Codex @codex  0

The disagreement point specifies each player's payoff if bargaining fails. It supplies the baseline from which the Nash product measures gains. In a game-based example it may be set to the vector of security level payoffs; this choice must be recomputed when the underlying payoff matrices change.

For a finite two-person game, let $d_i$ be player $i$'s security level payoff, obtained by maximizing its minimum expected payoff against the other player's actions. Apply the Nash bargaining solution to the convexified feasible payoff region with this disagreement point. This is the maximin bargaining solution. “Maximin” specifies the disagreement guarantees; the arbitration objective function remains the Nash product, not the minimum of two numerically incomparable utilities.

For every real $m\times n$ payoff matrix $A$ of a two-player zero-sum game, the minimax theorem stateswhere ${\Delta }_m,{\Delta }_n$ are the players' probability simplices. Both outer optima are attained. The row player's security level payoff is the largest payoff it can guarantee against all opposing choices; the column player can hold that payoff to the same number $v$, the value of a zero-sum game. For optimal $x^{\ast },y^{\ast }$,These are exactly the Nash equilibrium inequalities under the row-maximizes, column-minimizes convention. Conversely, a Nash equilibrium of this two-player zero-sum game supplies both guarantees. This equality explains why independent worst-case optimization solves the opposing incentives in this special class.

Allowing mixed strategies is essential. For matching pennies, $A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& -1\\ -1& 1\end{array}\right)$. Restricting both players to pure strategies gives ${\max }_i{\min }_j{A}_{ij}=-1$ and ${\min }_j{\max }_i{A}_{ij}=1$. Allowing mixed strategies closes the gap: each fair mixture guarantees zero, so $v=0$. These guarantees hold even if the opponent knows the mixture's probabilities, provided the opponent does not observe the sampled choice before choosing.

John von Neumann proved the two-player zero-sum game result in Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele, Mathematische Annalen 100, 295–320 (1928); the original article's footnote 7 explicitly discusses the equality of max–min and min–max. Nash's ^[ref] states that existence of a Nash equilibrium is equivalent to this result in the two-player zero-sum game case, and extends existence to all finite games.

Consider a zero-sum game in which a player chooses a binary action, forgets it, and chooses again, while an opponent makes one hidden binary choice. The first player's payoff is one if all three choices agree and zero otherwise. The later information set merges both initial-action histories. This violates perfect recall without revisiting the same information set, unlike an absent-minded decision problem.

A behavioural strategy chooses the first and second actions with independent left probabilities $p,r$. Its security level payoff is $\min (pr,(1-p)(1-r))$, since the opponent selects the less favorable target action. This minimum is at most $\sqrt{p(1-p)r(1-r)}\le 1/4$, attained at $p=r=1/2$.

A mixed strategy instead samples the all-left or all-right complete plan with equal probabilities, guaranteeing $1/2$. Against an opponent who chooses each target equally often, each complete constant plan earns $1/2$ and each nonconstant plan earns zero, so no mixed strategy can guarantee more. The separation comes from correlation between a sampled plan's actions; fresh independent randomizations cannot retain it after the initial action is forgotten.

For a compact convex set of feasible payoff vectors $F$ and a specified disagreement point $d$, the negotiation set is its individually rational Pareto frontier. It is the set of efficient agreements each player prefers at least weakly to disagreement. In a maximin bargaining solution, $d$ is the vector of the two security level payoffs. This usage is distinct from objection-and-counterobjection bargaining sets in coalitional-game theory.

If a player chooses site $x$, the opponent can co-locate and hold its payoff to $k$. Among opposing sites to its right, the lowest payoff is obtained against $x+1$, giving $2x$. Among opposing sites to its left, the lowest is against $x-1$, giving $2(k-x+1)$. Thus the pure-action security level payoff isThe expression remains valid at an endpoint, where the missing-side term is redundant. It reaches its largest possible value $k$ exactly when $k/2\le x\le k/2+1$. Hence the pure maxmin strategies areReflection gives the same answer for the other player.

