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).     

On the evaluation of solution concepts

It is proposed that solution concepts for games should be evaluated in a way that is analogous to the way a logic is evaluated by a model theory for the language. A solution concept defines a set of strategy profiles, as a logic defines a set of theorems. A model theoretic analysis for a game defines a class of models, which are abstract representations of particular plays of the game. Given an appropriate definition of a model, one can show that various solution concepts are characterized by intuitively natural classes of models in the same sense that the set of theorems of a logic is characterized by a class of models of the language. Sketches of characterization results of this kind are given for rationalizability, Nash equilibrium, and for a refinement of rationalizability —strong rationalizability — that has some features of an equilibrium concept. It is shown that strong rationalizability is equivalent to Nash equilibrium in perfect information games. Extensions of the model theoretic framework that represent belief revision and that permit the characterization of other solution concepts are explored informally.     

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.     

The Lovász Extension of Market Games

The multilinear extension of a cooperative game was introduced by Owen in 1972. In this contribution we study the Lovász extension for cooperative games by using the marginal worth vectors and the dividends. First, we prove a formula for the marginal worth vectors with respect to compatible orderings. Next, we consider the direct market generated by a game. This model of utility function, proposed by Shapley and Shubik in 1969, is the concave biconjugate extension of the game. Then we obtain the following characterization: The utility function of a market game is the Lovász extension of the game if and only if the market game is supermodular. Finally, we present some preliminary problems about the relationship between cooperative games and combinatorial optimization.     

Tacit Coordination in Choice Between Certain Outcomes in Endogenously Determined Lotteries

Tacit coordination is studied in a class of games in which each of n = 20 players is required to choose between two courses of actions. The first action offers each player a fixed outcome whereas the second presents her the opportunity of participating in a lottery with probabilities that are determined endogenously. Across multiple iterations of the game and trial-to-trial changes in the composition of the lottery, we observe a remarkably good coordination on the aggregate but not individual level. We further observe systematic deviations from the Nash equilibrium solution that are accounted for quite well by a simple adaptive learning model.     

Equilibrium and potential in coalitional congestion games

The model of congestion games is widely used to analyze games related to traffic and communication. A central property of these games is that they are potential games and hence posses a pure Nash equilibrium. In reality, it is often the case that some players cooperatively decide on their joint action in order to maximize the coalition’s total utility. This is modeled by Coalitional Congestion Games. Typical settings include truck drivers who work for the same shipping company, or routers that belong to the same ISP. The formation of coalitions will typically imply that the resulting coalitional congestion game will no longer posses a pure Nash equilibrium. In this paper, we provide conditions under which such games are potential games and posses a pure Nash equilibrium.     

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.      

Endogenizing the order of moves in matrix games

Players often have flexibility in when they move and thus whether a game is played simultaneously or sequentially may be endogenously determined. For 2 × 2 games, we analyze this using an extended game. In a stage prior to actual play, players choose in which of two periods to move. A player moving at the first opportunity knows when his opponent will move. A player moving at the second turn learns the first mover's action. If both select the same turn, they play a simultaneous move subgame.If both players have dominant strategies in the basic game, equilibrium payoffs in the basic and extended games are identical. If only one player has a dominant strategy or if the unique equilibrium in the basic game is in mixed strategies, then the extended game equilibrium payoffs differ if and only if some pair of pure strategies Pareto dominates the basic game simultaneous play payoffs. If so, sequential play attains the Pareto dominating payoffs. The mixed strategy equilibrium occurs only when it is not Pareto dominated by some pair of pure strategies.In an alternative extended game, players cannot observe delay by opponents at the first turn. Results for 2×2 games are essentially the same as with observable delay, differing only when only one player has a dominant strategy.     

The <Emphasis Type="Italic">γ</Emphasis>-core in Cournot oligopoly TU-games with capacity constraints

In cooperative Cournot oligopoly games, it is known that the β-core is equal to the α-core, and both are non-empty if every individual profit function is continuous and concave (Zhao, Games Econ Behav 27:153–168, 1999b). Following Chander and Tulkens (Int J Game Theory 26:379–401, 1997), we assume that firms react to a deviating coalition by choosing individual best reply strategies. We deal with the problem of the non-emptiness of the induced core, the γ-core, by two different approaches. The first establishes that the associated Cournot oligopoly Transferable Utility (TU)-games are balanced if the inverse demand function is differentiable and every individual profit function is continuous and concave on the set of strategy profiles, which is a step forward beyond Zhao’s core existence result for this class of games. The second approach, restricted to the class of Cournot oligopoly TU-games with linear cost functions, provides a single-valued allocation rule in the γ-core called Nash Pro rata (NP)-value. This result generalizes Funaki and Yamato’s (Int J Game Theory 28:157–171, 1999) core existence result from no capacity constraint to asymmetric capacity constraints. Moreover, we provide an axiomatic characterization of this solution by means of four properties: efficiency, null firm, monotonicity, and non-cooperative fairness.     

