Bistable Probabilities: A Unified Framework for Studying Rationality and Irrationality in Classical and Quantum Games

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.03474v1
• Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2020 12:41:39 GMT
• Title: Bistable Probabilities: A Unified Framework for Studying Rationality and Irrationality in Classical and Quantum Games
• Abstract summary: Bistable probabilities are proposed as a principled and straight forward means for modeling irrational decision making in games. It was found that up to three Nash equilibria exist for all three classical bistable games and maximal utility was attained when agents were rational. Up to three Nash equilibria exist for all three quantum bistable games, however, utility was shown to increase according to higher levels of agent irrationality.
• Score: 0.8924669503280334
• License: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
• Abstract: This article presents a unified probabilistic framework that allows both rational and irrational decision making to be theoretically investigated and simulated in classical and quantum games. Rational choice theory is a basic component of game theoretic models, which assumes that a decision maker chooses the best action according to their preferences. In this article, we define irrationality as a deviation from a rational choice. Bistable probabilities are proposed as a principled and straight forward means for modeling irrational decision making in games. Bistable variants of classical and quantum Prisoner's Dilemma, Stag Hunt and Chicken are analyzed in order to assess the effect of irrationality on agent utility and Nash equilibria. It was found that up to three Nash equilibria exist for all three classical bistable games and maximal utility was attained when agents were rational. Up to three Nash equilibria exist for all three quantum bistable games, however, utility was shown to increase according to higher levels of agent irrationality.

Related papers

• Extending quantum theory with AI-assisted deterministic game theory [1.0195618602298682]
  We present an AI-assisted framework for predicting individual runs of complex quantum experiments.<n>We replace the assumption of free choice with a weaker, compatibilistic version called contingent free choice.<n>Our framework is based on interpreting complex quantum experiments as a Chess-like game between observers and the universe.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T10:04:07Z)
• Photonic implementation of the quantum Morra game [69.65384453064829]
  We study a faithful translation of a two-player quantum Morra game, which builds on previous work by including the classical game as a special case. We propose a natural deformation of the game in the quantum regime in which Alice has a winning advantage, breaking the balance of the classical game. We discuss potential applications of the quantum Morra game to the study of quantum information and communication.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T19:41:50Z)
• A Theory of Bounded Inductive Rationality [0.0]
  We develop a theory of rational decision making that does not assume logical omniscience. We consider agents who repeatedly face decision problems, including ones like betting on digits of pi. We prove that agents that are rational in this sense have other desirable properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-11T07:13:29Z)
• Connecting classical finite exchangeability to quantum theory [69.62715388742298]
  Exchangeability is a fundamental concept in probability theory and statistics. We show how a de Finetti-like representation theorem for finitely exchangeable sequences requires a mathematical representation which is formally equivalent to quantum theory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-06T17:15:19Z)
• Differentiable Arbitrating in Zero-sum Markov Games [59.62061049680365]
  We study how to perturb the reward in a zero-sum Markov game with two players to induce a desirable Nash equilibrium, namely arbitrating. The lower level requires solving the Nash equilibrium under a given reward function, which makes the overall problem challenging to optimize in an end-to-end way. We propose a backpropagation scheme that differentiates through the Nash equilibrium, which provides the gradient feedback for the upper level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-20T16:05:04Z)
• Safe Equilibrium [1.7132914341329848]
  The standard game-theoretic solution concept, Nash equilibrium, assumes that all players behave rationally. We propose a new solution concept called safe equilibrium that models opponents as behaving rationally with a specified probability. We prove that a safe equilibrium exists in all strategic-form games, and prove that its computation is PPAD-hard.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-12T01:45:51Z)
• Nashian game theory is incompatible with quantum physics [0.0]
  We suggest to look at quantum measurement outcomes not through the lens of probability theory, but instead through decision theory. We introduce an original game-theoretical framework, model and algorithmic procedure where measurement scenarios are multiplayer games with a structure all observers agree on. Measurement axes and, newly, measurement outcomes are modeled as decisions with nature being an action-minimizing economic agent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-07T18:23:59Z)
• Logical Credal Networks [87.25387518070411]
  This paper introduces Logical Credal Networks, an expressive probabilistic logic that generalizes many prior models that combine logic and probability. We investigate its performance on maximum a posteriori inference tasks, including solving Mastermind games with uncertainty and detecting credit card fraud.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-25T00:00:47Z)
• Rational Verification for Probabilistic Systems [2.4254101826561847]
  We develop the theory and algorithms for rational verification in probabilistic systems. We focus on concurrent games (CSGs), which can be used to model uncertainty and randomness in complex multi-agent environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-19T19:24:16Z)
• Equilibrium Design for Concurrent Games [5.9873770241999]
  In game theory, mechanism design is concerned with the design of incentives so that a desired outcome of the game can be achieved. We study the design of incentives so that a desirable equilibrium is obtained, for instance, an equilibrium satisfying a given temporal logic property. As an application, equilibrium design can be used as an alternative solution to the rational synthesis and verification problems for concurrent games.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-18T15:45:45Z)
• Sample-Efficient Learning of Stackelberg Equilibria in General-Sum Games [78.65798135008419]
  It remains vastly open how to learn the Stackelberg equilibrium in general-sum games efficiently from samples. This paper initiates the theoretical study of sample-efficient learning of the Stackelberg equilibrium in two-player turn-based general-sum games.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-23T05:11:07Z)
• Logical Neural Networks [51.46602187496816]
  We propose a novel framework seamlessly providing key properties of both neural nets (learning) and symbolic logic (knowledge and reasoning) Every neuron has a meaning as a component of a formula in a weighted real-valued logic, yielding a highly intepretable disentangled representation. Inference is omni rather than focused on predefined target variables, and corresponds to logical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-23T16:55:45Z)
• Invariant Rationalization [84.1861516092232]
  A typical rationalization criterion, i.e. maximum mutual information (MMI), finds the rationale that maximizes the prediction performance based only on the rationale. We introduce a game-theoretic invariant rationalization criterion where the rationales are constrained to enable the same predictor to be optimal across different environments. We show both theoretically and empirically that the proposed rationales can rule out spurious correlations, generalize better to different test scenarios, and align better with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-22T00:50:27Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.