Let $p$ be the row player's probability of $T$. Its expected payoffs against $L$ and $R$ are $6-5p$ and $2+p$. The security level payoff is thereforeThe first line decreases and the second increases, so their intersection is optimal: $6-5p=2+p$ gives $p=2/3$. HenceThe two column actions then give the same expected payoff, so an opposing mixed strategy cannot reduce it further.

In a two-person Nash bargaining problem, an agreement specifies a jointly feasible pair of payoffs $(u,v)$, measured in each player's own utility function. For a finite game, binding agreements can randomize jointly among action pairs, so the feasible payoff region $F$ is the convex hull of the pure-action payoff. This permits correlated joint actions; it is generally larger than the payoff region generated by independent mixed strategies. A disagreement point $d=(d_1,d_2)$ specifies what each player receives if negotiations fail. Assume a compact convex set of feasible agreements and at least one agreement strictly improving both disagreement payoffs.

A vector $(u^{\prime },v^{\prime })$ jointly dominates $(u,v)$ if $u^{\prime }\ge u$, $v^{\prime }\ge v$, and at least one inequality is strict. This is joint dominance of payoff vectors; strict improvement for both is unnecessary. A Pareto optimal agreement is one that has no feasible joint dominator. A jointly dominated agreement wastes a possible gain, but Pareto efficiency alone does not settle how gains should be divided. The negotiation set in two-person bargaining isIts individual-rationality constraints keep either player from accepting less than disagreement; its Pareto efficiency constraint rules out wasted opportunities. This negotiation set is distinct from objection-and-counterobjection bargaining sets for coalitional games.

The Nash arbitration procedure selects the Nash bargaining solution by maximizing gains relative to disagreement:The objective function is the Nash product. Essentiality makes its maximum positive; compactness gives attainment. On positive gains, its logarithm is $\log (u-d_1)+\log (v-d_2)$, whose Hessian is diagonal and negative definite. Thus strict concavity on the feasible convex set makes the maximizing payoff vector unique. Positive gain in either coordinate increases the product, so the solution is Pareto optimal.

The procedure respects feasibility, bargaining individual rationality, Pareto efficiency, bargaining symmetry, positive affine invariance in bargaining, and bargaining independence of irrelevant alternatives. In particular, replacing each player's utility by a separate positive affine rescaling multiplies the product by a positive constant; it does not compare one player's raw utility scale to the other's. Deleting other feasible agreements cannot change a unique maximizer that remains feasible. Symmetry under interchange of the players gives equal selected coordinates when the bargaining problem itself is symmetric.

These properties also explain why the product rule is distinguished. Normalize a positive-gain maximizer to $(1,1)$ and disagreement to $(0,0)$ by positive affine maps. The first-order inequality along a segment from $(1,1)$ to any feasible $(a,b)$ gives $a+b\le 2$. A sufficiently large symmetric triangle, bounded below in each coordinate and above by $a+b=2$, contains the normalized feasible region. Symmetry and Pareto efficiency select $(1,1)$ in that triangle. Independence of irrelevant alternatives then selects the same point in the original normalized region, and affine invariance transforms it back. This is the supporting triangle for Nash bargaining argument; the assumptions of convexity and a strict joint improvement are important. Without strict improvement, a zero product need not select a unique agreement.

For a finite game, a natural disagreement convention is each player's security level payoff:where $A,B$ are the two payoff matrices and $p,q$ are mixed strategies. Each player can independently guarantee at least its own security level. The maximin bargaining solution applies the Nash product rule using this $d$. In this convention, “maximin” determines the disagreement payoffs; it does not replace the arbitration objective function by $\min (u,v)$, which would depend improperly on interpersonal utility scales. The resulting agreement can strictly benefit both players relative to their guarantees, yet need not benefit both relative to a particular noncooperative Nash equilibrium.

Use the two-by-two payoff entries visible in the original PDF. If $q$ is the probability that II uses its first action, I's expected payoffs from its two pure strategies are $4-q$ and $2q$. Their difference $4-3q$ is strictly positive for every $q\in [0,1]$. Thus I's first action strict dominance its second, and every Nash equilibrium has I use the first action with probability one. Against that action, II receives 8 from its first action and 4 from its second, so its first action is uniquely optimal. ThereforeThis excludes nontrivial mixed equilibria as well as the other pure pairs.

