Natural Science
Vol.6 No.13(2014), Article ID:49060,12 pages DOI:10.4236/ns.2014.613101
A Tree Formulation for Signaling Games with Noise
Xeni Dassiou, Dionysius Glycopantis
Department of Economics, City University London, London, UK
Email: x.dassiou@city.ac.uk
Copyright © 2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Received 26 June 2014; revised 29 July 2014; accepted 11 August 2014
ABSTRACT
The paper provides an analysis of a sender-receiver sequential signaling game. The private information of the sender is transmitted with noise by a Machine, i.e. does not always correctly reflect the state of nature. Hence, a truthful revelation by the sender of his information does not necessarily imply that the signal he sends is correct. Also, the receiver can take a correct action even if the sender transmits an incorrect signal. The payoffs of the two players depend on their combined actions. Perfect Bayesian Equilibria which can result from different degrees of noise is analysed. The Bayesian updating of probabilities is explained. The fixed point theorem which makes the connection with the idea of rational expectations in economics is calculated. Given a number of equilibria, we comment on the most credible one on the basis of the implied payoffs for both players. The equilibrium signals are an example of the formation of a language convention discussed by D. Lewis.
Keywords:Signals and Non-Cooperative Signaling Games, Noise, States of Nature, A Machine, Imperfect Information Sets, Actions, Language Convention, Nash Equilibrium, Beliefs Updating, Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium, Fixed Point, Self-Fulfilling Prophesies, Rational Expectations Equilibrium
1. Introduction
In this paper we use the Lewis [1] formulation of signaling and base our model on our earlier paper (Dassiou and Glycopantis [2] ), where we analysed a signaling game using a decision tree formation. The earlier paper presents a number of Bayesian equilibria and explains which one is likely to prevail using as a criterion the expected payoffs that they entail for the two players. A distinction between a true signal by a sender and a correct action by a receiver is established in terms of leading to different payoffs. A correct action by the receiver of a signal alone is not sufficient for leading to an equilibrium that involves maximum payoffs for both players. Moreover there are equilibria that do not involve maximum payoffs for either player.
Signaling games lead to the formation of language through combinations of signals
and actions. In this paper we use the same signaling game as in [2] . The helper, (H), referred to also as he, stands behind
a truck gesturing to the driver, (D), referred to also as she, to help her steer
the truck into a narrow parking space. We assume that Nature consists of the particular
position of the truck and of the parking space and that there are two such alternatives,
each with probability. Unlike the earlier paper,
the sender is no longer fully aware of the state of nature, but rather receives
a message with a noise regarding this. While both players are aware of the probabilities
attached to the choices of nature,
alone has private information (in the form
of this message) and he signals to
to direct her how to park her car.
Lewis describes the signaling behaviour and the action that follows as a “conventional
regularity” of unwritten rules of parking gestures, based on experience to which
all parties conform. In terms of highest payoffs there is a common interest objective
of
and
to get the truck into the space. In this situation they both receive their optimal
payoffs.
This is not always the case. A deviation from this rule, perhaps based on lack of
trust, could lead to one or both of the two players getting inferior payoffs. In
[2] there is a distinction between
true or untrue signals sent by
and correct or incorrect actions by the driver. The issue is to investigate whether
a “correct” interpretation of the signals is possible, i.e. one which would lead
to an optimal payoffs equilibrium position. In such a situation no one would wish
to independently change his action if all the information was revealed and moreover
the payoffs would be optimal.
In general, we can imagine that there are
alternative states of nature,
, observed by the sender,
, who will send a signal concerning the private
information (messages) he has received regarding the state of nature. The messages
received by
are not precise, but correct with a probability
The sender compiles a set of alternative signals
using a function
This is an encoding rule according to Blume [3]
. The function
translates (truthfully or not) the messages regarding the states of nature into
communicated signals.
The receiver,
, then has to choose a response without knowing
the state of nature. However he is aware of the prior probabilities of these states
and the accuracy of the sender’s private information. In the sequential game,
translates these signals (decodes according
to [3] ). He chooses a best response
, from alternative
actions
, to the signals.
