An axiomatic analysis of the Nash equilibrium concept

The purpose of this paper is to analyze axiomatically the Nash equilibrium concept. The class of games under study is a (relatively large) subclass of n-person normal form games. Solutions are correspondences which associate to each game a non empty set of strategy vectors of this game. It is shown that if a solution satisfies the axioms Independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) and Individual rationality (IR), then all the strategy vectors in this solution are Nash equilibria. This result holds good also if IR is replaced by Strong individual monotonicity (SIM) or Weak principle of fair compromise (WPFC).     

Endogenous correlated equilibria in noncooperative games

Most of the results of modern game theory presuppose that the choices rational agents make in noncooperative games are probabilistically independent. In this paper I argue that there is noa priori reason for rational agents to assume probabilistic independence. I introduce a solution concept for noncooperative games called anendogenous correlated equilibrium, which generalizes the Nash equilibrium concept by dropping probabilistic independence. I contrast the endogenous correlated equilibrium with the correlated equilibrium defined by Aumann (1974, 1987). I conclude that in general the endogenous correlated equilibrium concept is a more appropriate solution concept for noncooperative game theory than the less general Nash equilibrium concept. I close by discussing the relationship between endogenous correlated equilibrium and the game solution concept calledrationalizability introduced by Bernheim (1984) and Pearce (1984).     

LEXICOGRAPHIC ADDITIVITY FOR MULTI-ATTRIBUTE PREFERENCES ON FINITE SETS

Payoff dominance, a criterion for choosing between equilibrium points in games, is intuitively compelling, especially in matching games and other games of common interests, but it has not been justified from standard game-theoretic rationality assumptions. A psychological explanation of it is offered in terms of a form of reasoning that we call the Stackelberg heuristic in which players assume that their strategic thinking will be anticipated by their co-player(s). Two-person games are called Stackelberg-soluble if the players' strategies that maximize against their co-players' best replies intersect in a Nash equilibrium. Proofs are given that every game of common interests is Stackelberg-soluble, that a Stackelberg solution is always a payoff-dominant outcome, and that in every game with multiple Nash equilibria a Stackelberg solution is a payoff-dominant equilibrium point. It is argued that the Stackelberg heuristic may be justified by evidentialist reasoning.     

Are game theoretic concepts suitable negotiation support tools? From Nash equilibrium refinements toward a cognitive concept of rationality

If game theory is to be used as a negotiation support tool, it should be able to provide unambiguous recommendations for a target to aim at and for actions to reach this target. This need cannot be satisfied with the Nash equilibrium concept, based on the standard instrumental concept of rationality. These equilibria, as is well known, are generally multiple in a game. The concept of substantive or instrumental rationality has proved to be so pregnant, however, that researchers, instead of re-evaluating its use in game theory, have simply tried to design concepts related to the Nash equilibrium, but with the property of being unique in a game — i.e., they have devised ways ofselecting among Nash equilibria. These concepts have been labeledrefined Nash equilibria. The purpose of this paper is to show the following.

1. The different types of refined Nash equilibria, based on the principle of backward induction, can lead to severe contradictions within the framework itself. This makes these concepts utterly unsatisfactory and calls for a new appraisal of the reasoning process of the players.
2. The degree of confidence in the principle of backward induction depends upon the evaluation of potential deviations with respect to the extended Nash equilibrium concept used and upon the possible interpretations of such deviations by the different players. Our goal is to show that the nature of these possible interpretations reinforces the argument that a serious conceptual reappraisal is necessary.
3. Some form of forward induction should then become the real yardstick of rationality, extending Simonianprocedural rationality towards the concept ofcognitive rationality. This could open the way to a renewed game theoretic approach to negotiation support systems. Such a research program, which would be a revision of the basic game theoretic concepts, is dealt with in the end of the paper.

     

Indefinitely repeated games: A response to Carroll

In a recent volume of this journal John Carroll argued that there exist only uncooperative equilibria in indefinitely repeated prisoner's dilemma games. We show that this claim depends on modeling such games as finitely but indefinitely repeated games, which reduce simply to finitely repeated games. We propose an alternative general model of probabilistically indefinitely repeated games, and discuss the appropriateness of each of these models of indefinitely repeated games.     

On the Effect of Risk Aversion in Bimatrix Games

Nash equilibria with identical supports are compared for bimatrix games that are different with respect to the risk aversion of player 2. For equilibria in 2× 2-bimatrix games and for equilibria with efficient supports in coordination games it is established for which cases increased risk aversion of player 2 benefits or hurts player 2.     

