囚徒困境的解法简论

M. Köppen, M. Tsuru
{"title":"囚徒困境的解法简论","authors":"M. Köppen, M. Tsuru","doi":"10.1109/INCoS.2015.69","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Here we reconsider the solution of the well-known Prisoner's Dilemma from a binary relation point of view. We identify the Nash equilibrium as single maximum element of a relation (we call it coordination relation) between the cells of a multidimensional payoff array. The comparison between reward vectors of cells is according to a preference relation of each player. This approach allows for an easier extension to cases of n players and m strategies, but also cases of varying preference relations among the players. This way we can judge on negotiable situations by analyzing maximum set sizes of the coordination relation. As an example, we study the prospect of players focusing on maximal total or least rewards (the latter one being a model for fair decision making). It appears as an apparent counter-intuitive result that such player preferences do not lead to Nash equilibria at all since they result in a strongly increasing number of maximal elements, thus hardening a joint decision making.","PeriodicalId":345650,"journal":{"name":"2015 International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Short Note on the Solution of the Prisoner's Dilemma\",\"authors\":\"M. Köppen, M. Tsuru\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/INCoS.2015.69\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Here we reconsider the solution of the well-known Prisoner's Dilemma from a binary relation point of view. We identify the Nash equilibrium as single maximum element of a relation (we call it coordination relation) between the cells of a multidimensional payoff array. The comparison between reward vectors of cells is according to a preference relation of each player. This approach allows for an easier extension to cases of n players and m strategies, but also cases of varying preference relations among the players. This way we can judge on negotiable situations by analyzing maximum set sizes of the coordination relation. As an example, we study the prospect of players focusing on maximal total or least rewards (the latter one being a model for fair decision making). It appears as an apparent counter-intuitive result that such player preferences do not lead to Nash equilibria at all since they result in a strongly increasing number of maximal elements, thus hardening a joint decision making.\",\"PeriodicalId\":345650,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2015 International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2015 International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/INCoS.2015.69\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2015 International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/INCoS.2015.69","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这里我们从二元关系的角度重新考虑著名的囚徒困境的解。我们将纳什均衡定义为多维支付数组单元之间关系(我们称之为协调关系)的单个最大元素。细胞间奖励向量的比较是根据每个玩家的偏好关系进行的。这种方法可以更容易地扩展到n个参与者和m个策略的情况,但也可以扩展到参与者之间不同的偏好关系的情况。这种方法可以通过分析协调关系的最大集大小来判断可协商的情况。例如,我们研究了玩家关注最大总奖励或最小奖励的前景(后者是公平决策的模型)。这似乎是一个明显的反直觉结果,即这种玩家偏好根本不会导致纳什均衡,因为它们会导致最大元素数量的大幅增加,从而强化联合决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Short Note on the Solution of the Prisoner's Dilemma
Here we reconsider the solution of the well-known Prisoner's Dilemma from a binary relation point of view. We identify the Nash equilibrium as single maximum element of a relation (we call it coordination relation) between the cells of a multidimensional payoff array. The comparison between reward vectors of cells is according to a preference relation of each player. This approach allows for an easier extension to cases of n players and m strategies, but also cases of varying preference relations among the players. This way we can judge on negotiable situations by analyzing maximum set sizes of the coordination relation. As an example, we study the prospect of players focusing on maximal total or least rewards (the latter one being a model for fair decision making). It appears as an apparent counter-intuitive result that such player preferences do not lead to Nash equilibria at all since they result in a strongly increasing number of maximal elements, thus hardening a joint decision making.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Preliminary Investigation of a Semi-Automatic Criminology Intelligence Extraction Method: A Big Data Approach Energy-Efficient Link and Node Power Control for Avoidance of Congestion in Accordance with Traffic Load Fluctuations Differential Evolution Enhanced by the Closeness Centrality: Initial Study Towards a Kansei WordNet by Color Design SNS Evaluation Minimum Background Fairness for Quality Video Delivery over the LTE Downlink
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1