He applies Bayes’ rule to form a posterior assessment that the signal comes from
each state of nature by setting a decoding function
:
. Rubinstein
[4] , notes the difficulty of formulating communication
models into game theory models. Solutions in the latter are invariant to a change
in the names of the actions that lead to these outcomes, i.e. alternative conventions
leading to the same outcome.
A characteristic of the sender-signal-receiver-action sequential game paradigm is
a plethora of equilibria. This raises the question of how to choose among such equilibria.
Cho and Kreps [5] propose to eliminate some of
these equilibria by branding them as “unintuitive”. They restrict the out-of-equilbrium
beliefs of the second party,
, i.e. interpretations that
would have given to the signal that
might have sent, but in equilibrium does not. Such beliefs might upset the given
equilibrium. Cho and Kreps posit an intuitive explanation according to which the
equilibrium introduces a self-reinforcing behaviour that is common knowledge among
the players. By giving an emphasis to the equilibrium (outcome) payoffs any deviation
from it is perceived as a conscious defection from the outcome. Therefore it needs
to be justified on the basis of how it compares to that outcome. This emphasis carries
on to our article in terms of choosing the most probable equilibrium outcome.
We assume that for each state of nature there is one action that has to be selected.
To the best of our knowledge, the prevailing assumption in the literature is that
if
takes the “correct” action then maximum payoffs will be received by both
and
irrespective of whatever signal
has sent. See, for example, [1] , Pawlowitsch
[6] , Huttegger [7]
. This is a game of common interest in which a resolution leads to optimal payoffs
for both actors as noted by Skyrms [8] .
This type of analysis is not complete on two counts. First, there is little discussion of the case where the action of the receiver may be appropriate (e.g. “correct”) to the state of nature even if the signal sent is not. Second, there is no discussion of what happens to the payoffs of the two agents when this is the case. Lewis, and most recently philosophers like Stokke [9] make an attempt to discuss what constitutes “true” and “untrue” signals by a sender and responses in a signaling system. However there is no discussion of “truthfulness” in relation to “correctness”.
Paper [2] departed from the assumption
of a correct decision by the receiver leading to an optimal payoff for both. It
distinguished between true signals (by) and correct actions
(by
). Unlike [1]
and the majority of the subsequent literature, we noted that a correct action is
not always the result of a truthful signal.
may still correctly guess the state of nature
although
sends a “wrong” signal. A correct guess by
means that she will receive the maximum payoff.
will not if she has not truthfully revealed
a signal that matches the true state of nature. Unlike [1] , in our model a true signal is mutually rewarding if it
leads to a correct decision by
but a correctly guessed state of nature by
is not necessarily so. We bind truthfulness (in the report of a signal) to a maximum
payoff if accompanied by correctness, but the latter (in terms of the actions of
) is not solely the result of a truthful signal.
may still correctly guess the state of nature
although
sends a “wrong” signal i.e. one that deviates from what he has seen. In this case
receives the reward alone but
does not. If
ends up doing the incorrect thing then both get zero payoffs.
In our current paper of a signaling model with noise,
receives a message that does not necessarily
match with the actual true state of nature. Therefore, there is a de-coupling of
the truthful revelation of the received information in the form of a signal dispatched
by
and whether this signal correctly reflects the state of nature. In other words,
the delivery by
to
of a signal that does not match the true state of nature does not necessarily imply
that the sender has been untruthful in revealing his signal. However, a signal that
no longer reflects the true state of nature will imply a zero payoff for
. This is irrespective
of whether or not it truthfully reflects the private information held by
and irrespective of whether
’s actions are correct
or not.
2. On a Simple Signaling Model with Noise
We introduce the game theoretic analysis by considering a helper/driver example,
as in our previous paper [2] . As in the previous
model, there are two players, a helper, (he), who tries to direct
a driver
, (she), to park her car.
“Nature” selects with probability
the state to be either “left” (L) or “right” (R). It is now assumed that player
picks up the correct state of nature with a noise indicated by probability
We have again an imperfect information, non-cooperative signaling game, but this
time it is rather more complicated, as the private information of
regarding the state of nature in not precise. We are using again a game theoretic
extensive form, dynamic decision tree formulation and the notation for pure and
mixed strategies is obvious and that of the previous paper. The vectors of payoffs
are given at the terminal nodes of the tree. The first element is the payoff of
and the second that of
.
The rules for calculated payoffs are as follows. When
ends up sending the “correct” signal and the correct action, i.e. the one corresponding
to the actual state of the world, follows by
, then both players receive
a payoff of 1. If
communicates an incorrect signal and this leads to an incorrect action by
, then both players get
0. If
sends an incorrect signal and
reacts choosing to play in the opposite direction then
gets 1 for performing the correct action but
ends up with zero.
In [2] we made the connection between the resolution of the signaling game without any noise and the ideas of rational expectations (self-fulfilling prophesies) from economic theory, which provide a formal interpretation of the results of our analysis. The expectations of the actors are self-fulfilling and they both receive their optimal payoffs. This connection between the concepts from the neighbouring disciplines of game theory and economics can also be established in the present case in which the existence of noise in the signals makes the game tree formulation more involved.
The structure of the game, the uncertainties introduced, the payoffs and the rationality
of the players are common knowledge. Both players,
and
, make rational decisions
taking fully into account all the information which is common knowledge. The implications
of their various strategies are clearly laid out. The players make rational predictions,
(prophesies), of each others’ actions and on this basis they act themselves. In
the rational expectation equilibrium that results the predictions, that is the players’
beliefs, are confirmed. The prophesies of the players are self-fulfilling. We give
an explicit example of this below.
We are concerned with the analysis of the implications of the signals sent by
to
. The signal of nature and how it is read by the
machine are both fixed with given probabilities and this is background information
in the analysis. A machine picks up the signal from nature and transmits it to
. However, like all machines, it is not a
accurate. As the signal from nature goes to the machine it can be distorted. This
means that if the machine shows on the screen “left”
, player
will know that the real state is
with probability
and that with probability
the real state is
. The situation is analogous
if the machine shows on the screen “right”
. That is the machine could have
distorted the original signal as it is transmitted on the screen. Player
will know that the real state is
with probability
, and
with probability
. If the machine is only
a bit faulty, we say that
is the noise, due to the “trembling” hand of the machine. The smaller
is, the more accurate is the transmission. If the machine is very faulty then the
possibility of distortion,
, is large and we still call this “noise”, as a
technical term. Of course for
we retrieve the previous model.1
The information sets
and
of
capture the fact that he does not know for sure that what he sees at the screen
is a true reflection of the state of nature.
corresponds to seeing
and
to observing
. The information sets
and
belong to
and capture the fact that she hears
or
, respectively, but does not know what
saw on the screen (e.g.
or
). The two players
can also play “left” or “right”. In a pair of strategies for
the first refers to
and the second to
. In a pair of strategies
for
the first refers to
and the second to
. As there is no risk of
confusion, and in order to simplify matters, we use the same notation for the left
and right moves from the nodes of information sets which belong to the same player.
can play
or
, and
can play
or
.
In a pair of strategies for
the first refers to
and the second to
. In a pair of strategies
for
the first refers to
and the second to
.
We refer very briefly to two relevant equilibrium concepts in game theory. A Nash Equilibrium (NE) is a pair of strategies (actions) of the two players which are in terms of payoffs best replies to each other’s.
A behavioural strategy assigns to the information sets of a player independent probability distributions to the actions available from those sets. The equilibrium concept of Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium (PBE) consists of a set of players’ optimal behavioural strategies and consistent with these, a set of beliefs which attach a probability distribution to the nodes of each information set. Consistency requires that the decision from an information set is optimal given the particular player’s beliefs about the nodes of this set and the strategies from all other sets, and that beliefs are formed from updating, using the available information. If the optimal play of the game enters an information set then updating of beliefs must be Bayesian. Otherwise appropriate beliefs are assigned arbitrarily to the nodes of the set. The PBE offers a dynamic interpretation of the solution noncooperative extensive form game. It makes use of the agents beliefs and it is a subset of NE.
