IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/grz/wpaper/2024-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An algorithm for two-player repeated games with imperfect public monitoring

Author

Listed:
  • Jasmina Karabegovic

    (University of Graz, Austria)

Abstract

This paper introduces an explicit algorithm for computing perfect public equilibrium (PPE) payoffs in repeated games with imperfect public monitoring, public randomization, and discounting. The method adapts the established framework by Abreu, Pearce, and Stacchetti (1990) into a practical tool that balances theoretical accuracy with computational efficiency. The algorithm simplifies the complex task of identifying PPE payoff sets for any given discount factor. A stand-alone implementation of the algorithm can be accessed on GitHub (https://github.com/jasmina-karabegovic/IRGames).

Suggested Citation

  • Jasmina Karabegovic, 2024. "An algorithm for two-player repeated games with imperfect public monitoring," Graz Economics Papers 2024-15, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:grz:wpaper:2024-15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://unipub.uni-graz.at/obvugrveroeff/download/pdf/10414075?originalFilename=true
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michihiro Kandori & Ichiro Obara, 2006. "Efficiency in Repeated Games Revisited: The Role of Private Strategies," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(2), pages 499-519, March.
    2. Radner, Roy, 1985. "Repeated Principal-Agent Games with Discounting," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(5), pages 1173-1198, 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. Jeffery Ely & Johannes Horner & Wojciech Olszewski, 2004. "Strategic Commitment Versus Flexibility in a Duopoloy with Entry and Exit," Discussion Papers 1381, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    2. Renault, Jérôme & Scarlatti, Sergio & Scarsini, Marco, 2008. "Discounted and finitely repeated minority games with public signals," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 44-74, July.
    3. Johannes Hörner & Julian Jamison, 2007. "Collusion with (almost) no information," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(3), pages 804-822, September.
    4. repec:dau:papers:123456789/6381 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Ely, Jeffrey C. & Valimaki, Juuso, 2002. "A Robust Folk Theorem for the Prisoner's Dilemma," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(1), pages 84-105, January.
    6. Fudenberg, Drew & Yamamoto, Yuichi, 2011. "Learning from private information in noisy repeated games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(5), pages 1733-1769, September.
    7. Kandori Michihiro, 2003. "Randomization, Communication, and Efficiency in Repeated Games with Imperfect Public Monitoring," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 345-353, January.
    8. Stanley Reiter, 1999. "Coordination of Economic Activity: An Example," Discussion Papers 1263, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    9. Takako Fujiwara‐Greve & Henrich R. Greve & Stefan Jonsson, 2016. "Asymmetry Of Customer Loss And Recovery Under Endogenous Partnerships: Theory And Evidence," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 57(1), pages 3-30, February.
    10. Sabac, Florin, 2008. "Dynamic incentives and retirement," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 172-200, September.
    11. Pierre Jinghong Liang, 2000. "Accounting Recognition, Moral Hazard, and Communication," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 458-490, September.
    12. Paolo Crosetto & Alexia Gaudeul & Gerhard Riener, 2012. "Partnerships, Imperfect Monitoring and Outside Options: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-052, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    13. Galina Besstremyannaya & Sergei Golovan, 2019. "Physician’s altruism in incentive contracts: Medicare’s quality race," CINCH Working Paper Series 1903, Universitaet Duisburg-Essen, Competent in Competition and Health.
    14. Kobayashi, Hajime & Ohta, Katsunori & Sekiguchi, Tadashi, 2016. "Optimal sharing rules in repeated partnerships," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 311-323.
    15. Herbold, Daniel, 2013. "Effort Incentives and On-the-Job Search: An Alternative Role for Efficiency Wages in Employment Contracts," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79983, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    16. Li, Rui, 2010. "Sufficient communication in repeated games with imperfect private monitoring," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 108(3), pages 322-326, September.
    17. Sugaya, Takuo & Takahashi, Satoru, 2013. "Coordination failure in repeated games with private monitoring," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(5), pages 1891-1928.
    18. Liu, Qi & Sun, Xian & Wu, Hong, 2019. "Premier advisory services for VIP acquirers," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1-25.
    19. Luis H. B. Braido, 2008. "Evidence on the Incentive Properties of Share Contracts," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 51(2), pages 327-349, May.
    20. B. Caillaud & R. Guesnerie & P. Rey & J. Tirole, 1988. "Government Intervention in Production and Incentives Theory: A Review of Recent Contributions," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(1), pages 1-26, Spring.
    21. V. Bhaskar & George J. Mailath & Stephen Morris, 2008. "Purification in the Infinitely-Repeated Prisoners' Dilemma," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 11(3), pages 515-528, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Repeated games; imperfect public monitoring; computation.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary 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:grz:wpaper:2024-15. 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: Stefan Borsky (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vgrazat.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.