Scribd
Upload
58 views

Lecture 5-6 Applications of Nash Equilibrium Rationalizablity & Backwards Induction

This document provides an outline for a lecture on applications of Nash equilibrium, rationalizability, and backwards induction in game theory. It discusses Cournot and Bertrand models of oligopoly competition, the Commons problem, mixed strategy Nash equilibria, and examples of games with perfect information solved using backwards induction, including a centipede game and Stackelberg duopoly. Equilibria concepts are applied to specific games like Stag Hunt and Bertrand competition with costly search.

Uploaded by

gd3000
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
58 views

Lecture 5-6 Applications of Nash Equilibrium Rationalizablity & Backwards Induction

This document provides an outline for a lecture on applications of Nash equilibrium, rationalizability, and backwards induction in game theory. It discusses Cournot and Bertrand models of oligopoly competition, the Commons problem, mixed strategy Nash equilibria, and examples of games with perfect information solved using backwards induction, including a centipede game and Stackelberg duopoly. Equilibria concepts are applied to specific games like Stag Hunt and Bertrand competition with costly search.

Uploaded by

gd3000
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 16

Lecture 5-6

Applications of Nash equilibrium


Rationalizablity & Backwards
Induction
14.12 Game Theory
Muhamet Yildiz

Road Map
1. Cournot (quantity) Competition
1. Nash Equilibrium in Cournot duopoly
2. Nash Equilibrium in Cournot oligopoly
3. Rationalizability in Cournot duopoly

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Bertrand (price) Competition


Commons Problem
Quiz
Mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium
Backwards induction

Cournot Oligopoly
N = {1,2,,n} firms;
Simultaneously, each firm i
produces qi units of a good at
marginal cost c,
and sells the good at price
P = max{0,1-Q}
where Q = q1++qn.
Game = (S1,,Sn; 1,,n)
where Si = [0,),

P
1

i(q1,,qn) = qi[1-(q1++qn)-c] if q1++qn < 1,


-qic
otherwise.

Cournot Duopoly -- profit


qj=0.2
Profit

c=0.2

0
qi(1- qi -qj-c)
-cqi

-0.2

(1-qj-c)/2

1-qj-c

C-D best responses

qiB(qj)

q2

= max{(1-qj-c)/2,0};

Nash Equilibrium q*:


q1* = (1-q2*-c)/2;
q2* = (1-q1*-c)/2;
q1* = q2* = (1-c)/3

q1=q1B(q2)

q*
1 c
2

q2=q2B(q1)
q1

1-c

Cournot Oligopoly --Equilibrium


q>1-c is strictly dominated, so q 1-c.
i(q1,,qn) = qi[1-(q1++qn)-c] for each i.
FOC: ( q ,K, q )
[ qi (1 q1 L qn c )]
i
n
1

qi

q=q

qi

q = q*

= (1 q1* L qn* c ) qi* = 0.


That is,

2q1* + q2* + L + qn* = 1 c


q1* + 2q2* + L + qn* = 1 c
M
q1* + q2* + L + nqn* = 1 c

Therefore, q1*==qn*=(1-c)/(n+1).

Cournot oligopoly comparative statics


P

n=1
n=2
n=3
n=4

c
1

Rationalizability in Cournot Duopoly


q2
1-c
Assume that
players are
rational.

1 c
2

q1
1 c
2

1-c

Players are rational:


q2
1-c
Assume that
players know
this.

1 c
2

q1
1 c
2

1-c

Players are rational and know


that players are rational
q2
1-c
Assume that
players know
this.

1 c
2

q1
1 c
2

1-c

Players are rational; players know that players


are rational; players know that players know
that players
are rational
q
2

1-c
Assume that
players know
this.

1 c
2

q1
1 c
2

1-c

Rationalizability in Cournot duopoly


If i knows that qj q, then qi (1-c-q)/2.
If i knows that qj q, then qi (1-c-q)/2.
We know that qj q0 = 0.
Then, qi q1 = (1-c-q0)/2 = (1-c)/2 for each i;
Then, qi q2 = (1-c-q1)/2 = (1-c)(1-1/2)/2 for each i;

Then, qn qi qn+1 or qn+1 qi qn where


qn+1 = (1-c-qn)/2 = (1-c)(1-1/2+1/4-+(-1/2)n)/2.
As n, qn (1-c)/3.

Bertrand (price) competition


N = {1,2} firms.
Simultaneously, each firm i sets a price pi;
If pi < pj, firm i sells Q = max{1 pi,0}
unit at price pi; the other firm gets 0.
If p1 = p2, each firm sells Q/2 units at price
p1, where Q = max{1 p1,0}.
The marginal cost is 0.
if p1 < p2
p1 (1 p1 )

1 ( p1 , p2 ) = p1 (1 p1 ) / 2 if p1 = p2

otherwise.
0

Bertrand duopoly -- Equilibrium


Theorem: The only Nash equilibrium in the Bertrand
game is p* = (0,0).
Proof:
1. p*=(0,0) is an equilibrium.
2. If p = (p1,p2) is an equilibrium, then p = p*.
1. If p = (p1,p2) is an equilibrium, then p1 = p2...
2. Given any equilibrium p = (p1,p2) with p1 = p2, p = p*.