Two-Speed Evolution of Strategies and Preferences In Symmetric Games

Agents in a large population are randomly matched to play a certain game, payoffs in which represent fitness. Agents may have preferences that are different from fitness. They learn strategies according to their preferences, and evolution changes the preference distribution in the population according to fitness. When agents know the preferences of the opponent in a match, only efficient symmetric strategy profiles of the fitness game can be stable. When agents do not know the preferences of the opponent, only Nash equilibria of the fitness game can be stable. For 2 × 2 symmetric games I characterize preferences that are stable.Jel Codes: C72, A13     

CONGESTION MODELS AND WEIGHTED BAYESIAN POTENTIAL GAMES

Games associated with congestion situations à la Rosenthal (1973) have pure Nash equilibria. This result implicitly relies on the existence of a potential function. In this paper we provide a characterization of potential games in terms of coordination games and dummy games. Second, we extend Rosenthal's congestion model to an incomplete information setting, and show that the related Bayesian games are potential games and therefore have pure Bayesian equilibria.     

Strategic games with security and potential level players

This paper examines the existence of strategic solutions to finite normal form games under the assumption that strategy choices can be described as choices among lotteries where players have security- and potential level preferences over lotteries (e.g., Cohen, Theory and Decision, 33, 101–104, 1992, Gilboa, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 32, 405–420, 1988, Jaffray, Theory and Decision, 24, 169–200, 1988). Since security- and potential level preferences require discontinuous utility representations, standard existence results for Nash equilibria in mixed strategies (Nash, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36, 48–49, 1950a, Non-Cooperative Games, Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University Press, 1950b) or for equilibria in beliefs (Crawford, Journal of Economic Theory, 50, 127–154, 1990) do not apply. As a key insight this paper proves that non-existence of equilibria in beliefs, and therefore non-existence of Nash equilibria in mixed strategies, is possible in finite games with security- and potential level players. But, as this paper also shows, rationalizable strategies (Bernheim, Econometrica, 52, 1007–1028, 1984, Moulin, Mathematical Social Sciences, 7, 83–102, 1984, Pearce, Econometrica, 52, 1029–1050, 1984) exist for such games. Rationalizability rather than equilibrium in beliefs therefore appears to be a more favorable solution concept for games with security- and potential level players.      

Binary 2 × 2 games

The 2 × 2 game is the simplest interactive decision model that portrays concerned decision makers with genuine choices. There are two players, each of whom must choose one of two strategies, so that there are four possible outcomes. Binary 2 × 2 games are 2 × 2 games with no restrictions on the players' preference relations over the outcomes. They therefore generalize the strict ordinal 2 × 2 games and the ordinal 2 × 2 games, classes which have already been studied extensively. This paper enumerates the strategically distinct binary 2 × 2 games. It also identifies important subsets defined by the number of pure Nash equilibria and the occurrence of dominant strategies.     

Maximin play in completely mixed strategic games

Since the seminal paper of Nash (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 36:48–49, 1950) game theoretic literature has focused mostly on equilibrium and not on maximin (minimax) strategies. In a recent paper of Pruzhansky (Int J Game Theory 40:351–365, 2011) it was shown that under fairy general conditions maximin strategies in completely mixed games can guarantee the same expected payoff as completely mixed Nash equilibrium strategies. Based on this finding, the current paper argues that maximin strategies have important properties. For instance, maximin strategies may refine Nash equilibria in subjective mixed strategies. Further, Bayesian rationality of the players may favor maximin strategies more often than Nash equilibrium strategies. The paper concludes with several suggestions for further experimental research that may shed more light on whether maximin behavior can explain reality better than Nash equilibrium.     

On Hobbes’s state of nature and game theory

Hobbes’s state of nature is often analyzed in two-person two-action non-cooperative games. By definition, this literature only focuses on duels. Yet, if we consider general games, i.e., with more than two agents, analyzing Hobbes’s state of nature in terms of duel is not completely satisfactory, since it is a very specific interpretation of the war of all against all. Therefore, we propose a definition of the state of nature for games with an arbitrary number of players. We show that this definition coincides with the strategy profile considered as the state of nature in two-person games. Furthermore, we study what we call rational states of nature (that is, strategy profiles which are both states of nature and Nash equilibria). We show that in rational states of nature, the utility level of any agent is equal to his maximin payoff. We also show that rational states of nature always exist in inessential games. Finally, we prove the existence of states of nature in a class of (not necessarily inessential) symmetric games.     

Weakly continuous security and nash equilibrium

Theory and Decision - This paper investigates the existence of pure strategy Nash equilibria in discontinuous and nonquasiconcave games. We introduce a new notion of continuity, called weakly...     

