IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2203.10206.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Incentive Compatibility in Two-Stage Repeated Stochastic Games

Author

Listed:
  • Bharadwaj Satchidanandan
  • Munther A. Dahleh

Abstract

We address the problem of mechanism design for two-stage repeated stochastic games -- a novel setting using which many emerging problems in next-generation electricity markets can be readily modeled. Repeated playing affords the players a large class of strategies that adapt a player's actions to all past observations and inferences obtained therefrom. In other settings such as iterative auctions or dynamic games where a large strategy space of this sort manifests, it typically has an important implication for mechanism design: It may be impossible to obtain truth-telling as a dominant strategy equilibrium. Consequently, in such scenarios, it is common to settle for mechanisms that render truth-telling only a Nash equilibrium, or variants thereof, even though Nash equilibria are known to be poor models of real-world behavior. This is owing to each player having to make overly specific assumptions about the behaviors of the other players to employ their Nash equilibrium strategy, which they may not make. In general, the lesser the burden of speculation in an equilibrium, the more plausible it is that it models real-world behavior. Guided by this maxim, we introduce a new notion of equilibrium called Dominant Strategy Non-Bankrupting Equilibrium (DNBE) which requires the players to make very little assumptions about the behavior of the other players to employ their equilibrium strategy. Consequently, a mechanism that renders truth-telling a DNBE as opposed to only a Nash equilibrium could be quite effective in molding real-world behavior along truthful lines. We present a mechanism for two-stage repeated stochastic games that renders truth-telling a Dominant Strategy Non-Bankrupting Equilibrium. The mechanism also guarantees individual rationality and maximizes social welfare. Finally, we describe an application of the mechanism to design demand response markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Bharadwaj Satchidanandan & Munther A. Dahleh, 2022. "Incentive Compatibility in Two-Stage Repeated Stochastic Games," Papers 2203.10206, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2203.10206
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.10206
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dirk Bergemann & Juuso Valimaki, 2006. "Efficient Dynamic Auctions," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1584, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    2. Doucet, Joseph A. & Jo Min, Kyung & Roland, Michel & Strauss, Todd, 1996. "Electricity rationing through a two-stage mechanism," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 247-263, July.
    3. Baron, David P. & Besanko, David, 1984. "Regulation and information in a continuing relationship," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 267-302.
    4. Marco Battaglini, 2005. "Long-Term Contracting with Markovian Consumers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 637-658, June.
    5. Dirk Bergemann & Juuso Välimäki, 2019. "Dynamic Mechanism Design: An Introduction," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 57(2), pages 235-274, June.
    6. Alessandro Pavan & Ilya Segal & Juuso Toikka, 2014. "Dynamic Mechanism Design: A Myersonian Approach," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(2), pages 601-653, March.
    7. Kunimoto, Takashi & Zhang, Cuiling, 2020. "Efficient Bilateral Trade with Interdependent Values: The Use of Two-Stage Mechanisms," Economics and Statistics Working Papers 14-2020, Singapore Management University, School of Economics.
    8. Claudio Mezzetti, 2004. "Mechanism Design with Interdependent Valuations: Efficiency," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(5), pages 1617-1626, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dirk Bergemann & Juuso Välimäki, 2019. "Dynamic Mechanism Design: An Introduction," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 57(2), pages 235-274, June.
    2. Luca Di Corato & Michele Moretto, 2024. "Supply contracting under dynamic asymmetric cost information," Working Papers 2024.04, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    3. Bergemann, Dirk & Strack, Philipp, 2022. "Progressive participation," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 17(3), July.
    4. Martino Banchio & Frank Yang, 2021. "Dynamic Pricing with Limited Commitment," Papers 2102.07742, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2021.
    5. Boaz Zik, 2023. "Efficient sequential screening with informational externalities," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(2), pages 567-590, February.
    6. Thomas Schacherer, 2015. "Deterministic versus stochastic contracts in a dynamic principal-agent model," BDPEMS Working Papers 2015013, Berlin School of Economics.
    7. Bergemann, Dirk & Strack, Philipp, 2015. "Dynamic revenue maximization: A continuous time approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PB), pages 819-853.
    8. Garrett, Daniel F. & Pavan, Alessandro, 2015. "Dynamic managerial compensation: A variational approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PB), pages 775-818.
    9. Jean Tirole, 2016. "From Bottom of the Barrel to Cream of the Crop: Sequential Screening With Positive Selection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84(4), pages 1291-1343, July.
    10. Dirk Bergemann & Alessandro Pavan, 2015. "Introduction to JET Symposium Issue on "Dynamic Contracts and Mechanism Design"," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2016, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    11. Daniel Fershtman & Alessandro Pavan, 2022. "Matching auctions," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 53(1), pages 32-62, March.
    12. Liu, Bin & Liu, Dongri & Lu, Jingfeng, 2020. "Shifting supports in Esö and Szentes (2007)," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    13. Aristotelis Boukouras & Kostas Koufopoulos, 2017. "Efficient allocations in economies with asymmetric information when the realized frequency of types is common knowledge," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 64(1), pages 75-98, June.
    14. Papadimitriou, Christos & Pierrakos, George & Psomas, Alexandros & Rubinstein, Aviad, 2022. "On the complexity of dynamic mechanism design," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 399-427.
    15. Levaggi, Rosella & Moretto, Michele & Pertile, Paolo, 2023. "Dynamic, incentive-compatible contracting for health services," FEEM Working Papers 338404, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    16. Krähmer, Daniel & Strausz, Roland, 2022. "Dynamic Screening with Verifiable Bankruptcy," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 348, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    17. Krähmer, Daniel & Strausz, Roland, 2015. "Ex post information rents in sequential screening," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 257-273.
    18. Rohit Lamba, 2022. "Efficiency with(out) intermediation in repeated bilateral trade," Papers 2202.04201, arXiv.org.
    19. Lu, Jingfeng & Wang, Zijia, 2021. "Optimal selling mechanisms with buyer price search," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    20. Bergemann, Dirk & V�lim�ki, Juuso, 2017. "Dynamic Mechanism Design: An Introduction," CEPR Discussion Papers 12240, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2203.10206. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.