The behavioural assumption is that every agent chooses his best strategy given the strategy of the other. That is, in effect, a reaction function is formed. If each player optimizes believing, (prophesyzing), a particular strategy for the other, and the outcome is that there is no reason for anybody to feel they have predicted wrongly, then we have an equilibrium which has been obtained rationally. The confirmation of the predictions takes places where the reaction functions intersect.
In terms of equilibria the distinction is between small, and large
. In Figures 1-5, we have shown the optimal strategies of
and
with heavy lines.2 The calculations correspond to examples with
small Figure 1
and Figure 2), large, (Figure
3 and Figure 4) and equal to
(Figure 5). The expected payoffs,
and
, of the two players
are also given. It is straightforward to check that the strategies form a Nash Equilibrium
(NE).
The calculations, through Bayesian updating, of the conditional probabilities, (beliefs),
attached to the nodes of the information sets are based on the strategies and thus
we obtain a PBE. The beliefs are shown on the nodes of the information sets. With
respect to
and
they express the fixed probabilities with respect to which
Figure 1. q small; E1 = 1 − q, E2 = 1 − q..
Figure 2. An alternative equilibrium with q small; E1 = 0, E2 = 1 − q.
Figure 3. An equilibrium with q large; E1 = 0, E2 = q.
Figure 4. An alternative equilibrium with q large; E1 = q, E2 = q.
Figure 5. An equilibrium with q =1/2; E1 = 0, E2 =1/2.
believes that a signal is true of false.3
In the end, we are interested in the players taking, from their information sets,
decisions with probability one. In particular we want to analyse the case when
will instruct
, with probability 1, to
turn “left” or “right” and
will also play a pure strategy. Eventually we want to know which combination of
pure strategies is most likely to prevail, i.e. whether the signal of
will be truthful and if
will believe it.
Case 1.
is small. The optimal paths are shown in Figure 1. The information set
contains the nodes, from left to right,
, and we wish to calculate the beliefs attached
to these by
Using the Bayesian formula for updating beliefs, (see for example Glycopantis, Muir
and Yannelis [10] ), we can calculate these conditional
probabilities. We know that
is entered only if
plays
. Hence
Similarly we obtain the conditional probabilities
and
.
On the other hand
is entered only if
plays
The information set
contains the nodes, from left to right,
. We now have
Similarly we obtain the conditional probabilities
and
.
Given
small, player
will follow in his action the state that he observes almost surely, expecting that
will realize this, and thus turn herself in the same direction. Essentially,
is punished if he fails to report the signal that
he has seen on the screen. The noise it contains, means that despite the truthful
revelation, it is not always a correct reflection of the true state of nature and
hence the expected payoffs reflect this by being less than 1.
In terms of Figure 1, the prophesies which form
a rational expectations equilibrium take the following form.
prophesizes that when
hears
she will believe that
has observed
and therefore she will play
because she knows that if she takes the correct decision she will get an optimum
payoff.
prophezises that when
sees
, given that the noise is small, he will repeat
the message sent by the machine and play
since if he transmits a correct signal he may get an optimum payoff, whereas if
he transmits a signal that does not reflect the state of nature he will not irrespective
of what
plays.
We shall now discuss how these rational decisions of the agents are locked in a fixed point. As optimal reactions to each other’s actions they confirm themselves.
The fixed point equilibrium is characterized as follows.
plays from
the choices
and
with probabilities
and
respectively, and from
the choices
and
with probabilities
and
respectively.
plays from
the choices
and
with probabilities
and
respectively, and
the choices
and
with probabilities
and
respectively.
If
chooses
and
then the resulting expected payoff for
, ignoring
, is
which is maximized at
and
. On the other hand for
and
, we obtain
which, given that q is small, is maximized at
and
Hence the the pairs
and
confirm each other as a fixed pair. Starting from one pair of rational decisions
we go back and confirm it.
In terms of reaction functions the Kakutani fixed point theorem is seen as follows.
Let,
be the two vectors and
,
the reaction functions (correspondences) of the
helper and the driver respectively. The fixed point satisfies
.
We have analyzed the equilibrium. Inserting back in our
calculations the fraction
, the resulting payoffs are
and
.
