Ken Binmore. Essays on Foundations of Game Theory. Pittman, 1982.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

.... approach for their strategy [8, 23] This is in contrast with deductive models of negotiation where each agent explicitly represents and reasons with the decision tree of the entire game [30, 15] In this case, a negotiation strategy is then the specification (using for example backward induction [2]) of a sequence of choices for every decision node in the game tree, with the property that both the final choices and the complete sequence (sub game) of choices are often in equilibrium [45] However, because representation and reasoning under such a system can be computationally intractable ....

....are in equilibrium. However, although we acknowledge the importance of this body of work, we do not claim deductive and rational equilibrium reasoning by our agents for the reasons given above. We note that equilibria can be attained by myopic agents if we adopt a mass action [32] or evolutive [2] interpretation of equilibria. often interpreted as a prominent outcome that replaces the conflict outcome and is often expected to have an important bearing on the outcome of negotiation. For example, in multi issue negotiations the middle point on each issue often becomes the focal point [40] ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

K. Binmore. Essays on the foundations of game theory. Basil Blackwell., Oxford, UK, 1990.

.... and Selection Problems To solve the above problem, some game theorists claim that the problem is the result of assuming that the equilibrating mechanism is a conscious, logical and rational process, rather than a myopic tatonnenment (or blind groping) process similar to evolutionary mechanisms [3]. Rational behaviour is a behaviour that has survived after less successful behaviours have been eliminated. In humans the equilibrating mechanisms is very complex, employing coordination mechanisms such as thinking and signaling. However, although complex, rational behaviour does exhibit ....

....is not problem free for example the distinction between social and individual rationality (roughly defined as system and agent level benefits respectively) is often not clear cut for a given equilibrium. The detailed arguments are beyond the scope of this thesis but the reader is referred to [3] for an indepth exposition of the design problem. In general, the aim of mechanism design is to create a society of agents who are engaged in a cooperative venture for mutual gains. Rules, laws and regulations (or protocols) are used to define a game which specifies the feasible set of negotiated ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

K. Binmore. Essays on the foundations of game theory. Basil Blackwell., Oxford, UK, 1990.

....Also, it has been argued that common knowledge can arise due to the agents copresence, and, say, visual contact. These arguments are intuitive, 24 In other related work in game theory, researchers have begun to investigate the assumptions and limitations of the classical equilibrium concept [5, 26, 41, 64, 76]. As we mentioned, our work on RMM follows an alternative approach, proposed in [3, 7, 41, 62] and called a decisiontheoretic approach to game theory. Unlike the outside observer s point of view in classical equilibrium analysis, the decision theoretic approach takes the perspective of the ....

....to predict the behavior of the players other than i first, and then to solve i s decision problem last. In contrast, the usual game theoretic approach is to analyze and solve the decision problems of all players together, like a system of simultaneous equations in several unknowns. Binmore [5] and Brandenburger [7] both point out that unjustifiability of common knowledge leads directly to the situation in which one has to explicitly model the decision making of the agents involved given their state of knowledge, which is exactly our approach in RMM. This modeling is not needed if one ....

Ken Binmore. Essays on Foundations of Game Theory. Pitman, 1982.

....to solve an infinite hierarchy of payoff matrices (called a game in the field of game theory) have certain disadvantages relative to the finite hierarchies that we employ here. Primarily, equilibrium points signify stable solutions without motivating how those solutions are to be reached. See [1] for a discussion of the weaknesses of equilibrium as the solution concept in games, and [3] for a recent attempt at relating and reconciling the two solution concepts. Finally we would like to stress that agents engaged in an interaction do not really need to have common knowledge to perform ....

Ken Binmore. Essays on Foundations of Game Theory. Pitman, 1982.

....by Jameson (1989) and Jameson et al. 1995) does contain the model of the mental state, but does not derive intentions by modeling the other agents rationality. Other related work in learning in multiagent domains includes Friedman and Halpern (1994) Sen and Knight (1995) and, in game theory Binmore (1982). 2. Models of Agents and Their Update This section summarizes our approach to agent modeling, and introduces a general Bayesian update of modeling probabilities. 2.1. Intentional Modeling of Agents The models of other agents we proposed in Gmytrasiewicz and Durfee (1995) Gmytrasiewicz (1996) ....

Binmore, K. (1982). Essays on Foundations of Game Theory. Pitman.

....in Equation 8 on level OE. The information contained in these branches can then propagated upwards directly. We provide examples of these calculations in the following section. As we mentioned, the formalism of the Recursive Modeling Method outlined above is closely related to work in game theory [3, 5, 6, 7, 17, 25, 32, 33]. The detailed comparison of RMM to this work can be found in [19] 4 Rational Communicative Behavior This section will address the issue of rational communicative behavior. What we have in mind, in the context of a computer system interacting with a human user, is the general tool that the ....

