Article Contents
Article Contents

# Game theory and dynamic programming in alternate games

• * Corresponding author
The first author is supported by the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACyT) and the National University of Mexico (UNAM).
• We present an analysis of different classes of alternate games from different perspectives, including game theory, logic, bounded rationality and dynamic programming. In this paper we review some of these approaches providing a methodological framework which combines ideas from all of them, but emphasizing dynamic programming and game theory. In particular we study the relationship between games in discrete and continuous time and state space and how the latter can be understood as the limit of the former. We show how in some cases the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation for the discrete version of the game leads to a corresponding HJB partial differential equation for the continuous case and how this procedure allow us to obtain useful information about optimal strategies. This analysis yields another way to compute subgame perfect equilibrium.

Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 91A25, 91B06; Secondary: 91B50.

 Citation:

• Figure 1.  Full game tree of dominoes

Figure 2.  Collapsed game tree for dominoes

Figure 3.  Full game tree for Jehiel's example

Figure 4.  Collapsed game tree for Jehiel's example

Figure 5.  Counting paths

Figure 6.  Two squared grids $5\times5$ and $10\times10$

Figure 7.  Two rectangular grids $5\times10$ and $10\times5$

•  [1] A. Baltag and S. Smets, Keep changing your beliefs, aiming for the truth, Erkenntnis, 75 (2011), 255-270.  doi: 10.1007/s10670-011-9294-y. [2] E. Espinosa-Avila and F. Hernández-Quiroz, Bounded rationality in a dynamic alternate game, Proceedings of TARK'13 Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, 2013, 71{ 77. [3] L. C. Evans, Partial Differential Equations, American Mathematical Society, Second Edition, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Volume: 19, Providence, RI, 2010. doi: 10.1090/gsm/019. [4] D. Fernández-Duque, E. Espinosa-Avila and F. Hern´andez-Quiroz A logic for bounded rationality, Proceeding of the short presentations of Advances in Modal Logics, AiML'14, 2014, 34-38. [5] IBM DeepBlue, What are the differences between last year's rendition of Deep Blue and this year's model?, IBM DeepBlue faq https://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/meet/html/d.3.3a.html IBM. Retrieved Aug 29,2016. [6] IBM DeepQA, What kind of technology is Watson based on?, DeepQA faq https://www.research.ibm.com/deepqa/faq.shtml IBM. Retrieved Aug 29,2016. [7] P. Jehiel, Limited horizon forecast in repeated alternate games, Journal of Economic Theory, 67 (1995), 497-519.  doi: 10.1006/jeth.1995.1082. [8] T. A. Marsland and Y. Björnsson, From minimax to manhattan, Proceedings of Deep Blue Versus Kasparov: The Significance for Artificial Intelligence, Collected Papers from the 1997 AAAI Workshop, (1997), 31-36. [9] V. Mirrokni, N. Thain and A. Vetta, A theoretical examination of practical game playing: Lookahead search, SAGT'12 Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Algorithmic Game Theory, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 7615 (2012), 251-262. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-33996-7_22. [10] R. Parikh, L. S. Moss and C. Steinsvold, Topology and epistemic logic, Handbook of Spatial Logics, (2007), 299-341.  doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5587-4_6. [11] D. K. Smith, Dynamic programming and board games: A survey, European Journal of Operational Research, 176 (2007), 1299-1318.  doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.10.026.

Figures(7)