The pair
and
are the best possible payoffs and hence the best candidates for optimality because
each time
follows the message of the machine, i.e. he reports correctly, he is right with
a high probability and
follows his suggestion. So with a high probability,
, both players get each time payoff 1. In expectation
they get each time
and there are two such times. We discuss this further below.
We can provide some further explanation with respect to the expected payoffs. A
folded up tree can be obtained through backward induction. We are using the optimal
strategies of
given that
. In the folded up tree
of Figure 1 it is clear the
must use
from point
and
from 2.
Now, the PBE is a technical definition and as such it allows for other such equilibria
as well. For example the following pairs of behavioural strategies,
, and
form a PBE.
In Figure 2 we consider, in particular, the strategies
which also form a PBE, but with payoff lower for
than that corresponding to the pair
.
We shall now discuss also for the pair
how these rational decisions of the agents form a fixed point and thus confirm themselves.
The fixed point equilibrium is found as follows. Again
plays from
the choices
and
with probabilities
and
respectively, and from
the choices
and
with probabilities
and
respectively.
plays from
the choices
and
with probabilities
and
respectively, and
the choices
and
with probabilities
and
respectively.
The mathematical analysis is supported by optimal decisions obtained by analyzing
the graph. From Figure 2 we obtain the optimal
decisions,
,
and
If
chooses
and
then the resulting expected payoff for
is seen to be
irrespective of
and
. Therefore this value is also obtained
,
. On the other
hand for
,
, we obtain, ignoring
,
which is maximized at
and
Hence the the pairs
and
confirm each other as a fixed pair. Starting from one pair of rational decisions
we go back and confirm it.
We have analyzed the equilibrium. Inserting back in our
calculations the fraction
, the resulting payoffs are
and
. In Figure 2 the
beliefs of player
are given for both the points in the information set
and those in
. These are consistent
with the moves up to these points and guarantee the optimality of the moves which
follow.
We return now to the issue of the most likely equilibrium to prevail. From the four
pure NE referred to above, it is easy to see that in the case of
and
the signal of
has zero informational content. Hence the “updated” beliefs of
in
and
are identical to the priors of the alternative states of nature.
This leads to equilibrium expected payoffs of. Regarding
, we see that the expected
payoff for
is zero. In other words, the sender will be punished for being untruthful in terms
of revealing his private information regarding the state of nature as seen on the
machine, as the probability that this is wrong is small. Hence if
misreports what he has seen on the machine, then he is likely to have send an incorrect
signal regarding the state of nature. He will be punished for this with a zero payoff.
Given this, player
can reasonably expect that
has an interest to report truthfully what he has seen on the machine.
In cheap talk games speech serves the purpose of reinforcing a particular action
and provides the evolutionary process rationale for choosing a particular equilibrium.
Similarly, in a signaling game,
will believe that the sender will send him true
information unless he has a reason to deceive him. Using the idea of rational expectations
it is obvious that
has an interest to report the truth regarding his private information because failing
to do so hurts him. Hence
can reasonably expect and correctly guess that he will signal truthfully. This leads
to the formation of a language (signaling) convention between the players.
Therefore, given
small, the equilibrium
in Figure 1 is the most likely to prevail, as it
involves the maximum possible payoff for both
and
and hence is the best candidate for optimality in a repeated game of trial and error
until a signaling convention is achieved.
Finally, we also consider a case of a pair of strategies which do not form a NE.
As it is easy to see this is the case if in Figure 1
where all decisions are kept the same apart from changing for the driver
to
in
i.e. the pair of strategies are
. In this case
can change from
in
to
and improve her payoff.
Case 2.
is large. The optimal paths are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
It is easy to check that the heavy lines strategies form a NE. In Figure 3 only the strategies of
are different. On the other hand, since the optimal actions of
are the same for both small and large
we shall be obtaining, through the Bayesian updating of conditional probabilities,
the same beliefs for the nodes of
and
as in Figure 1. In the case of the equilibrium
in Figure 3,
does not take into account the fact that the machine
is so faulty that it is more often wrong than right and he gets punished for truthfully
sending what is likely to be an incorrect signal. Player
does not believe the signal she received, turns in the correct direction and she
is rewarded. As a result
and
.
