1 / 32

Repeated Games

Prerequisites. Almost essential Game Theory: Dynamic. Repeated Games. MICROECONOMICS Principles and Analysis Frank Cowell. January 2007. Overview. Repeated Games. Basic structure. Embedding the game in context…. Equilibrium issues. Applications. Introduction.

tkeeble
Télécharger la présentation

Repeated Games

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Prerequisites Almost essential Game Theory: Dynamic Repeated Games MICROECONOMICS Principles and Analysis Frank Cowell January 2007

  2. Overview... Repeated Games Basic structure Embedding the game in context… Equilibrium issues Applications

  3. Introduction • Another examination of the role of time • Dynamic analysis can be difficult • more than a few stages… • …can lead to complicated analysis of equilibrium • We need an alternative approach • but one that preserves basic insights of dynamic games • such as subgame-perfect equilibrium • Build on the idea of dynamic games • introduce a jump • from the case of comparatively few stages… • …to the case of arbitrarily many

  4. Repeated games • The alternative approach • take a series of the same game • embed it within a time-line structure • Basic idea is simple • by connecting multiple instances of an atemporal game… • …model a repeated encounter between the players in the same situation of economic conflict • Raises important questions • how does this structure differ from an atemporal model? • how does the repetition of a game differ from a single play? • how does it differ from a collection of unrelated games of identical structure with identical players?

  5. History • Why is the time-line different from a collection of unrelated games? • The key is history • history at any point on the timeline… • …is the information about actual play… • …accumulated up to that point • History can affect the nature of the game • at any stage all players can know all the accumulated information • strategies can be conditioned on this information • History can play a role in the equilibrium • some outcomes that aren’t equilibria in a single encounter… • …may yet be equilibria outcomes in the repeated game • the game’s history is used to support such outcomes

  6. Repeated games: Structure • The stage game • take an instant in time • specify a simultaneous-move game • payoffs completely specified by actions within the game • Repeat the stage game indefinitely • there’s an instance of the stage game at time 0,1,2,…,t,… • the possible payoffs are also repeated for each t • payoffs at t depends on actions in stage game at t • A modified strategic environment • all previous actions assumed as common knowledge • so agents’ strategies can be conditioned on this information • Modifies equilibrium behaviour and outcome?

  7. Equilibrium • Simplified structure has potential advantages • whether significant depends on nature of stage game • concern nature of equilibrium • Possibilities for equilibrium • new strategy combinations supportable as equilibria? • long-term cooperative outcomes… • …absent from a myopic analysis of a simple game • Refinements of subgame perfection simplify the analysis: • can rule out empty threats… • …and incredible promises • disregard irrelevant “might-have-beens”

  8. Overview... Repeated Games Basic structure Developing the basic concepts… Equilibrium issues Applications

  9. Equilibrium: an approach • Focus on key question in repeated games: • how can rational players use the information from history? • need to address this to characterise equilibrium • Illustrate a method in an argument by example • Outline for the Prisoner's Dilemma game • same players face same outcomes from their actions that they may choose in periods 1, 2, ..., t, .... • Prisoner's Dilemma particularly instructive given: • its importance in microeconomics • pessimistic outcome of an isolated round of the game

  10. Prisoner’s dilemma: Reminder • Payoffs in stage game Alf [LEFT] 2,2 0,3 • If Alf plays [RIGHT] then Bill’s best response is [right]. • If Bill plays [right] then Alf’s best response is [RIGHT]. [RIGHT] 3,0 1,1 • Nash Equilibrium • Outcome that Pareto dominates NE [left] [right] • The highlighted NE is inefficient • Could the Pareto-efficient outcome be an equilibrium in the repeated game? • Look at the structure… Bill

  11. Alf [RIGHT] [LEFT] Alf Alf Alf Alf 2 2 2 2 [RIGHT] [RIGHT] [RIGHT] [RIGHT] [LEFT] [LEFT] [LEFT] [LEFT] Bill [left] [right] [left] [right] Bill Bill Bill Bill [left] [left] [left] [left] [right] [right] [right] [right] [left] [left] [left] [left] [right] [right] [right] [right] (1,1) (2,2) (0,3) (3,0) (1,1) (1,1) (1,1) (1,1) (2,2) (2,2) (2,2) (2,2) (0,3) (0,3) (0,3) (0,3) (3,0) (3,0) (3,0) (3,0) Repeated Prisoner's dilemma • Stage game (t=1) 1 • Stage game (t=2) follows here… • or here… • or here… • or here… • Repeat this structure indefinitely…?

