The strategic value of recall

This work studies the value of two-person zero-sum repeated games in which at least one of the players is restricted to (mixtures of) bounded recall strategies. A (pure) k-recall strategy is a strategy that relies only on the last k periods of history. This work improves previous results ( [Lehrer, 1988] and [Neyman and Okada, 2009]) on repeated games with bounded recall. We provide an explicit formula for the asymptotic value of the repeated game as a function of the one-stage game, the duration of the repeated game, and the recall of the agents.     

The collective action problem: Within-group cooperation and between-group competition in a repeated rent-seeking game

This paper analyzes the ability of group members to cooperate in rent-seeking activities in a context of between-group competition. For this purpose, we develop an infinitely repeated rent-seeking game between two groups of different size. We first investigate Nash reversion strategies to support cooperative behavior in both groups, before analyzing double-edge trigger strategies which support cooperation in one group only. These last strategies have the property that cheating on the agreement in the cooperative group is followed by non-cooperation in this group and cooperation in the rival group. The main conclusion is that the set of parameters for which cooperation can be sustained within the larger group as a subgame perfect outcome is as large as that for which cooperation can be sustained in the smaller group. Hence, in contrast to Olson?s (1965) celebrated thesis, but in accordance with many informal and formal observations, larger groups can be as effective as smaller groups in furthering their interests.     

Behavioral spillovers and cognitive load in multiple games: An experimental study

We present evidence from laboratory experiments of behavioral spillovers and cognitive load that spread across strategic contexts. In the experiments, subjects play two distinct games simultaneously with different opponents. We find that the strategies chosen and the efficiency of outcomes in one game depends on the other game that the subject plays, and that play is altered in predictable directions. We develop a measure of behavioral variation in a normal form game, outcome entropy, and find that prevalent strategies in games with low outcome entropy are more likely to be used in the games with high outcome entropy, but not vice versa. Taken together, these findings suggest that people do not treat strategic situations in isolation, but may instead develop heuristics that they apply across games.     

Hope springs eternal: learning and the stability of cooperation in short horizon repeated games

This paper considers learning rates in finitely repeated prisoners’ dilemmas. If players think their opponents might be relatively cooperative (e.g., tit-for-tat or grim types), they will cooperate in finitely repeated prisoners’ dilemmas (see Kreps et al., J. Econom. Theory 27 (1982) 245). However, if there are actually no cooperative types, players will eventually learn this and cooperation will break down. This paper shows that this learning is extremely slow, so it will take an extremely long time for cooperation to break down.Thus, suppose the world is either “good” or “bad.” The probability of a grim type is δ>0 if the world is good, and zero if the world is bad. Successive generations pair up to play finitely repeated prisoners’ dilemmas. Players observe play in previous generations and use Bayes’ rule to update their prior, π, that the world is good. We show that, if the world is really bad, then π falls per generation on average. Thus, if δ is small, there is less cooperation if the world is good, but cooperation may become more stable. For a representative 19 period repeated prisoners’ dilemma, beliefs fall one percentage point on average after a thousand generations.To derive these learning rates, we must refine existing results on the sensitivity of repeated games to Kreps et al. (1982) type perturbations. Specifically, we show cooperation is possible in perturbed prisoners’ dilemmas repeated O(log(1/δ)) times. This improves significantly on the O(1/δ) results in previous work. The paper thus provides two new reasons why cooperation tends to be stable, even in short horizon repeated games.     

Haggling over substitutes

Using a model of substitutable goods I determine generic conditions on tastes which guarantee that fixed prices are not optimal: the fully optimal tariff includes lotteries. That is, a profit maximising seller would employ a haggling strategy. We show that the fully optimal selling strategy in a class of cases requires a seller to not allow themselves to focus on one good but to remain haggling over more than one good. This throws new light on the selling strategies used in diverse industries. These insights are used to provide a counter-example to the no lotteries result of McAfee and McMillan (J. Econ. Theory 46 (1988) 335).     

On p-rationalizability and approximate common certainty of rationality

This paper shows that common p-belief of rationality implies p-rationalizability for games with compact strategy sets. We also establish the Bayesian foundation for the perfect p-rationalizability for finite games. The p-rationalizability is then used to analyze the robustness of rationalizable sets. For any game with compact strategy sets, we show that the rationalizable set is robust, i.e., the strategies characterized by common p-belief of rationality are close to the rationalizable set when p→1.     

Repeated games with present-biased preferences

We study infinitely repeated games with perfect monitoring, where players have β-δ preferences. We compute the continuation payoff set using recursive techniques and then characterize equilibrium payoffs. We then explore the cost of the present-time bias, producing comparative statics. Unless the minimax outcome is a Nash equilibrium of the stage game, the equilibrium payoff set is not monotonic in β or δ. Finally, we show how the equilibrium payoff set is contained in that of a repeated game with smaller discount factor.     

Unmediated communication in games with complete and incomplete information

We study the effects of adding unmediated communication to static, finite games of complete and incomplete information. We characterize S^U(G), the set of outcomes of a game G, that are induced by sequential equilibria of cheap talk extensions. A cheap talk extension of G is an extensive-form game in which players communicate before playing G. A reliable mediator is not available and players exchange private or public messages that do not affect directly their payoffs. We first show that if G is a game of complete information with five or more players and rational parameters, then S^U(G) coincides with the set of correlated equilibria of G. Next, we demonstrate that if G is a game of incomplete information with at least five players, rational parameters and full support (i.e., all profiles of types have positive probability), then S^U(G) is equal to the set of communication equilibria of G.     

A three-player dynamic majoritarian bargaining game

We analyze an infinitely repeated divide-the-dollar bargaining game with an endogenous reversion point. In each period a new dollar is divided among three legislators according to the proposal of a randomly recognized member—if a majority prefer so—or according to previous period's allocation otherwise. Although current existence theorems for Markovian equilibria do not apply for this dynamic game, we fully characterize a Markov equilibrium. The equilibrium is such that irrespective of the discount factor or the initial division of the dollar, the proposer eventually extracts the whole dollar in all periods. We also show that proposal strategies are weakly continuous in the status quo that equilibrium expected utility is not quasi-concave, and the correspondence of voters’ acceptance set (the set of allocations weakly preferred over the status quo) fails lower hemicontinuity.     

Proper belief revision and equilibrium in dynamic games

We present a theory of rationality in dynamic games in which players, during the course of the game, may revise their beliefs about the opponents’ utility functions. The theory is based upon the following three principles: (1) the players’ initial beliefs about the opponents’ utilities should agree on some profile u of utility functions, (2) every player should believe, at each of his information sets, that his opponents are carrying out optimal strategies and (3) a player at information set h should not change his belief about an opponent's ranking of strategies a and b if both a and b could have led to h. Scenarios with these properties are called preference conjecture equilibria for the profile u of utility functions. We show that every normal form proper equilibrium for u induces a preference conjecture equilibrium for u, thus implying existence of preference conjecture equilibrium.     

Moral Hazard and Private Monitoring

We clarify the role of mixed strategies and public randomization (sunspots) in sustaining near-efficient outcomes in repeated games with private monitoring. We study a finitely repeated game, where the stage game has multiple equilibria and show that mixed strategies can support partial cooperation, but cannot approximate full cooperation even if monitoring is “almost perfect.” Efficiency requires extensive form correlation, where strategies can condition upon a sunspot at the end of each period. For any finite number of repetitions, we approximate the best equilibrium payoff under perfect monitoring, assuming that monitoring is sufficiently accurate and sunspots are available. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C73, D82.     

Time inconsistency and retirement planning

We quantify the welfare gains from better retirement planning using a model in which retirement planning is time inconsistent. A modest increase in a household’s planning horizon by just a few years generates large aggregate and individual welfare gains.     

Robust estimation and control under commitment

In a Markov decision problem with hidden state variables, a decision maker expresses fear that his model is misspecified by surrounding it with a set of alternatives that are nearby as measured by their expected log likelihood ratios (entropies). Sets of martingales represent alternative models. Within a two-player zero-sum game under commitment, a minimizing player chooses a martingale at time 0. Probability distributions that solve distorted filtering problems serve as state variables, much like the posterior in problems without concerns about misspecification. We state conditions under which an equilibrium of the zero-sum game with commitment has a recursive representation that can be cast in terms of two risk-sensitivity operators. We apply our results to a linear quadratic example that makes contact with findings of T. Ba?ar and P. Bernhard [H^∞-Optimal Control and Related Minimax Design Problems, second ed., Birkhauser, Basel, 1995] and P. Whittle [Risk-sensitive Optimal Control, Wiley, New York, 1990].     