Games,goals, and bounded rationality

A generalization of the standard n-person game is presented, with flexible information requirements suitable for players constrained by certain types of bounded rationality. Strategies (complete contingency plans) are replaced by policies, i.e., endmean pairs of goals and controls (partial contingency plans), which results in naturally disconnected player choice sets. Well-known existence theorems for pure strategy Nash equilibrium and bargaining solutions are generalized to policy games by modifying connectedness (convexity) requirements.     

Alternating-Offer Bargaining and Common Knowledge of Rationality

This paper reconsiders Rubinstein's alternating-offer bargaining game with complete information. We define rationalizability and trembling- hand rationalizability (THR) for multi-stage games with observed actions. We show that rationalizability does not exclude perpetual disagreement or delay, but that THR implies a unique solution. Moreover, this unique solution is the unique subgame perfect equilibrium (SPE). Also, we reconsider an extension of Rubinstein's game where a smallest money unit is introduced: THR rules out the non-uniqueness of SPE in some particular case. Finally, we investigate the assumption of boundedly rational players. Perpetual disagreement is excluded, but not delay. Furthermore, we cannot use the asymmetric Nash bargaining solution as an approximation of the alternating-offer bargaining model once the players are boundedly rational ones.     

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.     

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     

Domination structures and multicriteria problems in n-person games

Multiple criteria decision problems with one decision maker have been recognized and discussed in the recent literature in optimization theory, operations research and management science. The corresponding concept with n-decision makers, namely multicriteria n-person games, has not yet been extensively explored.In this paper we first demonstrate that existing solution concepts for single criterion n-person games in both normal form and characteristic function form induce domination structures (similar to those defined and studied by Yu [39] for multicriteria single decision maker problems) in various spaces, including the payoff space, the imputation space and the coalition space. This discussion provides an understanding of some underlying assumptions of the solution concepts and provides a basis for generalizing and generating new solution concepts not yet defined. Also we illustrate that domination structures may be regarded as a measure of power held by the players.We then illustrate that a multicriteria problem can naturally arise in decision situations involving (partial) conflict among n-persons. Using our discussion of solution concepts for single criterion games as a basis, various approaches for resolving both normal form and characteristic function form multicriteria n-person games are proposed. For multicriteria games in characteristic function form, we define a multicriteria core and show that there exists a single game point whose core is equal to the multicriteria core. If we reduce a multicriteria game to a single criterion game, domination structures which are more general than classical ones must be considered, otherwise some crucial information in the game may be lost. Finally, we discuss a parametrization process which, for a given multicriteria game, associates a single criterion game to each point in a parametric space. This parametrization provides a basis for the discussion of solution concepts in multicriteria n-person games.     

Ellsberg games

In the standard formulation of game theory, agents use mixed strategies in the form of objective and probabilistically precise devices to conceal their actions. We introduce the larger set of probabilistically imprecise devices and study the consequences for the basic results on normal form games. While Nash equilibria remain equilibria in the extended game, there arise new Ellsberg equilibria with distinct outcomes, as we illustrate by negotiation games with three players. We characterize Ellsberg equilibria in two-person conflict and coordination games. These equilibria turn out to be related to experimental deviations from Nash equilibrium play.     

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.     

Risk aversion and the relationship between Nash's solution and subgame perfect equilibrium of sequential bargaining

This article presents some new, intuitive derivations of several results in the bargaining literature. These new derivations clarify the relationships among these results and allow them to be understood in a unified way. These results concern the way in which the risk posture of the bargainers affects the outcome of bargaining as predicted by Nash's (axiomatic) solution of a static bargaining model (Nash, 1950) and by the subgame perfect equilibrium of the infinite horizon sequential bargaining game analyzed by Rubinstein (1982). The analogous, experimentally testable predictions for finite horizon sequential bargaining games are also presented.     

Refinements of Nash Equilibrium: A critique

Rational play of Noncooperative Games is investigated under the assumptions that a particular form of Best Reply Principle holds, each player has at least one rational strategy and all strategies are either rational or irrational. These assumptions are shown to imply that (a) some weakly dominated strategies are rational (b) recursive reasoning can be misleading (c) only a Strict Nash Equilibrium can be a solution. A Supplementary Best Reply Principle is formulated. It sheds further light on which games have solutions and on rational play in games without them. The relationship between these results and those of other authors is discussed.     

Bargaining with Incomplete information an axiomatic approach

Within this paper we consider a model of Nash bargaining with incomplete information. In particular, we focus on fee games, which are a natural generalization of side payment games in the context of incomplete information. For a specific class of fee games we provide two axiomatic approaches in order to establish the Expected Contract Value, which is a version of the Nash bargaining solution.     

On Stalnaker's Notion of Strong Rationalizability and Nash Equilibrium in Perfect Information Games

Counterexamples to two results by Stalnaker (Theory and Decision, 1994) are given and a corrected version of one of the two results is proved. Stalnaker's proposed results are: (1) if at the true state of an epistemic model of a perfect information game there is common belief in the rationality of every player and common belief that no player has false beliefs (he calls this joint condition strong rationalizability), then the true (or actual) strategy profile is path equivalent to a Nash equilibrium; (2) in a normal-form game a strategy profile is strongly rationalizable if and only if it belongs to C , the set of profiles that survive the iterative deletion of inferior profiles.