  12. Alf Alf [RIGHT] [RIGHT] [LEFT] [LEFT] Bill Bill [left] [left] [right] [right] [left] [left] [right] [right] ... ... ... ... ... ... (1,1) (1,1) (2,2) (2,2) (0,3) (0,3) (3,0) (3,0) Repeated Prisoner's dilemma • The stage game… 1 • …repeated though time t Let's look at the detail

  13. Repeated PD: payoffs • To represent possibilities in long run: • first consider payoffs available in the stage game • then those available through mixtures • In the one-shot game payoffs simply represented • it was enough to denote them as 0,…,3 • purely ordinal… • …arbitrary monotonic changes of the payoffs have no effect • Now we need a generalised notation • cardinal values of utility matter • we need to sum utilities, compare utility differences • Evaluation of a payoff stream: • suppose payoff to agent h in period t is uh(t) • value of (uh(1), uh(2),..., uh(t)...) is given by ∞ [1d] ∑dt1uh(t) t=1 • where d is a discount factor 0 < d < 1

  14. PD: stage game • A generalised notation for the stage game • consider actions and payoffs… • …in each of four fundamental cases • Both socially irresponsible: • they play [RIGHT], [right] • get (ua, ub) whereua> 0, ub> 0 • Both socially responsible: • they play [LEFT],[left] • get (u*a, u*b) where u*a > ua, u*b > ub • Only Alf socially responsible: • they play [LEFT], [right] • get ( 0,`ub) where`ub > u*b • Only Bill socially responsible: • they play [RIGHT], [left] • get (`ua, 0) where `ua > u*a A diagrammatic view

  15. ub _ ub (ua, ub ) _ _ ua 0 _ ua Repeated Prisoner’s dilemma payoffs • Space of utility payoffs • Payoffs for Prisoner's Dilemma • Nash-Equilibrium payoffs • Payoffs Pareto-superior to NE • Payoffs available through mixing • • Feasible, superior points • "Efficient" outcomes • (u*a, u*b ) U* • •

  16. Choosing a strategy: setting • Long-run advantage in the Pareto-efficient outcome • payoffs (u*a, u*b) in each period… • …clearly better than (ua, ub) in each period • Suppose the agents recognise the advantage • what actions would guarantee them this? • clearly they need to play [LEFT], [left] every period • The problem is lack of trust: • they cannot trust each other… • …nor indeed themselves: • Alf tempted to be antisocial and get payoff`ua by playing [RIGHT] • Bill has a similar temptation

  17. Choosing a strategy: formulation • Will a dominated outcome still be inevitable? • Suppose each player adopts a strategy that • rewards the other party's responsible behaviour by responding with the action [left] • punishes antisocial behaviour with the action [right], thus generating the minimax payoffs(ua, ub) • Known as a trigger strategy • Why the strategy is powerful • punishment applies to every period after the one where the antisocial action occurred • if punishment invoked offender is “minimaxed for ever” • Look at it in detail

  18. Repeated PD: trigger strategies sTa • Take situation at t Bill’s action in 0,…,t Alf’s action at t+1 • First type of history [left][left],…,[left] • Response of other player to continue this history [LEFT] • Second type of history Anything else [RIGHT] • Punishment response • Trigger strategies [sTa, sTb] sTb Alf’s action in 0,…,t Bill’s action at t+1 Will it work? [left] [LEFT][LEFT],…,[LEFT] Anything else [right]

  19. Will the trigger strategy “work”? • Utility gain from “misbehaving” at t: `ua− u*a • What is value at t of punishment from t+1 onwards? • Difference in utility per period: u*a− ua • Discounted value of this in period t+1: V := [u*a− ua]/[1−d ] • Value of this in period t:dV = d[u*a− ua]/[1−d ] • So agent chooses not to misbehave if • `ua− u*a≤ d[u*a− ua ]/[1−d ] • But this is only going to work for specific parameters • value of d… • … relative to `ua, ua and u*a • What values of discount factor will allow an equilibrium?