In Figure 4 we show an alternative NE for large
and corresponding beliefs at the nodes of the information sets
and
and hence an alternative PBE to that in Figure 3.
In this case both players make the correct move and they are both rewarded. Specifically,
reports the opposite of what he sees, and both him
and
end up with payoffs
The pair
and
are the best possible payoffs and hence the best candidates for optimality. The
machine is now very faulty and each time
makes a guess he does not follow its message, i.e. he misreports, and he is right
with a high probability and
follows his suggestion. So with a high probability, q, both players get each time
payoff 1. In expectation they get each time
and there are two such times.
Again for completeness, we also consider a case of a pair of strategies which do
not form a NE. This is the case, as it is easy to see, if in Figure 3 all decisions are kept the same apart from changing for the driver
to
in
.
Finally we note that it is easy to see that in both Figure 3 and Figure 4 the actions of the optimal paths satisfy Kakutani’s fixed point theorem and form a rational expectation equilibrium.
Case 3.
We can now have an equilibrium such that only information
set
or only
, as shown in
Figure 5, is visited. Suppose that the latter is
the case. With respect to the arbitrary beliefs for
which is not visited by the optimal strategies, we can adopt beliefs such that the
optimal choice is
.
Coming now to, all its nodes are visited
as player
plays constantly
. The beliefs through Bayesian
updating are as follows.
Similarly we obtain the conditional probabilities
and
.
We now have that
plays
from
and
from
, while
always plays
We want to check that
is a NE. Given the strategies of one player we have to consider the alternative
actions of the other. Given constant
, player
has made an optimal choice. For the response of
to
of
, it is straightforward, inspecting the graph, that
cannot change a strategy and improve his payoff. Hence
forms a NE. The payoffs are
and
Player
is punished if D decides to play
in.
We shall now discuss how these rational decisions of the agents are locked in a fixed point. As optimal reactions to each other’s actions they confirm themselves and the form a rational expectations equilibrium.
Suppose we consider
and
. These values mean that
irrespective of
and
, and therefore we can choose
and
which
takes as given and calculates, ignoring
,
which means that
irrespective of
and
and therefore we can choose
, and
In fact, we have a multiplicity of equilibria as D could play instead. The pairs of strategies
and
form also equilibria. In each of these case the beliefs at the nodes of the information
sets of
are properly adjusted, but the payoffs of
and
are the same. That is
and
. A general argument can be advanced that the pair
are the best possible payoffs and hence the best candidates for equilibrium.
The machine is now faulty with probability. Each time
makes a guess he has an equal chance to report or misreport the correct state of
nature and when
responds she has an equal chance of discovering the true state of nature.
Now, with respect to, since she is rewarded
for guessing correctly, she will always get expected payoff
However the reward of
is calculated, as explained above, in a more complicated manner. He will only get
a payoff of 1 if his signal coincides with the correct choice of
; otherwise he gets
It is therefore possible that
gets payoff 0 because he has signaled the opposite of the action taken by
. On the other hand the
latter by making a constant choice secures for himself payoff
Finally, we state a pair of strategies which do not form a NE. This is the case,
as it is straightforward to see, of the pair. If
chooses
then
can improve his payoff by switching to
.
3. Further Discussion and Conclusions
We have analysed a sequential game concerning instructions and decisions to and
by players, where nature selects a state and a machine transmits a noisy signal
which is received by a helper,. The latter decides
whether to truthfully report this signal to a driver,
. For a small noise
the equilibrium outcome, not the payoffs, is the same as in the case
discussed in the earlier paper, but for a large noise
will be punished for truthfully sending to
a false message.
With respect to payoffs, both players know that if the noise in the signal is small,
announcements by
which are not reflective of the state of nature will lead to outcomes that will
hurt them. The incentives of
and
are compatible in the sense that
can reasonably expect and correctly guesses that
has an incentive to truthfully report a signal, when that signal is likely to be
a correct reflection of the state of nature.
In the case of a noisy signal
may receive an incorrect signal from the machine which he reports truthfully. Even
if the final choice is correct, his expected payoff will in this case be zero. So
truthfulness no longer automatically implies that a correct signal is sent.
