skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Translucent players: Explaining cooperative behavior in social dilemmas
In the past few decades, numerous experiments have shown that humans do not always behave so as to maximize their material payoff. Cooperative behavior when noncooperation is a dominant strategy (with respect to the material payoffs) is particularly puzzling. Here we propose a novel approach to explain cooperation, assuming what Halpern and Pass call translucent players. Typically, players are assumed to be opaque, in the sense that a deviation by one player in a normal-form game does not affect the strategies used by other players. However, a player may believe that if he switches from one strategy to another, the fact that he chooses to switch may be visible to the other players. For example, if he chooses to defect in Prisoner’s Dilemma, the other player may sense his guilt. We show that by assuming translucent players, we can recover many of the regularities observed in human behavior in well-studied games such as Prisoner’s Dilemma, Traveler’s Dilemma, Bertrand Competition, and the Public Goods game. The approach can also be extended to take into account a player’s concerns that his social group (or God) may observe his actions. This extension helps explain prosocial behavior in situations in which previous models of social behavior fail to make correct predictions (e.g. conflict situations and situations where there is a trade-off between equity and efficiency).  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1703846
PAR ID:
10156241
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Rationality and Society
Volume:
31
Issue:
4
ISSN:
1043-4631
Page Range / eLocation ID:
371 to 408
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; (, Games)
    Yllka Velaj and Ulrich Berger (Ed.)
    This paper considers a two-player game where each player chooses a resource from a finite collection of options. Each resource brings a random reward. Both players have statistical information regarding the rewards of each resource. Additionally, there exists an information asymmetry where each player has knowledge of the reward realizations of different subsets of the resources. If both players choose the same resource, the reward is divided equally between them, whereas if they choose different resources, each player gains the full reward of the resource. We first implement the iterative best response algorithm to find an ϵ-approximate Nash equilibrium for this game. This method of finding a Nash equilibrium may not be desirable when players do not trust each other and place no assumptions on the incentives of the opponent. To handle this case, we solve the problem of maximizing the worst-case expected utility of the first player. The solution leads to counter-intuitive insights in certain special cases. To solve the general version of the problem, we develop an efficient algorithmic solution that combines online convex optimization and the drift-plus penalty technique. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; (, The Review of Economic Studies)
    null (Ed.)
    Abstract We introduce a new model of repeated games in large populations with random matching, overlapping generations, and limited records of past play. We prove that steady-state equilibria exist under general conditions on records. When the updating of a player’s record can depend on the actions of both players in a match, any strictly individually rational action can be supported in a steady-state equilibrium. When record updates can depend only on a player’s own actions, fewer actions can be supported. Here, we focus on the prisoner’s dilemma and restrict attention to strict equilibria that are coordination-proof, meaning that matched partners never play a Pareto-dominated Nash equilibrium in the one-shot game induced by their records and expected continuation payoffs. Such equilibria can support full cooperation if the stage game is either “strictly supermodular and mild” or “strongly supermodular,” and otherwise permit no cooperation at all. The presence of “supercooperator” records, where a player cooperates against any opponent, is crucial for supporting any cooperation when the stage game is “severe.” 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; (, International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization)
    We study contention resolution (CR) on a shared channel modelled as a game with selfish players. There are n agents and the adversary chooses some k smaller than n of them as players. Each participating player in a CR game has a packet to transmit. A transmission is successful if it is performed as the only one at a round. Each player aims to minimize its packet latency. We introduce the notion of adversarial equilibrium (AE), which incorporates adversarial selection of players. We develop efficient deterministic communication algorithms that are also AE. We characterize the price of anarchy in the CR games with respect to AE. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; (, 2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC))
    This paper studies language-based opacity enforcement in a two-player, zero-sum game on a graph. In this game, player 1 (P1) wins if he can achieve a secret temporal goal described by the language of a finite automaton, no matter what strategy the opponent player 2 (P2) selects. In addition, P1 aims to win while making its goal opaque to a passive observer with imperfect information. However, P2 colludes with the observer to reveal P1's secret whenever P2 cannot prevent P1 from achieving its goal, and therefore, opacity must be enforced against P2. We show that a winning and opacity-enforcing strategy for P1 can be computed by reducing the problem to solving a reachability game augmented with the observer's belief states. Furthermore, if such a strategy does not exist, winning for P1 must entail the price of revealing his secret to the observer. We demonstrate our game-theoretic solution of opacity-enforcement control through a small illustrative example and in a robot motion planning problem. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; (, SIAM: ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA17))
    We revisit the problem of designing optimal, individually rational matching mechanisms (in a general sense, allowing for cycles in directed graphs), where each player — who is associated with a subset of vertices — matches as many of his own vertices when he opts into the matching mechanism as when he opts out. We offer a new perspective on this problem by considering an arbitrary graph, but assuming that vertices are associated with players at random. Our main result asserts that, under certain conditions, any fixed optimal matching is likely to be individually rational up to lower-order terms. We also show that a simple and practical mechanism is (fully) individually rational, and likely to be optimal up to lower-order terms. We discuss the implications of our results for market design in general, and kidney exchange in particular. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email