Game Theory: Sharing, Stability and Strategic Behaviour

Post on 10-Jan-2016

27 views 3 download

Tags:

description

Game Theory: Sharing, Stability and Strategic Behaviour. Frank Thuijsman Maastricht University The Netherlands. John von Neumann. Oskar Morgenstern. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior , Princeton, 1944. Programme. Three widows Cooperative games Strategic games Marriage problems. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

transcript

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

1/57

Game Theory:Sharing, Stability and Strategic Behaviour

Frank Thuijsman

Maastricht University

The Netherlands

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

2/57

John von Neumann Oskar Morgenstern

Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton, 1944

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

3/57

1.Three widows

2.Cooperative games

3.Strategic games

4.Marriage problems

Programme

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

4/57

“If a man who was married to three wives died and the kethubah ofone was 100 zuz, of the other 200 zuz, and of the third 300 zuz, andthe estate was worth only 100 zuz, then the sum is divided equally.

If the estate was worth 200 zuz then the claimant of the 100 zuzreceives 50 zuz and the claimants respectively of the 200 and the 300zuz receive each 75 zuz.

If the estate was worth 300 zuz then the claimant of the 100 zuzreceives 50 zuz and the claimant of the 200 zuz receives 100 zuz whilethe claimant of the 300 zuz receives 150 zuz.

Similarly if three persons contributed to a joint fund and theyhad made a loss or a profit then they share in the same manner.”

Kethuboth, Fol. 93a, Babylonian Talmud, Epstein, ed, 1935

So: 100 is shared equally, each gets 33.33.

So: 200 is shared as 50 - 75 - 75.

So: 300 is shared proportionally as 50 - 100 - 150.

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

5/57

100 200 300

100 33.33

200 33.33

300 33.33

Estate

Widow

50

75

75

50

100

150

“Similarly if three persons contributed to a joint fund and theyhad made a loss or a profit then they share in the same manner.”

How to share 400?

What if a fourth widow claims 400?

Equal Proportional???

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

6/57

Barry O’Neill

A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud, Mathematical Social Sciences 2, 1982

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

7/57

Robert J. Aumann Michael Maschler

Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud, Journal of Economic Theory 36, 1985Nobel prize for Economics, 12-10-2005

Thomas Schelling

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

8/57

Robert J. Aumann Michael Maschler

Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud, Journal of Economic Theory 36, 1985

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

9/57

100 200 300

100 33.33 50 50

200 33.33 75 100

300 33.33 75 150

100 200 300

100 50

200 100

300 150

S Ø A B C AB AC BC ABC

v(S)

The nucleolus of the game

0 0 0 0 0 100 200 300

The value of coalition S is the amount that remains,

if the others get their claims first.

100 200 300

100

200

300

Cooperative games

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

10/57

100 200 300

100 33.33 50 50

200 33.33 75 100

300 33.33 75 150

Cooperative games100 200 300

100 50

200 75

300 75

S Ø A B C AB AC BC ABC

v(S)

The nucleolus of the game

0 0 0 0 0 100 2000

The value of coalition S is the amount that remains,

if the others get their claims first.

100 200 300

100

200

300

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

11/57

100 200 300

A 100 33.33 50 50

B 200 33.33 75 100

C 300 33.33 75 150

Cooperative games100 200 300

A 100 33.33

B 200 33.33

C 300 33.33

The value of coalition S is the amount that remains,

if the others get their claims first.

S Ø A B C AB AC BC ABC

v(S)

The nucleolus of the game

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

100 200 300

A 100

B 200

C 300

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

12/57

S Ø A B C AB AC BC ABC

v(S) 0 6 7 7 9 11 11 14

Cooperative games

Sharing costs or gains based upon the valuesof the coalitions

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

13/57

The core

S Ø A B C AB AC BC ABC

v(S) 0 6 7 7 9 11 11 14

(14,0,0) (0,14,0)

(0,0,14)

(6,0,8)

(6,8,0)

(0,7,7)

(7,7,0)

(7,0,7)

Empty

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

14/57

Lloyd S. Shapley

A value for n-person games, In: Contribution to the Theory of Games, Kuhn and Tucker (eds), Princeton, 1953

