skip to main content
10.1145/1562814.1562844acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagestarkConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Dynamic restriction of choices: a preliminary logical report

Authors Info & Claims
Published:06 July 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

We study games in which the choices available to players are not fixed, and may change during the course of play. Specifically, we consider a model in which players may switch strategies, and a global (social) decision may remove some choices, based on the strategies being adopted by players. We propose a logical formalism in which such choices are specified, and a model of bounded memory strategies in which the eventual implications of such choices can be computed, and present preliminary results.

References

  1. {AHK02} Rajeev Alur, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Orna Kupferman. Alternating-time temporal logic. Journal of ACM, 49(5):672--713, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. {Ben01} J. van Benthem. Games in dynamic epistemic logic. Bulletin of Economic Research, 53(4):219--248, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. {Ben02} J. van Benthem. Extensive games as process models. Journal of Logic Language and Information, 11:289--313, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. {Ben07} J. van Benthem. In praise of strategies. In J. van Eijck and R. Verbrugge, editors, Foundations of Social Software, Studies in Logic, pages 283--317. College Publications, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. {Bon02} G. Bonanno. Modal logic and game theory: Two alternative approaches. Risk Decision and Policy, 7:309--324, December 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. {BS99} K. Binmore and L. Samuelson. Evolutionary drift and equilibrium selection. Review of Economic Studies, 66:363--393, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. {Gho08} S. Ghosh. Strategies made explicit in dynamic game logic. In Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. {HJW05} Wiebe van der Hoek, Wojciech Jamroga, and Michael Wooldridge. A logic for strategic reasoning. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pages 157--164, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. {HK03} Takashi Hashimoto and Yuya Kumagai. Meta-evolutionary game dynamics for mathematical modelling of rules dynamics. In Advances in Artificial Life, volume 2801 of LNCS, pages 107--117. Springer, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. {Hor05} Ulrich Horst. Dynamic systems of social interactions. In NSF/CEME Mathematical Economics Conference at Berkeley, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. {HW03} Wiebe van der Hoek and Michael Wooldridge. Cooperation, knowledge, and time: Alternating-time temporal epistemic logic and its applications. Studia Logica, 75(1):125--157, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. {JHW05} Wojciech Jamroga, Wiebe van der Hoek, and Michael Wooldridge. Intentions and strategies in game-like scenarios. In Multi-agent Systems: Theory and Applications, volume 3808 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 512--523, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. {PRS09} S. Paul, R. Ramanujam, and S. Simon. Stability under strategy switching. In Proceedings of Computability in Europe 2009 (to appear), 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. {PW07} W. R. Parke and G. A. Waters. An evolutionary game theory explanation of ARCH effects. Journal of Economic Dynamic and Control, 31:2234--2262, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. {PY93} H Peyton Young. The evolution of conventions. Econometrica, 61(1):57--84, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. {PY00} H Peyton Young. The diffusion of innovations in social networks. Economics Working Paper Archive 437, The Johns Hopkins University, Department of Economics, May 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. {RS08} R. Ramanujam and S. Simon. Dynamic logic on games with structured strategies. In Proceedings of the Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 49--58, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. {SP00} Brian Skyrms and Robin Pemantle. A dynamic model of social network formation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(16):9340--9346, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. {VV00} Marina De Vos and Dirk Vermeir. A logic for modeling decision making with dynamic preferences. In Proceedings of the Logic in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA), volume 1919 of LNAI, pages 391--406, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. {VV02} Marina De Vos and Dirk Vermeir. Dynamic decision-making in logic programming and game theory. In Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 36--47, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. {Wei97} Joergen W. Weibull. Evolutionary Game Theory. MIT Press, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Dynamic restriction of choices: a preliminary logical report

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Other conferences
              TARK '09: Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge
              July 2009
              272 pages
              ISBN:9781605585604
              DOI:10.1145/1562814

              Copyright © 2009 Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 6 July 2009

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              TARK '09 Paper Acceptance Rate29of77submissions,38%Overall Acceptance Rate61of177submissions,34%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader