Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userAgreeing on Decisions: An Analysis with Counterfactuals
186
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Burkhard C. Schipper
Publication date
2013
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Authors
Bassel Tarbush
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Moses & Nachum ([7]) identify conceptual flaws in Bacharachs generalization ([3]) of Aumanns seminal agreeing to disagree result ([1]). Essentially, Bacharachs framework requires agents decision functions to be defined over events that are informationally meaningless for the agents. In this paper, we argue that the analysis of the agreement theorem should be carried out in information structures that can accommodate for counterfactual states. We therefore develop a method for constructing such counterfactual structures (starting from partitional structures), and prove a new agreement theorem within such structures. Furthermore, we show that our approach also resolves the conceptual flaws in the sense that, within our framework, decision functions are always only defined over events that are informationally meaningful for the agents.
rate research
Read More
We identify a subproblem of the model-checking problem for the epistemic mu-calculus which is decidable. Formulas in the instances of this subproblem allow free variables within the scope of epistemic modalities in a restricted form that avoids embodying any form of common knowledge. Our subproblem subsumes known decidable fragments of epistemic CTL/LTL, may express winning strategies in two-player games with one player having imperfect information and non-observable objectives, and, with a suitable encoding, decidable instances of the model-checking problem for ATLiR.
We provide a framework for speeding up algorithms for time-bounded reachability analysis of continuous-time Markov decision processes. The principle is to find a small, but almost equivalent subsystem of the original system and only analyse the subsystem. Candidates for the subsystem are identified through simulations and iteratively enlarged until runs are represented in the subsystem with high enough probability. The framework is thus dual to that of abstraction refinement. We instantiate the framework in several ways with several traditional algorithms and experimentally confirm orders-of-magnitude speed ups in many cases.
Threshold models and their dynamics may be used to model the spread of `behaviors in social networks. Regarding such from a modal logical perspective, it is shown how standard update mechanisms may be emulated using action models -- graphs encoding agents decision rules. A small class of action models capturing the possible sets of decision rules suitable for threshold models is identified, and shown to include models characterizing best-response dynamics of both coordination and anti-coordination games played on graphs.
An average-time game is played on the infinite graph of configurations of a finite timed automaton. The two players, Min and Max, construct an infinite run of the automaton by taking turns to perform a timed transition. Player Min wants to minimise the average time per transition and player Max wants to maximise it. A solution of average-time games is presented using a reduction to average-price game on a finite graph. A direct consequence is an elementary proof of determinacy for average-time games. This complements our results for reachability-time games and partially solves a problem posed by Bouyer et al., to design an algorithm for solving average-price games on priced timed automata. The paper also establishes the exact computational complexity of solving average-time games: the problem is EXPTIME-complete for timed automata with at least two clocks.
A traditional assumption in game theory is that players are opaque to one another -- if a player changes strategies, then this change in strategies does not affect the choice of other players strategies. In many situations this is an unrealistic assumption. We develop a framework for reasoning about games where the players may be translucent to one another; in particular, a player may believe that if she were to change strategies, then the other player would also change strategies. Translucent players may achieve significantly more efficient outcomes than opaque ones. Our main result is a characterization of strategies consistent with appropriate analogues of common belief of rationality. Common Counterfactual Belief of Rationality (CCBR) holds if (1) everyone is rational, (2) everyone counterfactually believes that everyone else is rational (i.e., all players i believe that everyone else would still be rational even if i were to switch strategies), (3) everyone counterfactually believes that everyone else is rational, and counterfactually believes that everyone else is rational, and so on. CCBR characterizes the set of strategies surviving iterated removal of minimax dominated strategies: a strategy $sigma_i$ is minimax dominated for i if there exists a strategy $sigma_i$ for i such that $min_{mu_{-i}} u_i(sigma_i, mu_{-i}) > max_{mu_{-i}} u_i(sigma_i, mu_{-i})$.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
