Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 0704.2014

Extensive Games with Possibly Unaware Players

Abstract

Standard game theory assumes that the structure of the game is common knowledge among players. We relax this assumption by considering extensive games where agents may be unaware of the complete structure of the game. In particular, they may not be aware of moves that they and other agents can make. We show how such games can be represented; the key idea is to describe the game from the point of view of every agent at every node of the game tree. We provide a generalization of Nash equilibrium and show that every game with awareness has a generalized Nash equilibrium. Finally, we extend these results to games with awareness of unawareness, where a player i may be aware that a player j can make moves that i is not aware of, and to subjective games, where payers may have no common knowledge regarding the actual game and their beliefs are incompatible with a common prior.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Joseph Y. Halpern, Leandro C. Rêgo. 2007-04-16. Extensive Games with Possibly Unaware Players. https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2014

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

The Schulze Method of Voting

We propose a new single-winner election method ("Schulze method") and prove that it satisfies many academic criteria (e.g. monotonicity, reversal symmetry, resolvability, independence of clones, Condorcet criterion, k-consistency, polynomial runtime). We then generalize this method to proportional representation by the single transferable vote ("Schulze STV") and to methods to calculate a proportional ranking ("Schulze proportional ranking"). Furthermore, we propose a generalization of the Condorcet criterion to multi-winner elections. This paper contains a large number of examples to illustrate the proposed methods.

cs.GT↗

Social Welfare in Budget Aggregation

We study budget aggregation under $\ell_1$-utilities, a model in which agents with heterogeneous preferences allocate a public budget across alternatives. Each agent reports their preferred allocation, and a mechanism selects an allocation. Early work has focused on social welfare maximization, which admits truthful mechanisms but may underrepresent minority groups, motivating the study of proportional mechanisms. However, the dominant proportionality notion, single-minded proportionality, is weak, as it only constrains outcomes when agents hold extreme preferences. To understand proportionality and its interaction with welfare and truthfulness, we address three questions. First, how much welfare must be sacrificed to achieve proportionality? We formalize this via the price of proportionality, the best worst-case welfare ratio between a proportional mechanism and the welfare-maximizing allocation. We introduce a single-minded proportional and truthful mechanism, UtilProp, and show it achieves the optimal worst-case ratio. Second, how do proportional mechanisms compare in welfare? We define an instance-wise welfare dominance relation and compare existing mechanisms, finding that UtilProp welfare-dominates all previously known single-minded proportional and truthful mechanisms. Third, can stronger proportionality notions be achieved without compromising welfare guarantees? We answer affirmatively by studying decomposability and proposing GreedyDecomp, a decomposable mechanism with optimal worst-case welfare ratio.

cs.GT↗

Capacity Modification for Matching with Couples: An Integer Programming and Computational Study

We study capacity modification in the Hospitals/Residents problem with Couples, in which hospital capacities and a stable matching are jointly determined. Exact and Cutoff integer programming formulations are developed for the resulting problem. We assume that, for each couple, either both members are matched or neither is. For arbitrary strict preferences, every instance admits a stable matching after changing each hospital capacity by at most two. Total capacity increases by at most one, and this bound is tight. Under sub-responsive and sub-complete couple preferences, a stable matching exists after adding at most one position to each hospital. The total number of additions is at most the number of couples, and this bound is also tight. Computational experiments show that Exact formulations are modestly faster at fixed capacities, whereas Cutoff formulations perform substantially better in the minimum repair experiments and attain higher completion rates in markets with up to 30,000 doctors. Across 96,000 synthetic and reconstructed markets, small capacity changes restore existence whenever no stable matching exists at the original capacities.

cs.GT↗