Predicting Behavior in Unstructured Bargaining with a Probability Distribution

In experimental tests of human behavior in unstructured bargaining games, typically many joint utility outcomes are found to occur, not just one. This suggests we predict the outcome of such a game as a probability distribution. This is in contrast to what is conventionally done (e.g, in the Nash bargaining solution), which is predict a single outcome. We show how to translate Nash’s bargaining axioms to provide a distribution over outcomes rather than a single outcome. We then prove that a subset of those axioms forces the distribution over utility outcomes to be a power-law distribution. Unlike Nash’s original result, our result holds even if the feasible set is finite. When the feasible set is convex and comprehensive, the mode of the power law distribution is the Harsanyi bargaining solution, and if we require symmetry it is the Nash bargaining solution. However, in general these modes of the joint utility distribution are not the experimentalist’s Bayesoptimal predictions for the joint utility. Nor are the bargains corresponding to the modes of those joint utility distributions the modes of the distribution over bargains in general, since more than one bargain may result in the same joint utility. After introducing distributional bargaining solution concepts, we show how an external regulator can use them to optimally design an unstructured bargaining scenario. Throughout we demonstrate our analysis in computational experiments involving flight rerouting negotiations in the National Airspace System. We emphasize that while our results are formulated for unstructured bargaining, they can also be used to make predictions for noncooperative games where the modeler knows the utility functions of the players over possible outcomes of the game, but does not know the move spaces the players use to determine those outcomes.

[1]  Mark Klein,et al.  Addressing stability issues in mediated complex contract negotiations for constraint-based, non-monotonic utility spaces , 2010, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[2]  H. Peters,et al.  WPO, COV and IIA bargaining solutions , 2006 .

[3]  E. Kalai Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons , 1977 .

[4]  J. Christopher Beck,et al.  A negotiation framework for linked combinatorial optimization problems , 2011, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[5]  G. Owen,et al.  Two-person bargaining: An experimental test of the Nash axioms , 1974 .

[6]  M. Herrero The nash program: Non-convex bargaining problems , 1989 .

[7]  Murat R. Sertel,et al.  Bargaining over a finite set of alternatives , 2007, Soc. Choice Welf..

[8]  Ken Binmore,et al.  Focal points and bargaining , 1993 .

[9]  Kagan Tumer,et al.  A multiagent approach to managing air traffic flow , 2010, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[10]  V. Smith,et al.  Bubbles, Crashes, and Endogenous Expectations in Experimental Spot Asset Markets , 1988 .

[11]  M. Mariotti Nash bargaining theory when the number of alternatives can be finite , 1998 .

[12]  Eckehard Olbrich,et al.  Hysteresis Effects of Changing Parameters of Noncooperative Games , 2010, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[13]  R. Baierlein Probability Theory: The Logic of Science , 2004 .

[14]  S. Hart,et al.  Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications , 1992 .

[15]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  AutoMed: an automated mediator for multi-issue bilateral negotiations , 2012, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[16]  Pinar Yolum,et al.  Learning opponent’s preferences for effective negotiation: an approach based on concept learning , 2010, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[17]  Steven Reece,et al.  On Similarities between Inference in Game Theory and Machine Learning , 2008, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[18]  A. Rubinstein,et al.  On the Interpretation of the Nash Bargaining Solution and Its Extension to Non-expected Utility Preferences , 1992 .

[19]  E. Kalai,et al.  OTHER SOLUTIONS TO NASH'S BARGAINING PROBLEM , 1975 .

[20]  Michael P. Wellman,et al.  Constrained automated mechanism design for infinite games of incomplete information , 2007, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[21]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Distribution-Valued Solution Concepts , 2013 .

[22]  S. Tijs,et al.  Probabilistic bargaining solutions , 1984 .

[23]  Ronen I. Brafman,et al.  On Partially Controlled Multi-Agent Systems , 1996, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[24]  Ronen I. Brafman,et al.  Learning to Coordinate Eciently: A Model-based Approach , 2003 .

[25]  M. Mariotti Extending Nash's Axioms to Nonconvex Problems , 1998 .

[26]  A. Roth,et al.  Game-Theoretic Models and the Role of Information in Bargaining , 1979 .

[27]  Naoki Yoshihara,et al.  Alternative characterizations of three bargaining solutions for nonconvex problems , 2006, Games Econ. Behav..

[28]  John P. Conley,et al.  An Extension of the Nash Bargaining Solution to Nonconvex Problems , 1996 .

[29]  M. Kaneko An extension of the Nash bargaining problem and the Nash social welfare function , 1980 .

[30]  J. Nash THE BARGAINING PROBLEM , 1950, Classics in Game Theory.

[31]  R. McKelvey,et al.  Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games , 1995 .

[32]  ปิยดา สมบัติวัฒนา Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction , 2013 .

[33]  Lin Zhou THE NASH BARGAINING THEORY WITH NON-CONVEX PROBLEMS , 1997 .

[34]  R. Selten,et al.  A Generalized Nash Solution for Two-Person Bargaining Games with Incomplete Information , 1972 .

[35]  Itai Ashlagi,et al.  On the Value of Correlation , 2005, UAI.

[36]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  Beyond equilibrium: predicting human behaviour in normal form games , 2010, AAAI.

[37]  T. Schelling,et al.  The Strategy of Conflict. , 1961 .

[38]  Ariel Rubinstein,et al.  A Course in Game Theory , 1995 .