Citations


Contact Us

For Marketing, Sales and Subscriptions Inquiries
2637 E Atlantic Blvd #43110
Pompano Beach, FL 33062
USA

Conference List

Games Review

June 2015, Volume 1, 1, pp 11-28

Agent-Based Simulation of Contribution Games

Miklos N. Szilagyi

Miklos N. Szilagyi 1

  1. Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA 1

on Google Scholar
on PubMed

Pages: 11-28

DOI: 10.18488/journal.100/2015.1.1/100.1.11.28

Share :


Abstract:

Agent-based simulation was performed for various contribution games. The amount of contribution can be constant or variable and the first few contributions are less, more, or equally important than the last few. We found that the results strongly depend on the participating agents’ personalities. Two types of personalities were investigated: Pavlovian and greedy. Our simple formula (Equation 2) provides valuable information about the outcomes of N-person games for Pavlovian agents.



Contribution/ Originality
This study uses a new approach to the study of contribution games and provides new results.

Keywords:


Video:

Reference:

  1. Anderson, J.M., 1974. A model for the tragedy of the commons. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: 103–105.
  2. Bagnoli, M. and B.L. Lipman, 1989. Provision of public goods: Fully implementing the core through private contributions. Review of Economic Studies, 56: 583–601.
  3. Duffy, J., J. Ochs and L. Vesterlund, 2007. Giving little by little: Dynamic voluntary contribution games. Journal of Public Economics, 91: 1708–1730.
  4. Gale, D., 2001. Monotone games with positive spillovers. Games and Economic Behavior, 37: 295–320.
  5. Goehring, D.J. and J.P. Kahan, 1976. The uniform N-person prisoner’s dilemma game. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 20(1): 111–128.
  6. Hamburger, H., 1973. N-person prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 3: 27–48.
  7. Hamburger, H., 1979. Games as models of social phenomena. W. H. Freeman.
  8. Hardin, G., 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162: 1243– 1248.
  9. Lockwood, B. and J.P. Thomas, 2002. Gradualism and irreversibility. Review of Economic Studies, 69: 339–356.
  10. Matthews, S.A., 2013. Achievable outcomes of dynamic contribution games. Theoretical Economics, 8: 365-403.
  11. Nowak, M.A. and R.M. May, 1992. Evolutionary games and spacial chaos. Nature, 359: 826-829.
  12. Schelling, T.C., 1973. Hockey helmets, concealed weapons, and daylight saving. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17(3): 381-428.
  13. Szilagyi, M.N., 2003a. An investigation of N-person prisoner's dilemmas. Complex Systems, 14: 155-174.
  14. Szilagyi, M.N., 2003b. Simulation of multi-agent prisoners dilemmas. Systems Analysis Modeling Simulation, 43(6): 829-846.
  15. Szilagyi, M.N., 2012. Analytical solutions of N-person games. Complexity, 17(4): 54-62.
  16. Szilagyi, M.N. and Z.C. Szilagyi, 2000. A tool for simulated social experiments. Simulation, 74: 4-10.
  17. Szilagyi, M.N. and Z.C. Szilagyi, 2002. Nontrivial solutions to the N-person prisoner's dilemma. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 19(3): 281-290.
  18. Weil, R.L., 1966. The N-person prisoner’s dilemma: Some theory and a computer-oriented approach. Behavioral Science, 11: 227–234.

Statistics:

Google Scholor ideas Microsoft Academic Search bing Google Scholor

Funding:

Competing Interests:

Acknowledgement:


Related Article