Trembling hand perfect equilibrium

(Normal form) trembling hand perfect equilibrium
A solution concept in game theory
Relationships
Subset of	Nash Equilibrium
Superset of	Proper equilibrium
Significance
Proposed by	Reinhard Selten

In game theory, trembling hand perfect equilibrium is a refinement of Nash equilibrium due to Reinhard Selten.^[1] A trembling hand perfect equilibrium is an equilibrium that takes the possibility of off-the-equilibrium play into account by assuming that the players, through a "slip of the hand" or tremble, may choose unintended strategies, albeit with negligible probability.

Definition

First we define a perturbed game. A perturbed game is a copy of a base game, with the restriction that only totally mixed strategies are allowed to be played. A totally mixed strategy is a mixed strategy where every pure strategy is played with non-zero probability. This is the "trembling hands" of the players; they sometimes play a different strategy than the one they intended to play. Then we define a strategy set S (in a base game) as being trembling hand perfect if there is a sequence of perturbed games that converge to the base game in which there is a series of Nash equilibria that converge to S.

Example

The game represented in the following normal form matrix has two pure strategy Nash equilibria, namely $\langle \text{Up}, \text{Left}\rangle$ and $\langle \text{Down}, \text{Right}\rangle$ . However, only $\langle \text{U},\text{L}\rangle$ is trembling-hand perfect.

	Left	Right
Up	1, 1	2, 0
Down	0, 2	2, 2
Trembling hand perfect equilibrium

Assume player 1 is playing a mixed strategy $(1-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)$ , for $0<\varepsilon <1$ . Player 2's expected payoff from playing L is:

1(1-\varepsilon) + 2\varepsilon = 1+\varepsilon

Player 2's expected payoff from playing the strategy R is:

0(1-\varepsilon) + 2\varepsilon = 2\varepsilon

For small values of $\varepsilon$ , player 2 maximizes his expected payoff by placing a minimal weight on R and maximal weight on L. By symmetry, player 1 should place a minimal weight on D if player 2 is playing the mixed strategy $(1-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)$ . Hence $\langle \text{U},\text{L}\rangle$ is trembling-hand perfect.

However, similar analysis fails for the strategy profile $\langle \text{D}, \text{R}\rangle$ .

Assume player 2 is playing a mixed strategy $(\varepsilon, 1-\varepsilon)$ . Player 1's expected payoff from playing U is:

1\varepsilon + 2(1-\varepsilon) = 2-\varepsilon

Player 1's expected payoff from playing D is:

0(\varepsilon) + 2(1-\varepsilon) = 2-2\varepsilon

For all positive values of $\varepsilon$ , player 1 maximizes his expected payoff by placing a minimal weight on D and maximal weight on U. Hence $\langle \text{D}, \text{R}\rangle$ is not trembling-hand perfect because player 2 (and, by symmetry, player 1) maximizes his expected payoff by deviating most often to L if there is a small chance of error in the behavior of player 1.

Trembling hand perfect equilibria of two-player games

For two-player games, the set of trembling hand perfect equilibria coincides with the set of admissible equilibria, i.e., equilibria consisting of two undominated strategies. In the example above, we see that the imperfect equilibrium <D,R> is not admissible, as L (weakly) dominates R for Player 2 and U (weakly) dominates D for Player 1.

Trembling hand perfect equilibria of extensive form games

Extensive-form trembling hand perfect equilibrium
A solution concept in game theory
Relationships
Subset of	Subgame perfect equilibrium, Perfect Bayesian equilibrium, Sequential equilibrium
Significance
Proposed by	Reinhard Selten
Used for	Extensive form games

There are two possible ways of extending the definition of trembling hand perfection to extensive form games.

