Quantal response equilibrium

Last updated
Quantal response equilibrium
Solution concept in game theory
Relationship
Superset of Nash equilibrium, Logit equilibrium
Significance
Proposed by Richard McKelvey and Thomas Palfrey
Used for Non-cooperative games
Example Traveler's dilemma

Quantal response equilibrium (QRE) is a solution concept in game theory. First introduced by Richard McKelvey and Thomas Palfrey, [1] [2] it provides an equilibrium notion with bounded rationality. QRE is not an equilibrium refinement, and it can give significantly different results from Nash equilibrium. QRE is only defined for games with discrete strategies, although there are continuous-strategy analogues.

Contents

In a quantal response equilibrium, players are assumed to make errors in choosing which pure strategy to play. The probability of any particular strategy being chosen is positively related to the payoff from that strategy. In other words, very costly errors are unlikely.

The equilibrium arises from the realization of beliefs. A player's payoffs are computed based on beliefs about other players' probability distribution over strategies. In equilibrium, a player's beliefs are correct.

Application to data

When analyzing data from the play of actual games, particularly from laboratory experiments, particularly from experiments with the matching pennies game, Nash equilibrium can be unforgiving. Any non-equilibrium move can appear equally "wrong", but realistically should not be used to reject a theory. QRE allows every strategy to be played with non-zero probability, and so any data is possible (though not necessarily reasonable).

Logit equilibrium

The most common specification for QRE is logit equilibrium (LQRE). In a logit equilibrium, player's strategies are chosen according to the probability distribution:

is the probability of player choosing strategy . is the expected utility to player of choosing strategy under the belief that other players are playing according to the probability distribution . Note that the "belief" density in the expected payoff on the right side must match the choice density on the left side. Thus computing expectations of observable quantities such as payoff, demand, output, etc., requires finding fixed points as in mean field theory. [3]

Of particular interest in the logit model is the non-negative parameter λ (sometimes written as 1/μ). λ can be thought of as the rationality parameter. As λ→0, players become "completely non-rational", and play each strategy with equal probability. As λ→∞, players become "perfectly rational", and play approaches a Nash equilibrium. [4]

For dynamic games

For dynamic (extensive form) games, McKelvey and Palfrey defined agent quantal response equilibrium (AQRE). AQRE is somewhat analogous to subgame perfection. In an AQRE, each player plays with some error as in QRE. At a given decision node, the player determines the expected payoff of each action by treating their future self as an independent player with a known probability distribution over actions. As in QRE, in an AQRE every strategy is used with nonzero probability.

Applications

The quantal response equilibrium approach has been applied in various settings. For example, Goeree et al. (2002) study overbidding in private-value auctions, [5] Yi (2005) explores behavior in ultimatum games, [6] Hoppe and Schmitz (2013) study the role of social preferences in principal-agent problems, [7] and Kawagoe et al. (2018) investigate step-level public goods games with binary decisions. [8]

Most tests of quantal response equilibrium are based on experiments, in which participants are not or only to a small extent incentivized to perform the task well. However, quantal response equilibrium has also been found to explain behavior in high-stakes environments. A large-scale analysis of the American television game show The Price Is Right, for example, shows that contestants behavior in the so-called Showcase Showdown, a sequential game of perfect information, can be well explained by an agent quantal response equilibrium (AQRE) model. [9]

Critiques

Non-falsifiability

Work by Haile et al. has shown that QRE is not falsifiable in any normal form game, even with significant a priori restrictions on payoff perturbations. [10] The authors argue that the LQRE concept can sometimes restrict the set of possible outcomes from a game, but may be insufficient to provide a powerful test of behavior without a priori restrictions on payoff perturbations.

Loss of Information

As in statistical mechanics the mean-field approach, specifically the expectation in the exponent, results in a loss of information. [11] More generally, differences in an agent's payoff with respect to their strategy variable result in a loss of information.

See also

Related Research Articles

The prisoner's dilemma is a game theory thought experiment involving two rational agents, each of whom can either cooperate for mutual benefit or betray their partner ("defect") for individual gain. The dilemma arises from the fact that while defecting is rational for each agent, cooperation yields a higher payoff for each. The puzzle was designed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher in 1950 during their work at the RAND Corporation. They invited economist Armen Alchian and mathematician John Williams to play a hundred rounds of the game, observing that Alchian and Williams often chose to cooperate. When asked about the results, John Nash remarked that rational behavior in the iterated version of the game can differ from that in a single-round version. This insight anticipated a key result in game theory: cooperation can emerge in repeated interactions, even in situations where it is not rational in a one-off interaction.

In game theory, the Nash equilibrium is the most commonly-used solution concept for non-cooperative games. A Nash equilibrium is a situation where no player could gain by changing their own strategy. The idea of Nash equilibrium dates back to the time of Cournot, who in 1838 applied it to his model of competition in an oligopoly.