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

15/57

The Shapley-value

For cooperative games there is ONLY ONE

solution concept that satisfies the properties:

- Anonimity

- Efficiency

- Dummy

- Additivity

Φ : the average of the “marginal contributions”

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

16/57

S Ø A B C AB AC BC ABC

v(S) 0 6 7 7 9 11 11 14

The Shapley-value

A B C

A-B-C

A-C-B

B-A-C

B-C-A

C-A-B

C-B-A

Sum:

Φ:

6 3 5

6 3 5

2 7 5

3 7 4

4 3 7

3 4 7

24 27 33

4 4.5 5.5

Marginal contributions

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

17/57

David Schmeidler

The nucleolus of a characteristic function game, SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics 17, 1969

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

18/57

The nucleolus

(14,0,0) (0,14,0)

(0,0,14)

S Ø A B C AB AC BC ABC

v(S) 0 6-2 7-2 7-2 9-2 11-2 11-2 14

(4,5,5) the nucleolus

S Ø A B C AB AC BC ABC

v(S) 0 6 7 7 9 11 11 14

S Ø A B C AB AC BC ABC

v(S) 0 6-x 7-x 7-x 9-x 11-x 11-x 14

S Ø A B C AB AC BC ABC

v(S) 0 4 5 5 7 9 9 14

Leeg

Φ = (4, 4.5, 5.5)

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

19/57

100 200 300

A 100 33.33 50 50

B 200 33.33 75 100

C 300 33.33 75 150

The Talmud games

S Ø A B C AB AC BC ABC

v(S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

(100,0,0) (0,100,0)

(0,0,100)

the nucleolus

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

20/57

100 200 300

100 33.33 50 50

200 33.33 75 100

300 33.33 75 150

The Talmud games

S Ø A B C AB AC BC ABC

v(S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 200

(200,0,0) (0,200,0)

(0,0,200)

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

21/57

100 200 300

100 33.33 50 50

200 33.33 75 100

300 33.33 75 150

The Talmud games

S Ø A B C AB AC BC ABC

v(S) 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 200

(200,0,0) (0,200,0)

(0,0,200)

the nucleolus

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

22/57

100 200 300

100 33.33 50 50

200 33.33 75 100

300 33.33 75 150

The Talmud games

S Ø A B C AB AC BC ABC

v(S) 0 0 0 0 0 100 200 300

(300,0,0) (0,300,0)

(0,0,300)

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

23/57

100 200 300

100 33.33 50 50

200 33.33 75 100

300 33.33 75 150

The Talmud games

S Ø A B C AB AC BC ABC

v(S) 0 0 0 0 0 100 200 300

(300,0,0) (0,300,0)

(0,0,300)

the nucleolus

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

24/57

100 200 300

100 33.33

200 33.33

300 33.33

Estate

Widow

50

75

75

50

100

150

“Similarly if three persons contributed to a joint fund and theyhad made a loss or a profit then they share in the same manner.”

How to share 400?

What if a fourth widow claims 400?

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

25/57

The Answer

Another part of the Talmud:

“Two hold a garment; one claims it all, the other claims half. Then one gets 3/4 , while the other gets 1/4.”

Baba Metzia 2a, Fol. 1, Babylonian Talmud, Epstein, ed, 1935

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

26/57

Consistency100 200 300

100 33.33 50 50

200 33.33 75 100

300 33.33 75 150

jointly 125

100

200

One claims 100, the other all,so 25 for the other;both claim the remains (100), so each gets half

jointly 125

100

200 25

jointly 125

100 50

200 25+50

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

27/57

Consistency100 200 300

100 33.33 50 50

200 33.33 75 100

300 33.33 75 150

One claims 100, the other all,so 25 for the other;both claim the remains (100), so each gets half

