This paper presents an analysis of data from a gift-exchange-game experiment. The experiment was described in The Impact of Social Comparisons on Reciprocity' by G " 2012. Since this paper uses state-of-art data science techniques, the results provide a different point of view on the problem. As already shown in relevant literature from experimental economics, human decisions deviate from rational payoff maximization. The average gift rate was @math . Gift rate was under no conditions zero. Further, we derive some special findings and calculate their significance.
A similar approach is already explored on three datasets -- a zero-sum game of mixed strategies, an ultimatum game and repeated social guessing game @cite_28 @cite_11 . For these datasets, extracted deterministic regularities outperformed state-of-art models. It was shown that some regularities can be easily verbalized, what underlines their plausibility. A very comprehensive gathering of works in experimental psychology and economics on human behavior in general games can be found in @cite_34 . Quantal response equilibrium became popular as a model for deviations from equilibria @cite_18 . It is a parametrized shift between mixed strategies equilibrium and an equal distribution. The basic idea for quantal response equilibrium is the concept of trembling hand -- people make mistakes with certain probability. Unfortunately, the Akaike information criterion @cite_8 is rarely calculated to judge the trade-off between fit quality and model complexity @cite_20 . Another popular model is the linear regression. It is used in the original paper to model the dataset @cite_29 . For linear regression, data is translated into real numbers.
@cite_18 @cite_8 @cite_28 @cite_29 @cite_34 @cite_20 @cite_11
2264897026 2102794165 2179146913 2556732087
We investigate the use of standard statistical models for quantal choice in a game theoretic setting. Players choose strategies based on relative expected utility and assume other players do so as well. We define a quantal response equilibrium (ORE) as a fixed point of this process and establish existence. For a logit specification of the error structure, we show that as the error goes to zero, QRE approaches a subset of Nash equilibria and also implies a unique selection from the set of Nash equilibria in generic games. We fit the model to a variety of experimental data sets by using maximum likelihood estimation. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C19, C44, C72, C92. Part I of this paper has described a new theory for the analysis of games with incomplete information. It has been shown that, if the various players' subjective probability distributions satisfy a certain mutual-consistency requirement, then any given game with incomplete information will be equivalent to a certain game with complete information, called the “Bayes-equivalent” of the original game, or briefly a “Bayesian game.” Part II of the paper will now show that any Nash equilibrium point of this Bayesian game yields a “Bayesian equilibrium point” for the original game and conversely. This result will then be illustrated by numerical examples, representing two-person zero-sum games with incomplete information. We shall also show how our theory enables us to analyze the problem of exploiting the opponent's erroneous beliefs. However, apart from its indubitable usefulness in locating Bayesian equilibrium points, we shall show it on a numerical example the Bayes-equivalent of a two-person cooperative game that the normal form of a Bayesian game is in many cases a highly unsatisfactory representation of the game situation and has to be replaced by other representations e.g., by the semi-normal form. We shall argue that this rather unexpected result is due to the fact that Bayesian games must be interpreted as games with “delayed commitment” whereas the normal-form representation always envisages a game with “immediate commitment.” We consider strategic games in which each player seeks a mixed strategy to minimize her cost evaluated by a concave valuationV (mapping probability distributions to reals); such valuations are used to model risk. In contrast to games with expectation-optimizer players where mixed equilibria always exist (Nash 1950; Nash Ann. Math. 54, 286---295, 1951), a mixed equilibrium for such games, called a V-equilibrium, may fail to exist, even though pure equilibria (if any) transfer over. What is the exact impact of such valuations on the existence, structure and complexity of mixed equilibria? We address this fundamental question in the context of expectation plus variance, a particular concave valuation denoted as RA, which stands for risk-averse; so, variance enters as a measure of risk and it is used as an additive adjustment to expectation. We obtain the following results about RA-equilibria: A collection of general structural properties of RA-equilibria connecting to (i)E-equilibria and Var-equilibria, which correspond to the expectation and variance valuations E and Var, respectively, and to (ii) other weaker or incomparable properties such as Weak Equilibrium and Strong Equilibrium. Some of these structural properties imply quantitative constraints on the existence of mixed RA-equilibria.A second collection of (i) existence, (ii) equivalence and separation (with respect to E-equilibria), and (iii) characterization results for RA-equilibria in the new class of player-specific scheduling games. We provide suitable examples with a mixed RA-equilibrium that is not an E-equilibrium and vice versa.A purification technique to transform a player-specific scheduling game on two identical links into a player-specific scheduling game on two links so that all non-pureRA-equilibria are eliminated while no new pure equilibria are created; so, a particular player-specific scheduling game on two identical links with no pure equilibrium yields a player-specific scheduling game with noRA-equilibrium (whether mixed or pure). As a by-product, the first ?????-completeness result for the computation of RA-equilibria follows. We study a setting where a set of players simultaneously invest in a shared resource. The resource has a probability of failure and a return on investment, both of which are functions of the total investment by all players. We use a simple reference dependent preference model to capture players with heterogeneous risk attitudes (risk seeking, risk neutral and risk averse). We show the existence and uniqueness of a pure strategy Nash equilibrium in this setting and examine the effect of different risk attitudes on players' strategies in the presence of uncertainty. In particular, we show that at the equilibrium, risk averse players are pushed out of the resource by risk seeking players. We compare the failure probabilities in the decentralized (game-theoretic) and centralized settings, and show that our proposed game belongs to the class of best response potential games, for which there are simple dynamics that allow all players to converge to the equilibrium.