In game theory, the centipede game, first introduced by Robert Rosenthal in 1981, is an extensive form game in which two players take turns choosing either to take a slightly larger share of an increasing pot, or to pass the pot to the other player. The payoffs are arranged so that if one passes the pot to one's opponent and the opponent takes the pot on the next round, one receives slightly less than if one had taken the pot on this round, but after an additional switch the potential payoff will be higher. Therefore, although at each round a player has an incentive to take the pot, it would be better for them to wait. Although the traditional centipede game had a limit of 100 rounds, any game with this structure but a different number of rounds is called a centipede game.

Matching pennies is a non-cooperative game studied in game theory. It is played between two players, Even and Odd. Each player has a penny and must secretly turn the penny to heads or tails. The players then reveal their choices simultaneously. If the pennies match, then Even wins and keeps both pennies. If the pennies do not match, then Odd wins and keeps both pennies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Signaling game</span> Game class in game theory

In game theory, a signaling game is a simple type of a dynamic Bayesian game.

In game theory, a move, action, or play is any one of the options which a player can choose in a setting where the optimal outcome depends not only on their own actions but on the actions of others. The discipline mainly concerns the action of a player in a game affecting the behavior or actions of other players. Some examples of "games" include chess, bridge, poker, monopoly, diplomacy or battleship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Solution concept</span> Formal rule for predicting how a game will be played

In game theory, a solution concept is a formal rule for predicting how a game will be played. These predictions are called "solutions", and describe which strategies will be adopted by players and, therefore, the result of the game. The most commonly used solution concepts are equilibrium concepts, most famously Nash equilibrium.

In game theory, an extensive-form game is a specification of a game allowing for the explicit representation of a number of key aspects, like the sequencing of players' possible moves, their choices at every decision point, the information each player has about the other player's moves when they make a decision, and their payoffs for all possible game outcomes. Extensive-form games also allow for the representation of incomplete information in the form of chance events modeled as "moves by nature". Extensive-form representations differ from normal-form in that they provide a more complete description of the game in question, whereas normal-form simply boils down the game into a payoff matrix.

In game theory, a Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium (PBE) is a solution with Bayesian probability to a turn-based game with incomplete information. More specifically, it is an equilibrium concept that uses Bayesian updating to describe player behavior in dynamic games with incomplete information. Perfect Bayesian equilibria are used to solve the outcome of games where players take turns but are unsure of the "type" of their opponent, which occurs when players don't know their opponent's preference between individual moves. A classic example of a dynamic game with types is a war game where the player is unsure whether their opponent is a risk-taking "hawk" type or a pacifistic "dove" type. Perfect Bayesian Equilibria are a refinement of Bayesian Nash equilibrium (BNE), which is a solution concept with Bayesian probability for non-turn-based games.

In game theory, a Bayesian game is a strategic decision-making model which assumes players have incomplete information. Players may hold private information relevant to the game, meaning that the payoffs are not common knowledge. Bayesian games model the outcome of player interactions using aspects of Bayesian probability. They are notable because they allowed, for the first time in game theory, for the specification of the solutions to games with incomplete information.

Backward induction is the process of determining a sequence of optimal choices by reasoning from the endpoint of a problem or situation back to its beginning using individual events or actions. Backward induction involves examining the final point in a series of decisions and identifying the optimal process or action required to arrive at that point. This process continues backward until the best action for every possible point along the sequence is determined. Backward induction was first utilized in 1875 by Arthur Cayley, who discovered the method while attempting to solve the secretary problem.

In game theory, folk theorems are a class of theorems describing an abundance of Nash equilibrium payoff profiles in repeated games. The original Folk Theorem concerned the payoffs of all the Nash equilibria of an infinitely repeated game. This result was called the Folk Theorem because it was widely known among game theorists in the 1950s, even though no one had published it. Friedman's (1971) Theorem concerns the payoffs of certain subgame-perfect Nash equilibria (SPE) of an infinitely repeated game, and so strengthens the original Folk Theorem by using a stronger equilibrium concept: subgame-perfect Nash equilibria rather than Nash equilibria.

In game theory, a correlated equilibrium is a solution concept that is more general than the well known Nash equilibrium. It was first discussed by mathematician Robert Aumann in 1974. The idea is that each player chooses their action according to their private observation of the value of the same public signal. A strategy assigns an action to every possible observation a player can make. If no player would want to deviate from their strategy, the distribution from which the signals are drawn is called a correlated equilibrium.

In game theory, the purification theorem was contributed by Nobel laureate John Harsanyi in 1973. The theorem justifies a puzzling aspect of mixed strategy Nash equilibria: each player is wholly indifferent between each of the actions he puts non-zero weight on, yet he mixes them so as to make every other player also indifferent.

Quantum game theory is an extension of classical game theory to the quantum domain. It differs from classical game theory in three primary ways:

  1. Superposed initial states,
  2. Quantum entanglement of initial states,
  3. Superposition of strategies to be used on the initial states.

Risk dominance and payoff dominance are two related refinements of the Nash equilibrium (NE) solution concept in game theory, defined by John Harsanyi and Reinhard Selten. A Nash equilibrium is considered payoff dominant if it is Pareto superior to all other Nash equilibria in the game.1 When faced with a choice among equilibria, all players would agree on the payoff dominant equilibrium since it offers to each player at least as much payoff as the other Nash equilibria. Conversely, a Nash equilibrium is considered risk dominant if it has the largest basin of attraction. This implies that the more uncertainty players have about the actions of the other player(s), the more likely they will choose the strategy corresponding to it.