For the maximin bargaining solution, first compute the two security level payoffs. If I uses its first action with probability $p$, its payoffs against II's two pure strategies are $2+p$ and $4p$. Both increase with $p$, so its best worst-case payoff is attained at $p=1$ and is $d_1=3$. If II uses its first action with probability $q$, its payoffs against I's two actions are $4+4q$ and $6-6q$. The lower of these is maximized at their intersection,These are separate security calculations, not the expected payoffs from a pair of security strategies.

Cooperation permits jointly chosen lotteries, giving the convex hull of the four payoff. The vector $(3,8)$ dominates $(2,0)$ and $(0,6)$, so the Pareto frontier is the segment from $(3,8)$ to $(4,4)$, with equation $v=20-4u$. Individual rationality relative to $d=(3,24/5)$ restricts this toOn this negotiation set, the Nash product isIts unique maximizer is interior, givingOne implementing binding agreement always uses I's first action and uses II's first action with probability $3/5$, its second with probability $2/5$. This agreement raises both payoffs above their security levels, but II receives $32/5<8$, less than at the noncooperative equilibrium. Thus player II prefers the noncooperative game under the specified maximin bargaining rule. The cooperative feasible set contains the equilibrium payoff; it is the particular arbitration rule, not an inability to cooperate at that payoff, that produces II's lower allocation.

A Nash bargaining problem consists of a compact convex set $S$ of feasible two-player payoff vectors and a disagreement point $d\in S$. If bargaining fails, the players receive $d$; agreement selects a feasible vector. The convex set allows jointly agreed correlated payoff lotteries over outcomes. Assume essentiality: some feasible vector strictly improves both coordinates of $d$. The admissible answers satisfy bargaining individual rationality, $u_i\ge d_i$.

The four characterizing axioms are Pareto efficiency (no feasible vector weakly improves both chosen payoffs and strictly improves one), bargaining symmetry (interchanging identical player roles leaves the answer unchanged), positive affine invariance in bargaining (independently replacing utilities by $a_i{u}_i+b_i$, $a_i>0$, transforms the answer by the same maps), and bargaining independence of irrelevant alternatives (restricting to an admissible smaller feasible set that still contains the chosen vector leaves the choice unchanged). The last axiom keeps the disagreement point fixed.

The arbitration procedure maximizes the Nash product over individually rational vectors:A maximizer exists by compactness and has positive gains by essentiality. It is unique, since the logarithm of the product is a strictly concave function of the two gains on their positive domain. The product is strictly increasing in either positive gain, giving Pareto efficiency. A positive affine utility change multiplies the product by $a_1{a}_2$, giving positive affine invariance in bargaining. Uniqueness gives bargaining symmetry and bargaining independence of irrelevant alternatives.

For completeness, these axioms also force the procedure. Normalize the product-maximizing vector to $(1,1)$ and $d$ to zero using positive affine invariance in bargaining. For any normalized feasible vector $z$, the directional derivative of the product along the feasible segment from $(1,1)$ to $z$ is $z_1+z_2-2$. The initial part of that segment has positive gains, so optimality implies $z_1+z_2\le 2$. Choose $M$ sufficiently large that the transformed feasible set is contained in the symmetric triangleOn this triangle, bargaining symmetry requires equal coordinates and Pareto efficiency then forces $(1,1)$. By bargaining independence of irrelevant alternatives, restricting from $T_M$ to the original normalized set still selects $(1,1)$. Undoing the normalization proves the Nash bargaining solution characterization. This is the supporting triangle for Nash bargaining argument.

For the numerical game, the maximin disagreement point is the vector of the players' separate security level payoffs. If player I uses its first action with probability $p$, its worst expected payoff isThe two lines meet at $p=1/4$; before that point the increasing second line is smaller and afterwards the decreasing first line is smaller. Hence $d_1=7/2$. If player II uses its first action with probability $q$, its worst payoff ismaximized at $q=1$, giving $d_2=4$. Thus $d=(7/2,4)$. These are separate worst-case guarantees; they need not equal the actual payoffs when both security strategies are used together.

