IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/hastef/0542.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Probabilistic choice in games: properties of Rosenthal's t-solutions

Author

Listed:
  • Voorneveld, Mark

    (Dept. of Economics, Stockholm School of Economics)

Abstract

In t-solutions, quantal response equilibria based on the linear probability model as introduced in R.W. Rosenthal (1989, Int. J. Game Theory 18, 273-292), choice probabilities are related to the determination of leveling taxes. The set of t-solutions coincides with the set of Nash equilibria of a game with quadratic control costs. Increasing the rationality of the players allows them to successively eliminate higher levels of strictly dominated actions. Moreover, there exists a path of t-solutions linking uniform randomization to Nash equilibrium.

Suggested Citation

  • Voorneveld, Mark, 2003. "Probabilistic choice in games: properties of Rosenthal's t-solutions," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 542, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 20 Dec 2003.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:hastef:0542
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://swopec.hhs.se/hastef/papers/hastef0542.pdf
    File Function: Complete Rendering
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384, December.
    2. Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt, 2001. "Ten Little Treasures of Game Theory and Ten Intuitive Contradictions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1402-1422, December.
    3. Rosenthal, Robert W, 1989. "A Bounded-Rationality Approach to the Study of Noncooperative Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 18(3), pages 273-291.
    4. H. Peyton Young, 1987. "On Dividing an Amount According to Individual Claims or Liabilities," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 398-414, August.
    5. Thomson, William, 2003. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 249-297, July.
    6. Blume, Lawrence E & Zame, William R, 1994. "The Algebraic Geometry of Perfect and Sequential Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(4), pages 783-794, July.
    7. Richard Mckelvey & Thomas Palfrey, 1998. "Quantal Response Equilibria for Extensive Form Games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 9-41, June.
    8. Aumann, Robert J. & Maschler, Michael, 1985. "Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 195-213, August.
    9. McKelvey Richard D. & Palfrey Thomas R., 1995. "Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 6-38, July.
    10. P. Jean-Jacques Herings, 2000. "Two simple proofs of the feasibility of the linear tracing procedure," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 15(2), pages 485-490.
    11. Anderson, Simon P. & Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A., 2001. "Minimum-Effort Coordination Games: Stochastic Potential and Logit Equilibrium," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 177-199, February.
    12. Mattsson, Lars-Goran & Weibull, Jorgen W., 2002. "Probabilistic choice and procedurally bounded rationality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 61-78, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alberto Vesperoni, 2016. "A contest success function for rankings," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(4), pages 905-937, December.
    2. Reinoud Joosten & Berend Roorda, 2011. "On evolutionary ray-projection dynamics," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 74(2), pages 147-161, October.
    3. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    4. Tsakas, Elias & Voorneveld, Mark, 2009. "The target projection dynamic," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 708-719, November.
    5. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    6. Reinoud Joosten & Berend Roorda, 2008. "Generalized projection dynamics in evolutionary game theory," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2008-11, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    7. P. Herings & Ronald Peeters, 2010. "Homotopy methods to compute equilibria in game theory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 42(1), pages 119-156, January.
    8. Roy Allen & John Rehbeck, 2021. "A Generalization of Quantal Response Equilibrium via Perturbed Utility," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, March.
    9. Ellison, Glenn & Fudenberg, Drew & Imhof, Lorens A., 2016. "Fast convergence in evolutionary models: A Lyapunov approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 1-36.
    10. Voorneveld, Mark & Fagraeus Lundström, Helena, 2005. "Strategic equivalence and bounded rationality in extensive form games," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 605, Stockholm School of Economics.

    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. Zhang, Boyu & Hofbauer, Josef, 2016. "Quantal response methods for equilibrium selection in 2×2 coordination games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 19-31.
    2. Philip A. Haile & Ali Hortaçsu & Grigory Kosenok, 2008. "On the Empirical Content of Quantal Response Equilibrium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 180-200, March.
    3. Simon P. Anderson & Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt, 2002. "The Logit Equilibrium: A Perspective on Intuitive Behavioral Anomalies," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(1), pages 21-47, July.
    4. Jacob Goeree & Charles Holt & Thomas Palfrey, 2005. "Regular Quantal Response Equilibrium," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(4), pages 347-367, December.
    5. P. Herings & Ronald Peeters, 2010. "Homotopy methods to compute equilibria in game theory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 42(1), pages 119-156, January.
    6. Zhang, Boyu, 2016. "Quantal response methods for equilibrium selection in normal form games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 113-123.
    7. Roy Allen & John Rehbeck, 2021. "A Generalization of Quantal Response Equilibrium via Perturbed Utility," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, March.
    8. Colin Camerer & Teck-Hua Ho & Juin Kuan Chong, 2003. "A cognitive hierarchy theory of one-shot games: Some preliminary results," Levine's Bibliography 506439000000000495, UCLA Department of Economics.
    9. Herings, P. Jean-Jacques & Peeters, Ronald J. A. P., 2004. "Stationary equilibria in stochastic games: structure, selection, and computation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 32-60, September.
    10. Schmutzler, Armin, 2011. "A unified approach to comparative statics puzzles in experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 212-223, January.
    11. He, Simin & Wu, Jiabin, 2020. "Compromise and coordination: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 216-233.
    12. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A., 2005. "An experimental study of costly coordination," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 349-364, May.
    13. Turocy, Theodore L., 2005. "A dynamic homotopy interpretation of the logistic quantal response equilibrium correspondence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 243-263, May.
    14. Voorneveld, Mark & Fagraeus Lundström, Helena, 2005. "Strategic equivalence and bounded rationality in extensive form games," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 605, Stockholm School of Economics.
    15. Colin F. Camerer & Teck-Hua Ho & Juin-Kuan Chong, 2004. "A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(3), pages 861-898.
    16. Nunnari, Salvatore & Zapal, Jan, 2016. "Gambler's fallacy and imperfect best response in legislative bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 275-294.
    17. Theodore L. Turocy, 2002. "A Dynamic Homotopy Interpretation of Quantal Response Equilibrium Correspondences," Game Theory and Information 0212001, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 16 Oct 2003.
    18. Ge, Ge & Godager, Geir, 2021. "Predicting strategic medical choices: An application of a quantal response equilibrium choice model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    19. Cao, Yiyin & Dang, Chuangyin, 2022. "A variant of Harsanyi's tracing procedures to select a perfect equilibrium in normal form games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 127-150.
    20. Dieter Balkenborg & Rosemarie Nagel, 2016. "An Experiment on Forward vs. Backward Induction: How Fairness and Level k Reasoning Matter," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 17(3), pages 378-408, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    quantal response equilibrium; t-solutions; linear probability model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games

    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:hhs:hastef:0542. 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: Helena Lundin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/erhhsse.html .

    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.