-
Bargaining via Weber's law
Authors:
V. G. Bardakhchyan,
A. E. Allahverdyan
Abstract:
We solve the two-player bargaining problem employing Weber's law in psychophysics, which is applied to the perception of utility changes. Using this law, the players define the jointly acceptable range of utilities on the Pareto line, which narrows down the range of possible solutions. Choosing a unique solution can be achieved by applying the Weber approach iteratively. The solution is covariant…
▽ More
We solve the two-player bargaining problem employing Weber's law in psychophysics, which is applied to the perception of utility changes. Using this law, the players define the jointly acceptable range of utilities on the Pareto line, which narrows down the range of possible solutions. Choosing a unique solution can be achieved by applying the Weber approach iteratively. The solution is covariant to independent affine transformations of utilities. We provide a behavioral interpretation of this solution, where the players negotiate via Weber's law. For susceptible players, iterations are unnecessary, so they converge in one stage toward the (axiomatic) asymmetric Nash solution of the bargaining problem, where the weights of each player are expressed via their Weber constants. Thus the Nash solution is reached without external arbiters and without requiring the independence of irrelevant alternatives. We also show that our solution applies to the ultimatum game (which is not bargaining but still involves offer formation) and leads to an affine-covariant solution of this game that can reproduce its empirical features. Unlike previous solutions (e.g. the one based on fairness), ours does not involve comparing inter-personal utilities and is based on a partial symmetry between the proposer and respondent.
△ Less
Submitted 12 January, 2025; v1 submitted 5 August, 2024;
originally announced August 2024.
-
Ultimatum game: regret or fairness?
Authors:
Lida H. Aleksanyan,
Armen E. Allahverdyan,
Vardan G. Bardakhchyan
Abstract:
In the ultimatum game, the challenge is to explain why responders reject non-zero offers thereby defying classical rationality. Fairness and related notions have been the main explanations so far. We explain this rejection behavior via the following principle: if the responder regrets less about losing the offer than the proposer regrets not offering the best option, the offer is rejected. This pr…
▽ More
In the ultimatum game, the challenge is to explain why responders reject non-zero offers thereby defying classical rationality. Fairness and related notions have been the main explanations so far. We explain this rejection behavior via the following principle: if the responder regrets less about losing the offer than the proposer regrets not offering the best option, the offer is rejected. This principle qualifies as a rational punishing behavior and it replaces the experimentally falsified classical rationality (the subgame perfect Nash equilibrium) that leads to accepting any non-zero offer. The principle is implemented via the transitive regret theory for probabilistic lotteries. The expected utility implementation is a limiting case of this. We show that several experimental results normally prescribed to fairness and intent-recognition can be given an alternative explanation via rational punishment; e.g. the comparison between "fair" and "superfair", the behavior under raising the stakes etc. Hence we also propose experiments that can distinguish these two scenarios (fairness versus regret-based punishment). They assume different utilities for the proposer and responder. We focus on the mini-ultimatum version of the game and also show how it can emerge from a more general setup of the game.
△ Less
Submitted 7 November, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
-
Regret theory, Allais' Paradox, and Savage's omelet
Authors:
Vardan G. Bardakhchyan,
Armen E. Allahverdyan
Abstract:
We study a sufficiently general regret criterion for choosing between two probabilistic lotteries. For independent lotteries, the criterion is consistent with stochastic dominance and can be made transitive by a unique choice of the regret function. Together with additional (and intuitively meaningful) super-additivity property, the regret criterion resolves the Allais' paradox including the cases…
▽ More
We study a sufficiently general regret criterion for choosing between two probabilistic lotteries. For independent lotteries, the criterion is consistent with stochastic dominance and can be made transitive by a unique choice of the regret function. Together with additional (and intuitively meaningful) super-additivity property, the regret criterion resolves the Allais' paradox including the cases were the paradox disappears, and the choices agree with the expected utility. This superadditivity property is also employed for establishing consistency between regret and stochastic dominance for dependent lotteries. Furthermore, we demonstrate how the regret criterion can be used in Savage's omelet, a classical decision problem in which the lottery outcomes are not fully resolved. The expected utility cannot be used in such situations, as it discards important aspects of lotteries.
△ Less
Submitted 6 January, 2023;
originally announced January 2023.
-
Hellinger distance to normal distribution as market invariant
Authors:
Mesrop T. Mesropyan,
Vardan G. Bardakhchyan
Abstract:
Main purpose of distance based portfolio constructions is in portfolio imitation. Here we construct portfolio based on Hellinger distance from normal distribution. We empirically found that minimum of this distance drastically varies from market to market. Thus we suppose that it may be regarded as a form of market invariant, in a sense of helpful tool for market segmentation. We analyze its sensi…
▽ More
Main purpose of distance based portfolio constructions is in portfolio imitation. Here we construct portfolio based on Hellinger distance from normal distribution. We empirically found that minimum of this distance drastically varies from market to market. Thus we suppose that it may be regarded as a form of market invariant, in a sense of helpful tool for market segmentation. We analyze its sensitivity. Though mean sensitivity was small it showed extreme sensitivity in some cases.
△ Less
Submitted 12 June, 2022;
originally announced June 2022.
