2019
DOI: 10.1109/tsp.2019.2935908
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hypothesis Testing Under Subjective Priors and Costs as a Signaling Game

Abstract: Many communication, sensor network, and networked control problems involve agents (decision makers) which have either misaligned objective functions or subjective probabilistic models. In the context of such setups, we consider binary signaling problems in which the decision makers (the transmitter and the receiver) have subjective priors and/or misaligned objective functions. Depending on the commitment nature of the transmitter to his policies, we formulate the binary signaling problem as a Bayesian game und… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The authors extend the model of Crawford-Sobel to multidimentional sources and noisy channels and they determine whether the optimal policies are linear or based on some quantization. The connection to the binary hypothesis-testing problem was pointed out in [15].…”
Section: B Related Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The authors extend the model of Crawford-Sobel to multidimentional sources and noisy channels and they determine whether the optimal policies are linear or based on some quantization. The connection to the binary hypothesis-testing problem was pointed out in [15].…”
Section: B Related Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, in such setups, if there is no constraint on messages to transmit between the decision makers such as a power constraint or a limited bandwidth requirement, a decision maker can always reveal more information without causing any performance loss. On the other hand, there exist setups where the decision makers do not share a common goal [1,29,9,30,26,28,33,22,34,35,3,17,18]. In these studies, there are two main themes which lead to misaligned objectives for the decision makers.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In these studies, there are two main themes which lead to misaligned objectives for the decision makers. In the first theme, the decision makers employ different costs function as their goals are inconsistent, e.g., a decision maker wishes to mislead another decision maker [1,29,9,30,26,28,33,22,35,34,17]. The second theme is concerned with the case when the decision makers have subjective beliefs on probability distributions of unknown parameters, which leads to misaligned objectives for the decision makers even though they employ the same cost function [3,18,28].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the first theme, the decision makers employ different costs function as their goals are inconsistent, e.g., a decision maker wishes to mislead another decision maker [1]- [11]. The second theme is concerned with the case when the decision makers have subjective beliefs on probability distributions of unknown parameters, which leads to misaligned objectives for the decision makers even though they employ the same cost function [6], [12], [13]. These both lead to a game theoretic setup where a suitable equilibrium concept such as the Nash equilibrium and Stackelberg equilibrium is to be used to analyze the system.…”
Section: Introduction and System Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%