One may interpret the extensive form as being merely a concise description of a normal form game and apply the concepts described above to this normal form game. In the resulting perturbed games, every strategy of the extensive-form game must be played with non-zero probability. This leads to the notion of a normal-form trembling hand perfect equilibrium.
Alternatively, one may recall that trembles are to be interpreted as modelling mistakes made by the players with some negligible probability when the game is played. Such a mistake would most likely consist of a player making another move than the one intended at some point during play. It would hardly consist of the player choosing another strategy than intended, i.e. a wrong plan for playing the entire game. To capture this, one may define the perturbed game by requiring that every move at every information set is taken with non-zero probability. Limits of equilibria of such perturbed games as the tremble probabilities goes to zero are called extensive-form trembling hand perfect equilibria.

The notions of normal-form and extensive-form trembling hand perfect equilibria are incomparable, i.e., an equilibrium of an extensive-form game may be normal-form trembling hand perfect but not extensive-form trembling hand perfect and vice versa. As an extreme example of this, Jean-François Mertens has given an example of a two-player extensive form game where no extensive-form trembling hand perfect equilibrium is admissible, i.e., the sets of extensive-form and normal-form trembling hand perfect equilibria for this game are disjoint.

An extensive-form trembling hand perfect equilibrium is also a sequential equilibrium. A normal-form trembling hand perfect equilibrium of an extensive form game may be sequential but is not necessarily so. In fact, a normal-form trembling hand perfect equilibrium does not even have to be subgame perfect.

References

↑ Selten, R. (1975). "A Reexamination of the Perfectness Concept for Equilibrium Points in Extensive Games". International Journal of Game Theory 4 (1): 25–55. doi:10.1007/BF01766400.

Topics in game theory

Definitions	Normal-form game Extensive-form game Escalation of commitment Graphical game Cooperative game Succinct game Information set Hierarchy of beliefs Preference

Equilibrium concepts	Nash equilibrium Subgame perfection Mertens-stable equilibrium Bayesian-Nash Perfect Bayesian Trembling hand Proper equilibrium Epsilon-equilibrium Correlated equilibrium Sequential equilibrium Quasi-perfect equilibrium Evolutionarily stable strategy Risk dominance Core Shapley value Pareto efficiency Quantal response equilibrium Self-confirming equilibrium Strong Nash equilibrium Markov perfect equilibrium

Strategies	Dominant strategies Pure strategy Mixed strategy Tit for tat Grim trigger Collusion Backward induction Forward induction Markov strategy

Classes of games	Symmetric game Perfect information Simultaneous game Sequential game Repeated game Signaling game Cheap talk Zero-sum game Mechanism design Bargaining problem Stochastic game n-player game Large Poisson game Nontransitive game Global games Strictly determined game

Games	Prisoner's dilemma Traveler's dilemma Coordination game Chicken Centipede game Volunteer's dilemma Dollar auction Battle of the sexes Stag hunt Matching pennies Ultimatum game Rock-paper-scissors Pirate game Dictator game Public goods game Blotto games War of attrition El Farol Bar problem Fair division Fair cake-cutting Cournot game Deadlock Diner's dilemma Guess 2/3 of the average Kuhn poker Nash bargaining game Screening game Prisoners and hats puzzle Trust game Princess and monster game Monty Hall problem Rendezvous problem

Theorems	Minimax theorem Nash's theorem Purification theorem Folk theorem Revelation principle Arrow's impossibility theorem

Key figures	Albert W. Tucker Amos Tversky Ariel Rubinstein Daniel Kahneman David K. Levine David M. Kreps Donald B. Gillies Drew Fudenberg Eric Maskin Harold W. Kuhn Herbert Simon Hervé Moulin Jean Tirole Jean-François Mertens John Harsanyi John Maynard Smith John Nash John von Neumann Kenneth Arrow Kenneth Binmore Leonid Hurwicz Lloyd Shapley Melvin Dresher Merrill M. Flood Oskar Morgenstern Paul Milgrom Peyton Young Reinhard Selten Robert Aumann Robert B. Wilson Roger Myerson Samuel Bowles Thomas Schelling William Vickrey

See also	All-pay auction Alpha–beta pruning Bertrand paradox Bounded rationality Combinatorial game theory Confrontation analysis Coopetition List of game theorists List of games in game theory No-win situation Tragedy of the commons Tyranny of small decisions

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, March 18, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.