Cursed equilibrium
Cursed equilibrium | |
---|---|
Solution concept in game theory | |
Relationship | |
Superset of | Bayesian Nash equilibrium |
Significance | |
Proposed by | Erik Eyster, Matthew Rabin |
In game theory, a cursed equilibrium is a solution concept for static games of incomplete information. It is a generalization of the usual Bayesian Nash equilibrium, allowing for players to underestimate the connection between other players' equilibrium actions and their types – that is, the behavioral bias of neglecting the link between what others know and what others do. Intuitively, in a cursed equilibrium players "average away" the information regarding other players mixed strategies.
The solution concept was first introduced by Erik Eyster and Matthew Rabin in 2005,[1] and has since become a canonical behavioral solution concept for Bayesian games in behavioral economics.[2]
Preliminaries
[edit]Bayesian games
[edit]Let be a finite set of players, and for each , define their finite set of possible actions and as their finite set of possible types; the sets and are the sets of joint action and type profiles, respectively. Each player has a utility function , and types are distributed according to a joint probability distribution . A finite Bayesian game consists of the data .
Bayesian Nash equilibrium
[edit]For each player , a mixed strategy specifies the probability of player playing action when their type is .
For notational convenience, we also define the projections and , and let be the joint mixed strategy of players , where gives the probability that players play action profile when they are of type .
Definition: a Bayesian Nash equilibrium (BNE) for a finite Bayesian game consists of a strategy profile such that, for every , every , and every action played with positive probability , we have
where is player 's beliefs about other players types given his own type .
Definition
[edit]Average strategies
[edit]First, we define the "average strategy of other players", averaged over their types. Formally, for each and each , we define by putting
Notice that does not depend on . It gives the probability, viewed from the perspective of player when he is of type , that the other players will play action profile when they follow the mixed strategy . More specifically, the information contained in does not allow player to assess the direct relation between and given by .
Cursed equilibrium
[edit]Given a degree of mispercetion , we define a -cursed equilibrium for a finite Bayesian game as a strategy profile such that, for every , every , we have
for every action played with positive probability .
For , we have the usual BNE. For , the equilibrium is referred to as a fully cursed equilibrium, and the players in it as fully cursed.
Applications
[edit]Trade with assymetric information
[edit]In bilateral trade with two-sided assymetric information, there are some scenarios where the BNE solution implies that no trade occurs, while there exist -cursed equilibria where both parties choose to trade. [1]
Ambiguous political campaigns and cursed voters
[edit]In a election model where candidates are policy-motivated, a candidate which does not reveal their policy preferences would not be elected if voters are completely rational. In a BNE, voters would correctly infer that, if a candidate is ambiguous about their policy position, then it's because such position is unpopular. Therefore, unless a candidate has very extreme – unpopular – positions, they would announce their policy preferences.
If voters are cursed, however, they underestimate the connection between the non-announcement of policy position and the unpopularity of the policy. This leads to both moderate and extreme candidates concealing their policy preferrences. [3]
References
[edit]- ^ a b Eyster, Erik; Rabin, Matthew (2005). "Cursed Equilibrium". Econometrica. 73 (5): 1623–1672. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00631.x.
- ^ Cohen, Shani; Li, Shengwu (2022). "Sequential Cursed Equilibrium". arXiv:2212.06025 [econ.TH].
- ^ Szembrot, Nichole (2017). "Are voters cursed when politicians conceal policy preferences?". Public Chcoice. 173: 25–41. doi:10.1007/s11127-017-0461-9.