jointly 125

100 50

300 25+50

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

28/57

Consistency100 200 300

100 33.33 50 50

200 33.33 75 100

300 33.33 75 150

jointly 150

200 75

300 75

Each claims all,so each gets half

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

29/57

100 200 300

100 33.33 50 50

200 33.33 75 100

300 33.33 75 150

Consistency100 200 300

100 33.33 50 50

200 33.33 75 100

300 33.33 75 150

jointly 66.66

100

200

Each claims all,so each gets half

jointly 66.66

100 33.33

200 33.33

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

30/57

Consistency100 200 300

100 33.33 50 50

200 33.33 75 100

300 33.33 75 150

jointly 150

100

200

One claims 100, the other all,so 50 for the other;both claim the remains (100), so each gets half

jointly 150

100

200 50

jointly 150

100 50

200 50+50

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

31/57

Consistency100 200 300

100 33.33 50 50

200 33.33 75 100

300 33.33 75 150

jointly 200

100

300

One claims 100, the other all,so 100 for the other;both claim the remains (100), so each gets half

jointly 200

100

300 100

jointly 200

100 50

200 100+50

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

32/57

100 200 300

100 33.33 50 50

200 33.33 75 100

300 33.33 75 150

How to share 400?

What if a fourth widow claims 400?

Do we now really know how to do it?

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

33/57

Marek M. Kaminski

‘Hydraulic’ rationing, Mathematical Social Sciences 40, 2000

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

34/57

50

50 100

100

150

150

Communicating Vessels

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

35/57

Pouring in 100

33.3333.33 33.33

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

36/57

Pouring in 200

7550

75

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

37/57

Pouring in 300

150

100

50

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

38/57

Pouring in 400

50

125 225

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

39/57

4 widows with 400

125100

50

125

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

40/57

Strategic games

A1

B1

A22,2

6,1 4,3

B2

A3

3,4

1,3

B3

2,1 4,2

Strategy player 1: LLR

Strategy player 2: RRR

“game in extensive form”

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

41/57

A1

B1

A22,2

6,1 4,3

B2

A3

3,4

1,3

B3

2,1 4,2

Strategy player 1: RLL

Strategy player 2: RLL

Threat

Strategic games

“Game in extensive form”

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

42/57

LLL LLR LRL LRR RLL RLR RRL RRR

LLL

LLR 2,2LRL

LRR

RLL 3,4RLR

RRL

RRR

“Game in strategic form”

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

43/57

LLL LLR LRL LRR RLL RLR RRL RRR

LLL 6,1 6,1 6,1 6,1 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2LLR 6,1 6,1 6,1 6,1 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2LRL 4,3 4,3 4,3 4,3 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2LRR 4,3 4,3 4,3 4,3 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2RLL 3,4 3,4 1,3 1,3 3,4 3,4 1,3 1,3RLR 2,1 4,2 1,3 1,3 2,1 4,2 1,3 1,3RRL 3,4 3,4 1,3 1,3 3,4 3,4 1,3 1,3RRR 2,1 4,2 1,3 1,3 2,1 4,2 1,3 1,3

LLL LLR LRL LRR RLL RLR RRL RRR

LLL 6,1 6,1 6,1 6,1 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2LLR 6,1 6,1 6,1 6,1 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2LRL 4,3 4,3 4,3 4,3 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2LRR 4,3 4,3 4,3 4,3 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2RLL 3,4 3,4 1,3 1,3 3,4 3,4 1,3 1,3RLR 2,1 4,2 1,3 1,3 2,1 4,2 1,3 1,3RRL 3,4 3,4 1,3 1,3 3,4 3,4 1,3 1,3RRR 2,1 4,2 1,3 1,3 2,1 4,2 1,3 1,3

LLL LLR LRL LRR RLL RLR RRL RRR

LLL 6,1 6,1 6,1 6,1 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2LLR 6,1 6,1 6,1 6,1 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2LRL 4,3 4,3 4,3 4,3 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2LRR 4,3 4,3 4,3 4,3 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,2RLL 3,4 3,4 1,3 1,3 3,4 3,4 1,3 1,3RLR 2,1 4,2 1,3 1,3 2,1 4,2 1,3 1,3RRL 3,4 3,4 1,3 1,3 3,4 3,4 1,3 1,3RRR 2,1 4,2 1,3 1,3 2,1 4,2 1,3 1,3

