Game Theory: Superadditivity & Imputation Explained

AI Thread Summary
Superadditivity in game theory refers to a situation where the value of a coalition of players exceeds the sum of their individual values, indicating that collaboration yields greater benefits. Imputation is a payoff vector linked to the outcomes of cooperative games, where multiple imputations can correspond to a single coalition. The discussion also touches on the Prisoner's Dilemma, highlighting that in non-cooperative games, each player's strategy is based solely on their own utility without interaction, leading to a dominant strategy of confessing. This raises questions about the implications of cooperative versus non-cooperative assumptions in strategic decision-making. Understanding these concepts is essential for analyzing outcomes in both cooperative and non-cooperative game scenarios.
bigjoe5263
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Hi,

In a n-person game theory.. I have encountered these terms, superadditivity and imputation, however i do not understand much their definition. Anyone have a simple explanation to this terms?

Somebody here knows where can I find a dictionary of mathematical expressions/equations in game theory?

thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you explain the context? Does it involve cooperative games (e.g. Shapley)?

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-22625

For example, a cooperative game may be called superadditive if the value (payoff) of a coalition that consists of two players is greater than the sum of the individual values (payoffs) for each of the two players: V(a + b) > V(a) + V(b). See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superadditive

In the same context, an imputation is a payoff vector associated with a possible outcome. In a cooperative game, an outcome is a coalition; more than one imputations may correspond to a coalition. The Britannica article has some examples.

A good starting point for game theory is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yes it involves cooperative games, the shapely value and the core of an n-person game theory...

Just one question on the prisoners dilemma non constant sum game and non-cooperative...the equilibrium is both of them confess but it confuses me because i think when one of them change the strategy the other one will benefit...??
 
That's why you should be careful whether you are operating under "cooperative" assumptions or "non-cooperative" (competitive) assumptions.

Prisoner's Dilemma (P.D.) is a classic example in non-coop. theory. Each prisoner is assumed to care about his/her utility (payoff) only; they are not allowed to interact; there are no side payments; and there are no "future payoffs." Each prisoner will first ask: "if the other prisoner confesses, am I better off confessing or not confessing?" He will find out that he is better off confessing. Then the same prisoner will ask: "if the other one does not confess, am I better off confessing or not confessing?" Again he will find out that he is better off confessing. He will conclude that he is better off confessing regardless of what the other one does.
 
Last edited:
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top