As argued in [2] , the assumption of an aligned
interest between the helper, as the sender of a signal, and the driver as the receiver
is found in much of the existing literature. The incentive of
to choose
rather than
no longer applies if
’s payoff is no longer
dependent on being correct. This would make the helper careless in terms of his
reporting. He knows that his payoff is dependent on the final outcome which is determined
by the actions of the driver irrespective of whether his signal reflects the true
state of nature. The result of this assumption is that the formation of a convention
is made less likely. This will still hold true in the case of a noisy signal, as
long as
.
In contrast, in our model,
knows that the probability of his signal to
correctly reflecting the state of nature is more likely if he truthfully reports
to
the signal he has received from the machine. Since being correct is a necessary
condition for his getting a strictly positive payoff, the case is identical to the
one discussed in [2] where
.
In the case of a large, the incentive of
to report a signal that correctly reflects the state of nature still applies. But
in this case, it means that
has an incentive to report the opposite of what has been transmitted to him by the
machine. In other words, it is not in the interests of
to truthfully report the message he has received by the machine (private information).
By reporting exactly the opposite of what he sees,
is more often correct than not. Hence in this
case there is an inverse relationship between correctness and truthfulness.
In both Case 1 and Case 2 we get a number of different PBE. Only one of these seems to be justified in providing an equilibrium which introduces a self enforcing behaviour and also provides an optimum outcome for both players.
In Case 3 there is also a number of equilibria. However from these only two PBE
secure an optimum payoff for both players. These are the ones where both
and
make constant choices from both of their corresponding information sets. However
unlike the PBE in Cases 1 and 2, these optimal payoffs do not exceed the default
payoff of
choosing an action randomly (i.e.
) as the informational value
of the signals by
is zero.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Professor Dimitrios Tsomokos of Oxford University for his suggestions and penetrating comments which led to a substantial improvement of the final draft. Of course responsibility for all short comings stays with the authors.
References
- Lewis, D. (1969) Convention. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
- Dassiou, X. and Glycopantis, D. (2013) A Tree Formulation for Signaling Games. Game Theory, 2013, Article ID: 754398, 12p.
- Blume, A. (2012) A Class of Strategy-Correlated Equilibria in Sender-Receiver Games. Games and Economic Behavior, 75, 510-517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2012.03.008
- Rubinstein, A. (2000) Economics and Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511492358
- Cho, I. and Kreps, D.M. (1987) Signaling Games and Stable Equilibria. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102, 179-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1885060
- Pawlowitsch, C. (2008) Why Evolution Does Not Always Lead to an Optimal Signaling System. Games and Economic Behavior, 63, 203-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2007.08.009
- Huttegger, S.M. (2007) Evolutionary Explanations of Indicatives and Imperatives. Erkenntnis, 66, 409-436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10670-006-9022-1
- Skyrms, B. (2010) The Flow of Information in Signaling Games. Philosophical Studies, 147, 155-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11098-009-9452-0
- Stokke, A. (2014) Truth and Context Change. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43, 33-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10992-012-9250-6
- Glycopantis, D., Muir, A. and Yannelis, N. (2003) On Extensive form Implementation of Contracts in Differential Information Economies. Economic Theory, 21, 495-526. (Reprinted in Aliprantis, C.D., Arrow, K.J., et al., Eds., Assets, Beliefs, and Equilibria in Economic Dynamics, Springer-Verlag, 2004, 323-354.)
NOTES
1The beginning of the idea of H receiving a false message from the machine regarding the state of nature was very briefly mentioned in , p. 5.
2We could interpret “Nature” and the “Machine” as two (passive) players, receiving, each, payoff zero, and playing the indicated mixed strategies.
3In order to simplify the graphs, only in Figure 1
we have inserted explicitly that the actions of the players from the information
sets can be mixed with probabilities as follows:
from
,
from
,
from
and
from
. Exactly the same notation is assumed in all the graphs. Also,
only in Figure 1
we insert the folded up tree following the optimal decisions of
. Corresponding folded
up trees can be obtained for all other figures displayed.