Paper detail

Repeated Matching Pennies with Limited Randomness

We consider a repeated Matching Pennies game in which players have limited access to randomness. Playing the (unique) Nash equilibrium in this n-stage game requires n random bits. Can there be Nash equilibria that use less than n random coins? Our main results are as follows: We give a full characterization of approximate equilibria, showing that, for any e in [0, 1], the game has a e-Nash equilibrium if and only if both players have (1 - e)n random coins. When players are bound to run in polynomial time, Nash equilibria can exist if and only if one-way functions exist. It is possible to trade-off randomness for running time. In particular, under reasonable assumptions, if we give one player only O(log n) random coins but allow him to run in arbitrary polynomial time and we restrict his opponent to run in time n^k, for some fixed k, then we can sustain an Nash equilibrium. When the game is played for an infinite amount of rounds with time discounted utilities, under reasonable assumptions, we can reduce the amount of randomness required to achieve a e-Nash equilibrium to n, where n is the number of random coins necessary to achieve an approximate Nash equilibrium in the general case.

preprint2011arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.