Paper detail

Black-Box Strategies and Equilibrium for Games with Cumulative Prospect Theoretic Players

The betweenness property of preference relations states that a probability mixture of two lotteries should lie between them in preference. It is a weakened form of the independence property and hence satisfied in expected utility theory (EUT). Experimental violations of betweenness are well-documented and several preference theories, notably cumulative prospect theory (CPT), do not satisfy betweenness. We prove that CPT preferences satisfy betweenness if and only if they conform with EUT preferences. In game theory, lack of betweenness in the players' preference relations makes it essential to distinguish between the two interpretations of a mixed action by a player - conscious randomizations by the player and the uncertainty in the beliefs of the opponents. We elaborate on this distinction and study its implication for the definition of Nash equilibrium. This results in four different notions of equilibrium, with pure and mixed action Nash equilibrium being two of them. We dub the other two pure and mixed black-box strategy Nash equilibrium respectively. We resolve the issue of existence of such equilibria and examine how these different notions of equilibrium compare with each other.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.