  20. Discounting and equilibrium • For an equilibrium condition must be satisfied for both a and b • Consider the situation of a • Rearranging the condition from the previous slide: • d[u*a− ua ] ≥ [1−d] [`ua− u*a] • d[`ua− ua ] ≥ [`ua− u*a] • Simplifying this the condition must be • d ≥ d*a • where da := [`ua− u*a] / [`ua− ua] • A similar result must also apply to agent b • Therefore we must have the condition: • d ≥ d • where d := max {da , db}

  21. Repeated PD: SPNE • Assuming d ≥ d, take the strategies [sTa, sTb] prescribed by the Table • If there were antisocial behaviour at t consider the subgame that would then start at t+1 • Alf could not increase his payoff by switching from [RIGHT] to [LEFT], given that Bill is playing [left] • a similar remark applies to Bill • so strategies imply a NE for this subgame • likewise for any subgame starting after t+1. • But if [LEFT],[left] has been played in every period up till t: • Alf would not wish to switch to [RIGHT] • a similar remark applies to Bill • again we have a NE • So, if d is large enough, [sTa, sTb] is a Subgame-Perfect Equilibrium • yields the payoffs (u*a, u*b) in every period

  22. Folk Theorem • The outcome of the repeated PD is instructive • illustrates an important result • …the Folk Theorem • Strictly speaking a class of results • finite/infinite games • different types of equilibrium concepts • A standard version of the Theorem: • In a two-person infinitely repeated game: • if the discount factor is sufficiently close to 1 • any combination of actions observed in any finite number of stages… • …is the outcome of a subgame-perfect equilibrium

  23. Assessment • The Folk Theorem central to repeated games • perhaps better described as Folk Theorems • a class of results • Clearly has considerable attraction • Put its significance in context • makes relatively modest claims • gives a possibility result • Only seen one example of the Folk Theorem • let’s apply it… • …to well known oligopoly examples

  24. Overview... Repeated Games Basic structure Some well-known examples… Equilibrium issues Applications

  25. Cournot competition: repeated • Start by reinterpreting PD as Cournot duopoly • two identical firms • firms can each choose one of two levels of output – [high] or [low] • can firms sustain a low-output (i.e. high-profit) equilibrium? • Possible actions and outcomes in the stage game: • [HIGH], [high]: both firms get Cournot-Nash payoff PC > 0 • [LOW], [low]: both firms get joint-profit maximising payoff PJ >PC • [HIGH], [low]: payoffs are (`P, 0) where `P >PJ • Folk theorem: get SPNE with payoffs (PJ, PJ) if d is large enough • Critical value for the discount factor d is `P− PJ d = ────── `P− PC • But we should say more • Let’s review the standard Cournot diagram

  26. 1 2 (qJ, qJ) 1 2 (qC, qC) Cournot stage game q2 • Firm 1’s Iso-profit curves • Firm 2’s Iso-profit curves • Firm 1’s reaction function • Firm 2’s reaction function c1(·) `q2 • Cournot-Nash equilibrium • Outputs with higher profits for both firms • Joint profit-maximising solution • Output that forces other firm’s profit to 0 c2(·) q1 0 `q1

  27. Repeated Cournot game: Punishment • Standard Cournot model is richer than simple PD: • action space for PD stage game just has the two output levels • continuum of output levels introduces further possibilities • Minimax profit level for firm 1 in a Cournot duopoly • is zero,not the NE outcome PC • arises wherefirm 2 sets output to `q2 such that 1 makes no profit • Imagine a deviation by firm 1 at time t • raises q1 above joint profit-max level • Would minimax be used as punishment from t+1 to ∞? • clearly (0,`q2) is not on firm 2's reaction function • so cannot be best response by firm 2 to an action by firm 1 • so it cannot belong to the NE of the subgame • everlasting minimax punishment is not credible in this case

  28. P P   Repeated Cournot game: Payoffs • Space of profits for the two firms P2 • Cournot-Nash outcome • • Joint-profit maximisation • Minimax outcomes • Payoffs available in repeated game (PJ,PJ) Now review Bertrand compewtition (PC,PC) P1 • 0

  29. Bertrand stage game p2 • Marginal cost pricing • Monopoly pricing • Firm 1’s reaction function • Firm 2’s reaction function • Nash equilibrium pM c p1 pM c

  30. Bertrand competition: repeated • NE of the stage game: • set price equal to marginal cost c • results in zero profits • NE outcome is the minimax outcome • minimax outcome is implementable as a Nash equilibrium… • … in all the subgames following a defection from cooperation • In repeated Bertrand competition • firms set pM if acting “cooperatively” • split profits between them • if one firm deviates from this… • …others then set price to c • Repeated Bertrand: result • can enforce joint profit maximisation through trigger strategy… • …provided discount factor is large enough

  31. Repeated Bertrand game: Payoffs • Space of profits for the two firms P2 • Bertrand-Nash outcome • PM • Firm 1 as a monopoly • Firm 2 as a monopoly • Payoffs available in repeated game P1 • 0 PM

  32. Repeated games: summary • New concepts: • Stage game • History • The Folk Theorem • Trigger strategy • What next? • Games under uncertainty

More Related