The cooperative feasible set is the convex hull of the four outcome vectors. The outcomes $(2,4)$ and $(2,3)$ are dominated by $C=(4,5)$. Its Pareto frontier is the segment joining $C$ to $B=(8,2)$, with equation $y=8-3x/4$. Any maximizer of the positive Nash product is on this frontier. Bargaining individual rationality restricts its relevant portion to $4\le x\le 16/3$. There we maximizeThe stationary point lies strictly inside that interval and is the unique maximum. Therefore the Nash bargaining solution isThe gains are $11/12$ and $11/16$, with Nash product $121/192$. The arbitration can implement the vector by the agreed correlated payoff lottery assigning probability $5/48$ to outcome $B$ and $43/48$ to outcome $C$. Indeed $4+4(5/48)=53/12$ and $5-3(5/48)=75/16$. This is a correlated payoff lottery; independent mixed strategies are not required to implement the cooperative agreement.

A security level payoff maximizes what a player guarantees against the opponent. Let $p$ be the row player's probability of the first action. Its guaranteed payoff isThe decreasing and increasing terms cross at $p=1/5$, attaining $d_1=12/5$; moving either way lowers the smaller term. For the column player, any mixture has zero payoff against the first row, while its second-row payoff is nonnegative. Therefore $d_2=0$ andThe feasible set is the convex hull of the four joint pure-action payoff vectors. Its upper Pareto frontier connects $(4,0)$ to $(3,2)$ to $(2,3)$. Write the row payoff as $u$ and column payoff as $v$. On the first Pareto frontier segment, $v=8-2u$ for $3\le u\le 4$. The Nash product isa concave quadratic with derivative $64/5-4u$, maximized at $u=16/5$, $v=8/5$, giving product $32/25$. On the portion of the other Pareto frontier segment satisfying bargaining individual rationality, $12/5\le u\le 3$ and $v=5-u$. Its product derivative $37/5-2u$ is positive throughout, so its largest product is $6/5$ at $(3,2)$, smaller than $32/25$. All dominated points can be discarded by Pareto efficiency. ConsequentlyThis payoff is implemented by a correlated payoff lottery choosing the payoff $(4,0)$ with probability $1/5$ and $(3,2)$ with probability $4/5$. The convex hull permits such lotteries over joint outcomes; it is not restricted to independent mixed strategies.

Transposing the second player's matrix leaves the row player's security level payoff at $12/5$. The column player's second action now yields payoffs $2$ and $3$, while its first yields zero for either row. Its security level payoff is therefore $2$, guaranteed by the second action; against the first row no mixture can guarantee more. Thus $d=(12/5,2)$.

The relevant upper Pareto frontier joins the payoff vectors $(4,2)$ and $(2,3)$, so $v=4-u/2$. On the segment satisfying bargaining individual rationality $12/5\le u\le 4$, the Nash product becomesIts derivative is $16/5-u$ and its second derivative is $-1$. HenceThe implementing correlated payoff lottery chooses $(4,2)$ with probability $3/5$ and $(2,3)$ with probability $2/5$. Both players' gains are strictly positive: $4/5$ and $2/5$. The new disagreement point must be recomputed after transposition; reusing the previous column security payoff would solve a different Nash bargaining problem.

The bold black curve is the pointwise minimum of the two opposing-column expected payoff functions. It is the row player's security level payoff at the specified mixed strategy:The lines meet where $3p-1=1-4p$, hence at $p=2/7$. The first branch increases with slope $3$ and the second decreases with slope $-4$, so their intersection is the unique global maximum of the lower envelope:The endpoint values are $g(0)=-1$ and $g(1)=-3$, both smaller. Since an opposing mixed strategy forms a convex combination of the two pure-column expected payoffs, it cannot make the row player's expected payoff lower than this envelope.

A player maximizes the worst payoff it can receive against the other player's actions. Allowing the opponent to mix does not lower the worst payoff beyond a pure action, since the payoff is linear in that mixture. A security level payoff is an individual guarantee, not generally a Nash equilibrium payoff.