Ken Binmore. Essays on Foundations of Game Theory. Pitman, 1982.

....knowledge proofs [GMR89] can be viewed as precursors of this work. Although our model is significantly different, it is in the spirit of [Mos88, HMT88] There have also been many attempts in the game theoretical literature to model resource bounded agents, e.g. Meg89, MW86, Ney85, Rub85] see [Bin90](Chapters 5 6) for a foundational discussion) our formal model is much different from any proposed in this literature. 2 Knowledge in multi agent systems We briefly review the framework of [FHMV95] for modeling multi agent systems. We assume that at each point in time, each agent is in some ....

K. Binmore. Essays on the Foundations of Game Theory. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, U.K., 1990.

....for actions of rational agents is in doubt, mainly due to the fact that the players have to be assumed to have common knowledge of certain facts 6 to make it viable. This matter is a subject of considerable debate in the field of game theory itself (Aumann Brandenburger 1994; Bicchieri 1993; Binmore 1982; Brandenburger 1992; Geanakoplos 1992; Reny 1988; Tan Werlang 1988) Binmore (Binmore 1982) and Brandenburger (Brandenburger 1992) both point out that the weakness of the assumption of common knowledge points directly to the need for an explicit model of the decision making of the agents ....

....have to be assumed to have common knowledge of certain facts 6 to make it viable. This matter is a subject of considerable debate in the field of game theory itself (Aumann Brandenburger 1994; Bicchieri 1993; Binmore 1982; Brandenburger 1992; Geanakoplos 1992; Reny 1988; Tan Werlang 1988) Binmore (Binmore 1982) and Brandenburger (Brandenburger 1992) both point out that the weakness of the assumption of common knowledge points directly to the need for an explicit model of the decision making of the agents involved, given their states of knowledge. This is exactly our approach in RMM. This modeling is not ....

Binmore, K. 1982. Essays on Foundations of Game Theory.

....knowledge is not achievable in finite time unless agents are willing to jump to conclusions, and assume that they know more than they really do. 14 In other related work in game theory, researchers have begun to investigate the assumptions and limitations of the classical equilibrium concept [5, 25, 39, 62, 70], and an alternative has been proposed [3, 7, 39, 60] called a decision theoretic approach to game theory. Unlike the outside observer s point of view in classical equilibrium analysis, the decision theoretic approach takes the perspective of the individual interacting agent, with its current ....

....to try to predict the behavior of the players other than i first, and then to solve i s decision problem last. In contrast, the usual game theoretic approach is to analyze and solve the decision problems of all players together, like a system of simultaneous equations in several unknowns. Binmore [5] and Brandenburger [7] both point out that unjustifiability of common knowledge leads directly to the situation in which one has to explicitly model the decision making of the agents involved given their state of knowledge, which is exactly our approach in RMM. This modeling is not needed if one ....

Ken Binmore. Essays on Foundations of Game Theory. Pitman, 1982.

....solution to the game. There may be one or more (or no) strategies in equilibrium, and there are also different notions of equilibrium in the game theory literature. Three levels of equilibrium that are commonly used in game theory are Nash equilibrium, perfect equilibrium, and dominant equilibrium (Binmore, 1990; Rasmusen, 1989) Each level of equilibrium enumerated above is stronger than the previous one. Two strategies S; T are in Nash equilibrium if, assuming that one agent is using S, the other agent cannot do better by using some strategy other than T , and vice versa. Perfect equilibrium means that ....

Binmore, K. (1990). Essays on the Foundations of Game Theory. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

....of player strategies such that each player has no rational incentive to change its component of the strategy if the other players are following their components. Nash equilibria thus hinge on agent rationality, but little is said about how that rationality is realized inside of an agent. Binmore (1990), for one, has been critical of how game theory has dwelled on analyzing games and their solutions without considering the process by which players decide on their strategies. As a step in this direction, Aumann and Brandenburger (1995) have investigated the knowledge that agents need to have to ....

Binmore, K. 1990. Essays on the Foundations of Game Theory. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

No context found.

Ken Binmore. Essays on Foundations of Game Theory. Pittman, 1982.

No context found.

K. Binmore. Essays on Foundations of Game Theory. Pittman, 1982.

No context found.

K. Binmore. Essays on Foundations of Game Theory. Pitman, 1982.

No context found.

Binmore, K. (1990) Essays on the Foundations of Game Theory, Basil Blackwell Inc., Cambridge MA.

No context found.

Ken Binmore. Essays on Foundations of Game Theory. Pittman, 1982.

No context found.

K. Binmore (1990) "Essays on the foundations of game theory" Basil Blackwell.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC