IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/opsear/v56y2019i3d10.1007_s12597-019-00383-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A study on two-person zero-sum rough interval continuous differential games

Author

Listed:
  • El-Saeed Ammar

    (Tanta University)

  • M. G. Brikaa

    (Suez Canal University)

  • Entsar Abdel-Rehim

    (Suez Canal University)

Abstract

In this paper, we concentrate on solving the zero-sum two-person continuous differential games using rough programming approach. A new class defined as rough continuous differential games is resulted from the combination of rough programming and continuous differential games. An effective and simple technique is given for solving such problem. In addition, the trust measure and the expected value operator of rough interval are used to find the $$ \upalpha $$ α -trust and expected equilibrium strategies for the rough zero-sum two-person continuous differential games. Moreover, sufficient and necessary conditions for an open loop saddle point solution of rough continuous differential games are also derived. Finally, a numerical example is given to confirm the theoretical results.

Suggested Citation

  • El-Saeed Ammar & M. G. Brikaa & Entsar Abdel-Rehim, 2019. "A study on two-person zero-sum rough interval continuous differential games," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 56(3), pages 689-716, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:opsear:v:56:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s12597-019-00383-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s12597-019-00383-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12597-019-00383-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12597-019-00383-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sankar Kumar Roy & Prasanta Mula, 2016. "Solving matrix game with rough payoffs using genetic algorithm," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 117-130, April.
    2. Sankar Kumar Roy & Shakti Nath Mondal, 2016. "An approach to solve fuzzy interval valued matrix game," International Journal of Operational Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 26(3), pages 253-267.
    3. John C. Harsanyi, 1967. "Games with Incomplete Information Played by "Bayesian" Players, I-III Part I. The Basic Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 159-182, November.
    4. Dhingra, A. K. & Rao, S. S., 1995. "A cooperative fuzzy game theoretic approach to multiple objective design optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 547-567, June.
    5. Takahashi, Satoru, 2008. "The number of pure Nash equilibria in a random game with nondecreasing best responses," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 328-340, May.
    6. Sankar Kumar Roy & Prasanta Mula, 2015. "Rough set approach to bi-matrix game," International Journal of Operational Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 23(2), pages 229-244.
    7. Espin, Rafael & Fernandez, Eduardo & Mazcorro, Gustavo & Lecich, Maria Ines, 2007. "A fuzzy approach to cooperative n-person games," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(3), pages 1735-1751, February.
    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. Gaurav Sharma & Sapan Kumar Das & Ganesh Kumar, 2023. "Solving zero-sum two-person game with triangular fuzzy number payoffs using new fully fuzzy linear programming models," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 60(3), pages 1456-1487, September.

    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. Maxime Menuet & Petros G. Sekeris, 2021. "Overconfidence and conflict," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1483-1499, October.
    2. Andrés Perea & Elias Tsakas, 2019. "Limited focus in dynamic games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(2), pages 571-607, June.
    3. Szabó, György & Borsos, István & Szombati, Edit, 2019. "Games, graphs and Kirchhoff laws," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 521(C), pages 416-423.
    4. Simai He & Jay Sethuraman & Xuan Wang & Jiawei Zhang, 2017. "A NonCooperative Approach to Cost Allocation in Joint Replenishment," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(6), pages 1562-1573, December.
    5. Bommer, Rolf, 1995. "Environmental policy and industrial competitiveness: The pollution haven hypothesis reconsidered," Discussion Papers, Series II 262, University of Konstanz, Collaborative Research Centre (SFB) 178 "Internationalization of the Economy".
    6. Martin Shubik, 1980. "Perfect or Robust Noncooperative Equilibrium: A Search for the Philosophers Stone?," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 559, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    7. Martin Meier & Burkhard Schipper, 2014. "Bayesian games with unawareness and unawareness perfection," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(2), pages 219-249, June.
    8. Chris Fields & James F. Glazebrook, 2024. "Nash Equilibria and Undecidability in Generic Physical Interactions—A Free Energy Perspective," Games, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-22, August.
    9. Ming Chen & Sareh Nabi & Marciano Siniscalchi, 2023. "Advancing Ad Auction Realism: Practical Insights & Modeling Implications," Papers 2307.11732, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    10. Giuseppe Attanasi & Pierpaolo Battigalli & Elena Manzoni, 2016. "Incomplete-Information Models of Guilt Aversion in the Trust Game," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 648-667, March.
    11. Huseyin Cavusoglu & Srinivasan Raghunathan, 2004. "Configuration of Detection Software: A Comparison of Decision and Game Theory Approaches," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 131-148, September.
    12. Strzalecki, Tomasz, 2014. "Depth of reasoning and higher order beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 108-122.
    13. Schaefer, Alexander, 2021. "Rationality, uncertainty, and unanimity: an epistemic critique of contractarianism," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 82-117, March.
    14. Pei, Ting & Takahashi, Satoru, 2019. "Rationalizable strategies in random games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 110-125.
    15. Kaufmann, Lutz & Roessing, Soenke, 2005. "Managing conflict of interests between headquarters and their subsidiaries regarding technology transfer to emerging markets--a framework," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 235-253, August.
    16. Yoo, Seung Han, 2014. "Learning a population distribution," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 188-201.
    17. Giovanni Paolo Crespi & Davide Radi & Matteo Rocca, 2017. "Robust games: theory and application to a Cournot duopoly model," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 40(1), pages 177-198, November.
    18. Olivier Coibion & Yuriy Gorodnichenko & Saten Kumar & Jane Ryngaert, 2021. "Do You Know that I Know that You Know…? Higher-Order Beliefs in Survey Data," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(3), pages 1387-1446.
    19. Drouvelis, M. & Müller, W. & Possajennikov, A., 2009. "Signaling Without Common Prior : An Experiment," Discussion Paper 2009-28, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    20. Agnieszka Wiszniewska-Matyszkiel, 2016. "Belief distorted Nash equilibria: introduction of a new kind of equilibrium in dynamic games with distorted information," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 243(1), pages 147-177, August.

    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:spr:opsear:v:56:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s12597-019-00383-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.