states that how probability is distributed among completely indistinguishable actions is irrelevant. The second axiom, consistency, demands that strategies that are optimal in two different games should still be optimal when there is uncertainty regarding which of the two games will actually be played. Finally, we impose a very mild rationality assumption, which merely requires that strictly dominated actions will not be played. Our characterization shows that a rational and consistent consequentialist who ascribes the same properties to his opponent has to play maximin strategies. This result can be extended to characterize Nash equilibrium in bimatrix games whenever the set of equilibria is interchangeable.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document