Social optimality and cooperation in nonatomic congestion games

Congestion externalities may result in nonoptimal equilibria. For these to occur, it suffices that facilities differ in their fixed utilities or costs. As this paper shows, the only case in which equilibria are always socially optimal, regardless of the fixed components, in that in which the costs increase logarithmically with the size of the set of users. Therefore, achieving a socially optimal choice of facilities generally requires some form of external intervention or cooperation. For heterogeneous populations (in which the fixed utilities or costs vary across users as well as across facilities), this raises the question of utility or cost sharing. The sharing rule proposed in this paper is the Harsanyi transferable-utility value of the game—which is based on the users’ marginal contributions to the bargaining power of coalitions.     

Stable games and their dynamics

We study a class of population games called stable games. These games are characterized by self-defeating externalities: when agents revise their strategies, the improvements in the payoffs of strategies to which revising agents are switching are always exceeded by the improvements in the payoffs of strategies which revising agents are abandoning. We prove that the set of Nash equilibria of a stable game is globally asymptotically stable under a wide range of evolutionary dynamics. Convergence results for stable games are not as general as those for potential games: in addition to monotonicity of the dynamics, integrability of the agents' revision protocols plays a key role.     

Finitely repeated games with monitoring options

We study finitely repeated games where players can decide whether to monitor the other players? actions or not every period. Monitoring is assumed to be costless and private. We compare our model with the standard one where the players automatically monitor each other. Since monitoring other players never hurts, any equilibrium payoff vector of a standard finitely repeated game is an equilibrium payoff vector of the same game with monitoring options. We show that some finitely repeated games with monitoring options have sequential equilibrium outcomes which cannot be sustained under the standard model, even if the stage game has a unique Nash equilibrium. We also present sufficient conditions for a folk theorem, when the players have a long horizon.     

Local coordination and market equilibria

We reformulate the local stability analysis of market equilibria in a competitive market as a local coordination problem in a market game, where the map associating market prices to best-responses of all traders is common knowledge and well-defined both in and out of equilibrium. Initial expectations over market variables differ from their equilibrium values and are not common knowledge. This results in a coordination problem as traders use the structure of the market game to converge back to equilibrium. We analyse a simultaneous move and a sequential move version of the market game and explore the link with local rationalizability.     

Higher order game dynamics

Continuous-time game dynamics are typically first order systems where payoffs determine the growth rate of the players? strategy shares. In this paper, we investigate what happens beyond first order by viewing payoffs as higher order forces of change, specifying e.g. the acceleration of the players? evolution instead of its velocity (a viewpoint which emerges naturally when it comes to aggregating empirical data of past instances of play). To that end, we derive a wide class of higher order game dynamics, generalizing first order imitative dynamics, and, in particular, the replicator dynamics. We show that strictly dominated strategies become extinct in n-th order payoff-monotonic dynamics n   orders as fast as in the corresponding first order dynamics; furthermore, in stark contrast to first order, weakly dominated strategies also become extinct for n?2$n?2$. All in all, higher order payoff-monotonic dynamics lead to the elimination of weakly dominated strategies, followed by the iterated deletion of strictly dominated strategies, thus providing a dynamic justification of the well-known epistemic rationalizability process of Dekel and Fudenberg [7]. Finally, we also establish a higher order analogue of the folk theorem of evolutionary game theory, and we show that convergence to strict equilibria in n-th order dynamics is n orders as fast as in first order.     

Pareto-optimal Nash equilibria are competitive in a repeated economy

Consider a finite exchange economy first as a static, 1 period, economy and then as a repeated economy over T periods when the utility of each agent is the mean utility over T. A family of strategic games is defined via a set of six general properties the most distinct of which is the ability of agents to move commodities forward in time. Now consider Pareto optimal allocations in the T period economy which are also Nash equilibria in this family of strategic games. We prove that as T becomes large this set converges to the set of competitive utility allocations in the one period economy. The key idea is that a repetition of the economy when agents can move commodities forward in the time acts as a convexification of the set of individually feasible outcomes for player i holding all other strategies fixed.