Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
For instance if a player prefers "Yes", then that set of strategies is not a Nash equilibrium. But if every player prefers not to switch (or is indifferent between switching and not) then the strategy profile is a Nash equilibrium. Thus, each strategy in a Nash equilibrium is a best response to the other players' strategies in that equilibrium ...
Case 1: submodular buyers, second-price auctions, complete information: [2] There exists a pure Nash equilibrium with optimal social welfare. Hence, the PoS is 1. It is possible to calculate in polynomial time a pure Nash equilibrium with social welfare at least half the optimal. Hence, the price of "polynomial-time stability" is at most 2.
It should be clear that mixed PoA ≥ pure PoA, because any pure Nash equilibrium is also a mixed Nash equilibrium (this inequality can be strict: e.g. when =, = =, =, and = =, the mixed strategies = = (/, /) achieve an average makespan of 1.5, while any pure-strategy PoA in this setting is /). First we need to argue that there exist pure Nash ...
However, many games do have pure strategy Nash equilibria (e.g. the Coordination game, the Prisoner's dilemma, the Stag hunt). Further, games can have both pure strategy and mixed strategy equilibria. An easy example is the pure coordination game, where in addition to the pure strategies (A,A) and (B,B) a mixed equilibrium exists in which both ...
Anshelevich et al. studied network design games and showed that a pure strategy Nash equilibrium always exists and the price of stability of this game is at most the nth harmonic number in directed graphs. For undirected graphs Anshelevich and others presented a tight bound on the price of stability of 4/3 for a single source and two players case.
In the simplest version, there is complete information. The Nash equilibrium is such that each bidder plays a mixed strategy and expected pay-offs are zero. [2] The seller's expected revenue is equal to the value of the prize. However, some economic experiments and studies have shown that over-bidding is common. That is, the seller's revenue ...
The change in potential is ΔP = P(+1, a 2) – P(–1, a 2) = (b 1 + b 2 a 2 + w a 2) – (–b 1 + b 2 a 2 – w a 2) = 2 b 1 + 2 w a 2 = Δu 1. The solution for player 2 is equivalent. Using numerical values b 1 = 2, b 2 = −1, w = 3, this example transforms into a simple battle of the sexes, as shown in Figure 2. The game has two pure Nash ...
Example 1: Two-Stage Repeated Game with Multiple Nash Equilibria Example 1 shows a two-stage repeated game with multiple pure strategy Nash equilibria. Because these equilibria differ markedly in terms of payoffs for Player 2, Player 1 can propose a strategy over multiple stages of the game that incorporates the possibility for punishment or ...