In game theory, an epsilon-equilibrium, or near-Nash equilibrium, is a strategy profile that approximately satisfies the condition of Nash equilibrium. In a Nash equilibrium, no player has an incentive to change his behavior. In an approximate Nash equilibrium, this requirement is weakened to allow the possibility that a player may have a small incentive to do something different. This may still be considered an adequate solution concept, assuming for example status quo bias. This solution concept may be preferred to Nash equilibrium due to being easier to compute, or alternatively due to the possibility that in games of more than 2 players, the probabilities involved in an exact Nash equilibrium need not be rational numbers.

In game theory, a stochastic game, introduced by Lloyd Shapley in the early 1950s, is a repeated game with probabilistic transitions played by one or more players. The game is played in a sequence of stages. At the beginning of each stage the game is in some state. The players select actions and each player receives a payoff that depends on the current state and the chosen actions. The game then moves to a new random state whose distribution depends on the previous state and the actions chosen by the players. The procedure is repeated at the new state and play continues for a finite or infinite number of stages. The total payoff to a player is often taken to be the discounted sum of the stage payoffs or the limit inferior of the averages of the stage payoffs.

In game theory, the traveler's dilemma is a non-zero-sum game in which each player proposes a payoff. The lower of the two proposals wins; the lowball player receives the lowball payoff plus a small bonus, and the highball player receives the same lowball payoff, minus a small penalty. Surprisingly, the Nash equilibrium is for both players to aggressively lowball. The traveler's dilemma is notable in that naive play appears to outperform the Nash equilibrium; this apparent paradox also appears in the centipede game and the finitely-iterated prisoner's dilemma.

M equilibrium is a set valued solution concept in game theory that relaxes the rational choice assumptions of perfect maximization and perfect beliefs. The concept can be applied to any normal-form game with finite and discrete strategies. M equilibrium was first introduced by Jacob K. Goeree and Philippos Louis.

References

  1. ↑ McKelvey, Richard; Palfrey, Thomas (1995). "Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games". Games and Economic Behavior. 10: 6–38. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.30.5152 . doi:10.1006/game.1995.1023.
  2. ↑ McKelvey, Richard; Palfrey, Thomas (1998). "Quantal Response Equilibria for Extensive Form Games" (PDF). Experimental Economics. 1: 9–41. doi:10.1007/BF01426213.
  3. ↑ Anderson, Simon P.; Goeree, Jacob K.; Holt, Charles A. (2004). "Noisy Directional Learning and the Logit Equilibrium". The Scandinavian Journal of Economics. 106 (3): 581–602. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.81.8574 . doi:10.1111/j.0347-0520.2004.00378.x. S2CID   14404020.
  4. ↑ Goeree, Jacob K.; Holt, Charles A.; Palfrey, Thomas R. (August 2018). "Stochastic Game Theory for Social Science: A Primer on Quantal Response Equilibrium" (PDF). pp. 10–11. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 4, 2023.
  5. ↑ Goeree, Jacob K.; Holt, Charles A.; Palfrey, Thomas R. (2002). "Quantal Response Equilibrium and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions" (PDF). Journal of Economic Theory. 104 (1): 247–272. doi:10.1006/jeth.2001.2914. ISSN   0022-0531.
  6. ↑ Yi, Kang-Oh (2005). "Quantal-response equilibrium models of the ultimatum bargaining game". Games and Economic Behavior. 51 (2): 324–348. doi:10.1016/s0899-8256(03)00051-4. ISSN   0899-8256.
  7. ↑ Hoppe, Eva I.; Schmitz, Patrick W. (2013). "Contracting under Incomplete Information and Social Preferences: An Experimental Study". Review of Economic Studies. 80 (4): 1516–1544. doi:10.1093/restud/rdt010.
  8. ↑ Kawagoe, Toshiji; Matsubae, Taisuke; Takizawa, Hirokazu (2018). "Quantal response equilibria in a generalized Volunteer's Dilemma and step-level public goods games with binary decision". Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review. 15 (1): 11–23. doi:10.1007/s40844-017-0081-6. ISSN   1349-4961. S2CID   189937929.
  9. ↑ Klein Teeselink, Bouke; van Dolder, Dennie; van den Assem, Martijn J.; Dana, Jason (2022-06-29). "High-Stakes Failures of Backward Induction: Evidence from The Price Is Right". SSRN   4130176.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  10. ↑ Haile, Philip A.; Hortaçsu, Ali; Kosenok, Grigory (2008). "On the Empirical Content of Quantal Response Equilibrium". American Economic Review. 98 (1): 180–200. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.193.7715 . doi:10.1257/aer.98.1.180. S2CID   3083373.
  11. ↑ Jessie, Daniel T.; Saari, Donald G. (2016). "From the Luce Choice Axiom to the Quantal Response Equilibrium". Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 75: 3–9. doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2015.10.001.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.