Implementing equal division with an ultimatum threat

We modify the payment rule of the standard divide the dollar (DD) game by introducing a second stage and thereby resolve the multiplicity problem and implement equal division of the dollar in equilibrium. In the standard DD game, if the sum of players’ demands is less than or equal to a dollar, each player receives what he demanded; if the sum of demands is greater than a dollar, all players receive zero. We modify this second part, which involves a harsh punishment. In the modified game \((D\!D^{\prime })\) , if the demands are incompatible, then players have one more chance. In particular, they play an ultimatum game to avoid the excess. In the two-player version of this game, there is a unique subgame perfect Nash equilibrium in which players demand (and receive) an equal share of the dollar. We also provide an \(n\) -player extension of our mechanism. Finally, the mechanism we propose eliminates not only all pure strategy equilibria involving unequal divisions of the dollar, but also all equilibria where players mix over different demands in the first stage.     

Equilibria for far-sighted players

A new equilibrium concept for non-cooperative games, based on the assumptions that players are rational and far-sighted, is examined. An outcome is extended non-myopically (XNM) stable for a player if that player is assured that no movecountermove sequence he could initiate by departing unilaterally from that outcome would benefit him. The extended non-myopic (XNM) equilibria of a game, the outcomes which are XNM stable for each player, therefore model permanent (enduring) equilibria in an ongoing conflict.Algorithms for the identification of XNM equilibria in a 2 × 2 game are presented. The XNM concepts are then applied to three special classes of games (no-conflict games, games of complete opposition, and strict ordinal games) to compare their predictions of long-term stability with the known properties of games in these classes.Research supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Grant No. A8974.     

Strategic behavior under partial cooperation

We investigate how a group of players might cooperate with each other within the setting of a non-cooperative game. We pursue two notions of partial cooperative equilibria that follow a modification of Nash’s best response rationality rather than a core-like approach. Partial cooperative Nash equilibrium treats non-cooperative players and the coalition of cooperators symmetrically, while the notion of partial cooperative leadership equilibrium assumes that the group of cooperators has a first-mover advantage. We prove existence theorems for both types of equilibria. We look at three well-known applications under partial cooperation. In a game of voluntary provision of a public good we show that our two new equilibrium notions of partial cooperation coincide. In a modified Cournot oligopoly, we identify multiple equilibria of each type and show that a non-cooperator may have a higher payoff than a cooperator. In contrast, under partial cooperation in a symmetric Salop City game, a cooperator enjoys a higher return.     

Joint Beliefs in Conflictual Coordination Games

The traditional solution concept for noncooperative game theory is the Nash equilibrium, which contains an implicit assumption that players probability distributions satisfy t probabilistic independence. However, in games with more than two players, relaxing this assumption results in a more general equilibrium concept based on joint beliefs (Vanderschraaf, 1995). This article explores the implications of this joint-beliefs equilibrium concept for two kinds of conflictual coordination games: crisis bargaining and public goods provision. We find that, using updating consistent with Bayes rule, players beliefs converge to equilibria in joint beliefs which do not satisfy probabilistic independence. In addition, joint beliefs greatly expand the set of mixed equilibria. On the face of it, allowing for joint beliefs might be expected to increase the prospects for coordination. However, we show that if players use joint beliefs, which may be more likely as the number of players increases, then the prospects for coordination in these games declines vis-à-vis independent beliefs.     

Correlated strategies as Institutions

Two institutions that are often implicit or overlooked in noncooperative games are the assumption of Nash behavior to solve a game, and the ability to correlate strategies. We consider two behavioral paradoxes; one in which maximin behavior rules out all Nash equilibria (Chicken), and another in which minimax supergame behavior leads to an inefficient outcome in comparison to the unique stage game equilibrium (asymmetric Deadlock). Nash outcomes are achieved in both paradoxes by allowing for correlated strategies, even when individual behavior remains minimax or maximin. However, the interpretation of correlation as a public institution differs for each case.     

Outsourcing with identical suppliers and shortest-first policy: a laboratory experiment

We study experimentally in the laboratory two 2-player games that mimic a decentralized decision-making situation in which firms repeatedly outsource production orders to multiple identical suppliers. The first game has a unique (inefficient) equilibrium in mixed strategies, while the second game has two (efficient) equilibria in pure strategies and an infinite number of (inefficient) equilibria in mixed strategies. In both games, the optimal social costs can also be obtained via dominated strategies. We find that only in the second game subjects manage to reach an efficient outcome more often when matched in fixed pairs than when randomly rematched each round. Surprisingly, this is because subjects coordinate on dominated strategies (and not an efficient pure strategy equilibrium). We show theoretically that preferences for efficiency cannot explain our experimental results. Inequality aversion, on the other hand, cannot be rejected.     

Game Trees For Decision Analysis

Game trees (or extensive-form games) were first defined by von Neumann and Morgenstern in 1944. In this paper we examine the use of game trees for representing Bayesian decision problems. We propose a method for solving game trees using local computation. This method is a special case of a method due to Wilson for computing equilibria in 2-person games. Game trees differ from decision trees in the representations of information constraints and uncertainty. We compare the game tree representation and solution technique with other techniques for decision analysis such as decision trees, influence diagrams, and valuation networks.