Interior Convergence Under Payoff Monotone Selections and Proper Equilibrium: Application to Equilibrium Selection

2013 ◽  
pp. 107-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dai Zusai
Author(s):  
Kenneth Binmore ◽  
Larry Samuelson ◽  
H. Peyton Peyton Young

Author(s):  
Lorenzo Lampariello ◽  
Christoph Neumann ◽  
Jacopo M. Ricci ◽  
Simone Sagratella ◽  
Oliver Stein

Games ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Roberto Rozzi

We consider an evolutionary model of social coordination in a 2 × 2 game where two groups of players prefer to coordinate on different actions. Players can pay a cost to learn their opponent’s group: if they pay it, they can condition their actions concerning the groups. We assess the stability of outcomes in the long run using stochastic stability analysis. We find that three elements matter for the equilibrium selection: the group size, the strength of preferences, and the information’s cost. If the cost is too high, players never learn the group of their opponents in the long run. If one group is stronger in preferences for its favorite action than the other, or its size is sufficiently large compared to the other group, every player plays that group’s favorite action. If both groups are strong enough in preferences, or if none of the groups’ sizes is large enough, players play their favorite actions and miscoordinate in inter-group interactions. Lower levels of the cost favor coordination. Indeed, when the cost is low, in inside-group interactions, players always coordinate on their favorite action, while in inter-group interactions, they coordinate on the favorite action of the group that is stronger in preferences or large enough.


Top ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 454-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe De Marco ◽  
Jacqueline Morgan

2005 ◽  
Vol 07 (02) ◽  
pp. 229-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
IVAR KOLSTAD

Bergin and Lipman (1996) prove that equilibrium selection in the evolutionary dynamics of Kandori et al. (1993) and Young (1993), is not robust to variations in mutation rates across states. Specifically, a risk dominant equilibrium can be selected against if mutation rates are higher in its basin of attraction than elsewhere. Van Damme and Weibull (1998) model mutations as a compromise between payoff losses and control costs, which implies lower mutation rates in the risk dominant equilibrium. This paper argues that this result is not driven by control costs, but by players focusing on payoff losses when choosing mutation rates.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document