International Journal of Game Theory

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 347–358 | Cite as

A Neo2 bayesian foundation of the maxmin value for two-person zero-sum games

  • Sergiu Hart
  • Salvatore Modica
  • David Schmeidler
Research Articles

Abstract

A joint derivation of utility and value for two-person zero-sum games is obtained using a decision theoretic approach. Acts map states to consequences. The latter are lotteries over prizes, and the set of states is a product of two finite sets (m rows andn columns). Preferences over acts are complete, transitive, continuous, monotonie and certainty-independent (Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989)), and satisfy a new axiom which we introduce. These axioms are shown to characterize preferences such that (i) the induced preferences on consequences are represented by a von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function, and (ii) each act is ranked according to the maxmin value of the correspondingm × n utility matrix (viewed as a two-person zero-sum game). An alternative statement of the result deals simultaneously with all finite two-person zero-sum games in the framework of conditional acts and preferences.

Keywords

Utility Function Economic Theory Game Theory Theoretic Approach Alternative Statement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anscombe FJ, Aumann RJ (1963) A definition of subjective probability. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 34:199–205Google Scholar
  2. Aumann RJ, Maschler M (1972) Some thoughts on the minimax principle. Management Science 18, 5. Part II: 54–63Google Scholar
  3. Drèze JH (1987) Decision theory in moral hazard and state-dependent preferences. In: Drèze JH, Essays on Economic Decisions under Uncertainty, Cambridge University Press Ch 3 (23–89) is a revised version of “Les Fondements Logiques de l'Utilité Cardinale et de la Probabilité Subjective” in La Décision, 1961Google Scholar
  4. Ellsberg D (1956) Theory of the reluctant duelist. American Economic Review 46:909–923Google Scholar
  5. Gilboa I, Schmeidler D (1989) Maximin expected utility with a non-unique prior. Journal of Mathematical Economics 18:141–153Google Scholar
  6. Kami E, Schmeidler D (1991) Utility theory with uncertainty. Handbook of Mathematicals Economics, Vol IV, editors W Hildebrand and H Sonnenschein, North Holland 1763–1831Google Scholar
  7. McClennen EF (1976) Some formal problems with the von Neumann and Morgenstern theory of two-person, zero-sum games, I: The Direct Proof. Theory and Decision 7:1–28Google Scholar
  8. Mertens JF, Zamir S (1985) Formulation of bayesian analysis for games with incomplete information. International Journal of Game Theory 14:1–29Google Scholar
  9. von Neumann J (1928) Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele. Mathematische Annalen 100:295–320Google Scholar
  10. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Roth AE (1982) A note on the maxmin value of two-person, zero-sum games. Naval Research Logistic Quarterly Vol 29 3:521–527Google Scholar
  12. Savage LJ (1954) The foundations of statistics. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Schmeidler D (1989) Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica Vol 57:571–89. This contains the relevant part of “Nonadditive Probabilities and Convex Games”. Caress Working Paper 84-21, University of Pensylvania 1984Google Scholar
  14. Tijs SH (1981) A characterization of the value of zero-sum two-person games. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 28:153–156Google Scholar
  15. Vilkas EI (1963) Axiomatic definition of the value of a matrix game. Theory of Probability and its Applications 8:304–307Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergiu Hart
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Salvatore Modica
    • 5
  • David Schmeidler
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  3. 3.Center for RationalityThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  4. 4.Interactive Decision TheoryThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  5. 5.Facolta' di Economia, Istituto di Matematica per la R.O.Universita' di PalermoPalermoItaly
  6. 6.School of Mathematical SciencesTel Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael
  7. 7.The Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations