Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Batten College of Engineering and Technology, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2022 Sep 1;17(9):e0273961. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273961. eCollection 2022.
Although strategic coalition formation is traditionally modeled using cooperative game theory, behavioral game theorists have repeatedly shown that outcomes predicted by game theory are different from those generated by actual human behavior. To further explore these differences, in a cooperative game theory context, we experiment to compare the outcomes resulting from human participants' behavior to those generated by a cooperative game theory solution mechanism called the core partition. Our experiment uses an interactive simulation of a glove game, a particular type of cooperative game, to collect the participant's decision choices and their resultant outcomes. Two different glove games are considered, and the outputs from 62 trial games are analyzed. The experiment's outcomes show that core coalitions, which are coalitions in a core partition, are found in about 42% of games. Though this number may seem low, a trial's outcome is more complex than whether the human player finds a core coalition or not. Finding the core coalition depends on factors such as the other possible feasible solutions and the payoffs available from these solutions. These factors, and the complexity they generate, are discussed in the paper.
虽然传统上使用合作博弈论来对战略联盟形成进行建模,但行为博弈理论家一再表明,博弈论预测的结果与实际人类行为产生的结果不同。为了进一步探索这些差异,在合作博弈论背景下,我们进行实验比较人类参与者行为产生的结果与称为核心分区的合作博弈理论解决方案机制产生的结果。我们的实验使用手套游戏的交互模拟,一种特殊类型的合作游戏,来收集参与者的决策选择及其产生的结果。考虑了两种不同的手套游戏,并分析了 62 次试验游戏的输出。实验结果表明,在大约 42%的游戏中发现了核心联盟,即核心分区中的联盟。尽管这个数字看起来可能较低,但一次试验的结果比人类玩家是否找到核心联盟要复杂得多。找到核心联盟取决于其他可能的可行解决方案以及这些解决方案提供的收益等因素。本文讨论了这些因素及其产生的复杂性。