{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024817518248175182, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.411214953271028, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Experimental Evaluation of Strategic Preemption

This paper reports the results of a series of two-stage, two-person non-cooperative games where one player can strategically preempt the other. In one of our designs, the subgame perfect equilibrium entails complete preemption; in the other, it entails partial preemption. Logit analysis indicates that players tend to completely preempt when it is optimal. However, when partial preemption is optimal, a non-trivial fraction of players persist in choosing the non-preemptive structure. This may result because of occasional irrational behavior following preemptive play, which induces some dominant agents to play less aggressively.