Commons Problem
N = {1,2,,n} players, each with unlimited
money;
Simultaneously, each player i contributes xi
0 to produce y = x1+xn unit of some
public good, yielding payoff
Ui(xi,y) = y1/2 xi.

Stag Hunt

(2,2)

(4,0)

(0,4)

(5,5)

Equilibrium in Mixed Strategies


What is a strategy?
A complete contingent-plan of a player.
What the others think the player might do under
various contingency.

What do we mean by a mixed strategy?


The player is randomly choosing his pure
strategies.
The other players are not certain about what he
will do.

Stag Hunt

(2,2)

(4,0)

(0,4)

(5,5)

Mixed-strategy equilibrium in Stag-Hunt game


Assume: Player 2 thinks that,
with probability p, Player 1
targets for Rabbit. What is the
best probability q she wants to
play Rabbit?
His payoff from targeting
Rabbit:
U2(R;p) = 2p + 4(1-p)
= 4-2p.
From Stag:
U2(S;p) = 5(1-p)
She is indifferent iff
4-2p = 5(1-p) iff p = 1/3.

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5

4 - 2p

2
1.5
1

5(1-p)

0.5
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

if p < 1/3
0

q ( p ) = q [0,1] if p = 1/3
1
if p > 1/3

BR

Best responses in Stag-Hunt game


q

1/3
p
1/3

10

Bertrand Competition with costly search

N = {F1,F2,B}; F1, F2
are firms; B is buyer
B needs 1 unit of good,
worth 6;
Firms sell the good;
Marginal cost = 0.
Possible prices P =
{1,5}.
Buyer can check the
prices with a small cost
c > 0.

Game:
1. Each firm i chooses price
p i;
2. B decides whether to
check the prices;
3. (Given) If he checks the
prices, and p1p2, he buys
the cheaper one;
otherwise, he buys from
any of the firm with
probability .

Bertrand Competition with costly


search
F2
F1

F2
High

Low

F1

High

High

Low

Low

Check

High

Low

Dont Check

11

Mixed-strategy equilibrium
Symmetric equilibrium: Each firm charges
High with probability q;
Buyer Checks with probability r.
U(check;q) = q21 + (1-q2)5 c = 5 - 4 q2 c;
U(Dont;q) = q1 + (1-q)5 = 5 - 4 q;
Indifference: 4q(1-q) = c; i.e.,
U(high;q,r) = 0.5(1-r(1-q))5;
U(low;q,r) = qr1 + 0.5(1-qr)
Indifference = r = 4/(5-4q).

Dynamic Games of Perfect


Information
&
Backward Induction

12

Definitions
Perfect-Information game is a game in which all
the information sets are singleton.
Sequential Rationality: A player is sequentially
rational iff, at each node he is to move, he
maximizes his expected utility conditional on that
he is at the node even if this node is precluded
by his own strategy.
In a finite game of perfect information, the common
knowledge of sequential rationality gives
Backward Induction outcome.

A centipede game
1
D
(4,4)

(5,2)

(1,-5)

d
(3,3)

13

Backward Induction
Take any pen-terminal node
Pick one of the payoff vectors (moves) that
gives the mover at the node the highest payoff
Assign this payoff to the node at the hand;
Eliminate all the moves and the
terminal nodes following the node
Yes

Any non-terminal
node
No
The picked moves

Battle of The Sexes with perfect information


1

2
L

(2,1)

2
R

(0,0)

(0,0)

(1,2)

14

Note
There are Nash equilibria that are different
from the Backward Induction outcome.
Backward Induction always yields a Nash
Equilibrium.
That is, Sequential rationality is stronger
than rationality.

Matching Pennies (wpi)


1
Head

Tail

head

tail

(-1,1)

(1,-1)

head
(1,-1)

tail
(-1,1)

15

Stackelberg Duopoly
Game:
P
N = {1,2} firms w MC = 0;
1. Firm 1 produces q1 units
1
2. Observing q1, Firm 2 produces
q2 units
3. Each sells the good at price
P = max{0,1-(q1+q2)}.

Q
1

i(q1, q2) = qi[1-(q1+q2)] if q1+ q2 < 1,


0
otherwise.

Stackelberg equilibrium
If q1 > 1, q2*(q1) = 0.
If q1 1, q2*(q1) = (1-q1)/2.
Given the function q2*, if q1 1

P
1

1(q1;q2*(q1)) = q1[1-(q1+ (1-q1)/2)]


= q1 (1-q1)/2;
0 otherwise.
q1* = .
q2*(q1*) = .

16

You might also like