“Game in strategic form”

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

44/57

Equilibrium:

If players play

best responses to eachother,

then a stable situation arises

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

45/571994: Nobel prize for Economics

John F. Nash John C. HarsanyiReinhard Selten

“A Beautiful Mind”

Non-cooperative games, Annals of Mathematics 54, 1951

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

46/57

Player 2

Player 1-2,-2 -10,-1

-1,-10 -8,-8

The Prisoner’s Dilemma

(-2,-2)

(-1,-10)

(-10,-1)

(-8,-8)

The iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma

be silent

confess

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

47/57

D H

D

H

2,2 0,3

3,0 1,1

Hawk-Dove

(2,2)

(3,0)

(0,3)

(1,1)

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

48/57

D H

D

H

2,2 0,3

3,0 1,1

Hawk-Dove and Tit-for-Tat

Tit-for-Tat: begin D and play the previous opponent’s action at every other stage

D H T

D 2 0  

H 3 1  

T      

D H T

D 2 0 2

H 3 1 1

T 2 1 2

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

49/57

Robert Axelrod Anatol RapoportJohn Maynard Smith

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

50/57

  1 2 3 4 5

Anny Freddy Harry Kenny Gerry Lenny

Betty Gerry Kenny Freddy Harry Lenny

Conny Lenny Harry Gerry Freddy Kenny

Dolly Harry Lenny Freddy Gerry Kenny

Emmy Harry Kenny Gerry Lenny Freddy

  1 2 3 4 5

Freddy Conny Betty Anny Emmy Dolly

Gerry Dolly Anny Betty Emmy Conny

Harry Emmy Anny Dolly Betty Conny

Kenny Emmy Conny Anny Dolly Betty

Lenny Emmy Anny Betty Conny Dolly

“Marriage Problems”

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

51/57

  1 2 3 4 5

Anny Freddy Kenny Gerry Lenny

Betty Gerry Kenny Freddy Lenny

Conny Lenny Gerry Freddy Kenny

Dolly Lenny Freddy Gerry Kenny

Kenny Gerry Lenny Freddy

  1 2 3 4 5

Freddy Conny Betty Anny Dolly

Gerry Dolly Anny Betty Conny

Anny Dolly Betty Conny

Kenny Conny Anny Dolly Betty

Lenny Anny Betty Conny Dolly

“Marriage Problems”

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

52/57

  1 2 3 4 5

Anny Freddy Kenny Gerry Lenny

Betty Gerry Kenny Freddy Lenny

Conny Lenny Gerry Freddy Kenny

Dolly Lenny Gerry Kenny

Kenny Gerry Lenny Freddy

  1 2 3 4 5

Freddy Conny Betty Anny

Gerry Dolly Anny Betty Conny

Anny Dolly Betty Conny

Kenny Conny Anny Dolly Betty

Lenny Anny Betty Conny Dolly

“Marriage Problems”

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

53/57

Lloyd S. Shapley

College admissions and the stability of marriage, American Mathematical Monthly 69, 1962

David Gale

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

54/57

  1 2 3 4 5

Anny Freddy Harry Kenny Gerry Lenny

Betty Gerry Kenny Freddy Harry Lenny

Conny Lenny Harry Gerry Freddy Kenny

Dolly Harry Lenny Freddy Gerry Kenny

Emmy Harry Kenny Gerry Lenny Freddy

  1 2 3 4 5

Freddy Conny Betty Anny Emmy Dolly

Gerry Dolly Anny Betty Emmy Conny

Harry Emmy Anny Dolly Betty Conny

Kenny Emmy Conny Anny Dolly Betty

Lenny Emmy Anny Betty Conny Dolly

Gale-Shapley Algorithm

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

55/57

Gale-Shapley Algorithm

- Also applicable if the groups are not equally big

- Also applicable if not everyone wants to be matched to anybody

- Also applicable for “college admissions”

- Gives the best stable matching for the “proposers”

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

56/57

frank@math.unimaas.nl

?

frank@math.unimaas.nl March 5, 2007

Al Quds University, Jerusalem

57/57

GAME VER