Learning in “Do-It-Yourself Lottery” with Full Information: A Computational Study

Conference paper
Part of the Agent-Based Social Systems book series (ABSS, volume 10)

Abstract

We study the kind of dynamics players using a belief-based learning model lead to in Barrow’s “do-it-yourself lottery” by an agent-based computational economics approach. The lottery is that players choose a positive integer that is expected to be the smallest, but no one else chooses. For this purpose, we consider a simple game form in which every player knows all players’ submissions at the time of their decision making. We use computer simulations to change the game setup and the parameters of the learning model. Our main findings are twofold: First, the distributions of the submitted and winning integers are different from those in equilibrium in many cases. Second, the game patterns are contingent upon the two parameters in the learning model and the game setup itself: While a lower-sensitivity parameter value often leads to a somewhat randomized behavior, in the case of a higher-sensitivity parameter, the collective behavior is either a single pattern or plural ones.

Keywords

Agent-based Computational economics Behavioral game Mixed-strategyequilibrium Belief-based learning 

References

  1. 1.
    Barrow JD (2008) 100 essential things you didn’t know you didn’t know. Bodley Head, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beggs AW (2005) On the convergence of reinforcement learning. J Econ Theor 122:1–36MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bottazzi G, Devetag G (2003) A laboratory experiment on the minority game. Phys A 324:124–132MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brenner T (2006) Agent learning representation: advice on modelling economic learning. In: Tesfatsion L, Judd KL (eds) Handbook of computational economics: agent-based computational economics, North-Holland, Amsterdam, vol 2. pp 895–947Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Camerer CF (2003) Behavioral game theory: experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton University Press, PrincetonMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Challet D, Zhang Y-C (1997) Emergence of cooperation and organization in an evolutionary game. Phys A 246:407–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Challet D, Zhang Y-C (1998) On the minority game: analytical and numerical studies. Phys A 256:514–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheung YW, Friedman D (1997) Individual learning in normal form games: some laboratory results. Game Econ Behav 19:46–76MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duffy J (2006) Agent-based models and human subject experiments. In: Tesfatsion L, Judd KL (eds) Handbook of computational economics: agent-based computational economics, North-Holland, Amsterdam, vol 2. pp. 949–1012Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duffy J, Nagel R (1997) On the robustness of behavior in experimental “beauty contest” games. Econ J 107:1684–1700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fudenberg D, Levine DK (1998) The theory of learning in games. MIT Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ho T-H, Camerer CF, Weigelt K (1998) Iterated dominance and iterated best response in experimental “p-beauty contests.” Am Econ Rev 88:947–969Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hopkins E (2002) Two competing models of how people learn in games. Econometrica 70:2141–2166MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jordan JS (1993) Three problems in learning mixed-strategy Nash equilibria. Game Econ Behav 5:368–386MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Judd KL (2006) Computationally intensive analyses in economics. In: Tesfatsion L, Judd KL (eds) Handbook of computational economics: agent-based computational economics, North-Holland, Amsterdam, vol 2. pp 881–893Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nagel R (1995) Unraveling in guessing games: an experimental study. Am Econ Rev 85:1313–1326Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nagel R (2008) Experimental beauty contest games: levels of reasoning and convergence to equilibrium. In: Plott CR, Smith VL (eds) Handbook of experimental economics results, North-Holland, Amsterdam, vol 1. pp 391–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nyarko Y, Schotter A (2002) An experimental study of belief learning using elicited beliefs. Econometrica 70:971–1005MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Östling R, Wang T-YJ, Chou EY, Camerer CF (2011) Testing game theory in the field: Swedish LUPI lottery games. Am Econ J: Microeconomics 3:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vriend NJ (2006) ACE models of endogenous interactions. In: Tesfatsion L, Judd KL (eds) Handbook of computational economics: agent-based computational economics, North-Holland, Amsterdam, vol 2. pp 1047–1079Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Winkler P (2004) Mathematical puzzles: a connoisseur’s collection. A K Peters, Natick, MAMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yamada T, Terano T (2010) Barrow’s “do-it-yourself lottery” in agent-based computational economics: a simple study. In: 16th International Conference on Computing in Economics and Finance (CEF 2010) 59Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yamada T, Terano T (2010) A simple strategy experiment in Barrow’s “do-it-yourself lottery.” In: 3rd World Congress on Social Simulation (WCSS 2010) CD-ROMGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yamada T, Terano T (2011) Learning in “do-it-yourself lottery” with aggregate information: a computational study. In: 7th International Conference of the European Social Simulation Association (ESSA 2011) CD-ROMGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computational Intelligence and Systems Science, Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Science and EngineeringTokyo Institute of TechnologyYokohamaJapan

Personalised recommendations