scholarly journals Holding a group together: non-game-theory vs. game-theory

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Richter ◽  
Ariel Rubinstein

Abstract Each member of a group chooses a position and has preferences regarding his chosen position. The group’s harmony depends on the profile of chosen positions meeting a specific condition. We analyse a solution concept (Richter and Rubinstein, 2020) based on a permissible set of individual positions, which plays a role analogous to that of prices in competitive equilibrium. Given the permissible set, members choose their most preferred position. The set is tightened if the chosen positions are inharmonious and relaxed if the restrictions are unnecessary. This new equilibrium concept yields more attractive outcomes than does Nash equilibrium in the corresponding game.

1996 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Jørgen Jacobsen

The most important analytical tool in non-cooperative game theory is the concept of a Nash equilibrium, which is a collection of possibly mixed strategies, one for each player, with the property that each player's strategy is a best reply to the strategies of the other players. If we do not go into normative game theory, which concerns itself with the recommendation of strategies, and focus instead entirely on the positive theory of prediction, two alternative interpretations of the Nash equilibrium concept are predominantly available.In the more traditional one, a Nash equilibrium is a prediction of actual play. A game may not have a Nash equilibrium in pure strategies, and a mixed strategy equilibrium may be difficult to incorporate into this interpretation if it involves the idea of actual randomization over equally good pure strategies. In another interpretation originating from Harsanyi (1973a), see also Rubinstein (1991), and Aumann and Brandenburger (1991), a Nash equilibrium is a ‘consistent’ collection of probabilistic expectations, conjectures, on the players. It is consistent in the sense that for each player each pure strategy, which has positive probability according to the conjecture about that player, is indeed a best reply to the conjectures about others.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. W. Corley ◽  
Phantipa Kwain

An alternative to the Nash equilibrium (NE) is presented for two-person, one-shot prescriptive games in normal form, where the outcome is determined by an arbiter. The NE is the fundamental solution concept in noncooperative game theory. It is based on the assumption that players are completely selfish. However, NEs are often not played in practice, so we present a cooperative dual as an alternative solution concept by which an arbiter can assign the players' actions. In this dual equilibrium (DE), each player acts in the other's best interest. We formally define prescriptive games and the DE, then summarize the duality relationships between the NE and DE for two players. We also apply the DE to some prescriptive games and compare it to other outcomes.


Author(s):  
Alfredo Garro

Game Theory (Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944) is a branch of applied mathematics and economics that studies situations (games) where self-interested interacting players act for maximizing their returns; therefore, the return of each player depends on his behaviour and on the behaviours of the other players. Game Theory, which plays an important role in the social and political sciences, has recently drawn attention in new academic fields which go from algorithmic mechanism design to cybernetics. However, a fundamental problem to solve for effectively applying Game Theory in real word applications is the definition of well-founded solution concepts of a game and the design of efficient algorithms for their computation. A widely accepted solution concept of a game in which any cooperation among the players must be selfenforcing (non-cooperative game) is represented by the Nash Equilibrium. In particular, a Nash Equilibrium is a set of strategies, one for each player of the game, such that no player can benefit by changing his strategy unilaterally, i.e. while the other players keep their strategies unchanged (Nash, 1951). The problem of computing Nash Equilibria in non-cooperative games is considered one of the most important open problem in Complexity Theory (Papadimitriou, 2001). Daskalakis, Goldbergy, and Papadimitriou (2005), showed that the problem of computing a Nash equilibrium in a game with four or more players is complete for the complexity class PPAD-Polynomial Parity Argument Directed version (Papadimitriou, 1991), moreover, Chen and Deng extended this result for 2-player games (Chen & Deng, 2005). However, even in the two players case, the best algorithm known has an exponential worst-case running time (Savani & von Stengel, 2004); furthermore, if the computation of equilibria with simple additional properties is required, the problem immediately becomes NP-hard (Bonifaci, Di Iorio, & Laura, 2005) (Conitzer & Sandholm, 2003) (Gilboa & Zemel, 1989) (Gottlob, Greco, & Scarcello, 2003). Motivated by these results, recent studies have dealt with the problem of efficiently computing Nash Equilibria by exploiting approaches based on the concepts of learning and evolution (Fudenberg & Levine, 1998) (Maynard Smith, 1982). In these approaches the Nash Equilibria of a game are not statically computed but are the result of the evolution of a system composed by agents playing the game. In particular, each agent after different rounds will learn to play a strategy that, under the hypothesis of agent’s rationality, will be one of the Nash equilibria of the game (Benaim & Hirsch, 1999) (Carmel & Markovitch, 1996). This article presents SALENE, a Multi-Agent System (MAS) for learning Nash Equilibria in noncooperative games, which is based on the above mentioned concepts.


Entropy ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. 782 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christos Papadimitriou ◽  
Georgios Piliouras

In 1950, Nash proposed a natural equilibrium solution concept for games hence called Nash equilibrium, and proved that all finite games have at least one. The proof is through a simple yet ingenious application of Brouwer’s (or, in another version Kakutani’s) fixed point theorem, the most sophisticated result in his era’s topology—in fact, recent algorithmic work has established that Nash equilibria are computationally equivalent to fixed points. In this paper, we propose a new class of universal non-equilibrium solution concepts arising from an important theorem in the topology of dynamical systems that was unavailable to Nash. This approach starts with both a game and a learning dynamics, defined over mixed strategies. The Nash equilibria are fixpoints of the dynamics, but the system behavior is captured by an object far more general than the Nash equilibrium that is known in dynamical systems theory as chain recurrent set. Informally, once we focus on this solution concept—this notion of “the outcome of the game”—every game behaves like a potential game with the dynamics converging to these states. In other words, unlike Nash equilibria, this solution concept is algorithmic in the sense that it has a constructive proof of existence. We characterize this solution for simple benchmark games under replicator dynamics, arguably the best known evolutionary dynamics in game theory. For (weighted) potential games, the new concept coincides with the fixpoints/equilibria of the dynamics. However, in (variants of) zero-sum games with fully mixed (i.e., interior) Nash equilibria, it covers the whole state space, as the dynamics satisfy specific information theoretic constants of motion. We discuss numerous novel computational, as well as structural, combinatorial questions raised by this chain recurrence conception of games.


1999 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 8539-8544
Author(s):  
Kotaro Hirasawa ◽  
Jinglu Hu ◽  
Yusuke Yamamoto ◽  
Chunzhi Jin ◽  
Yurio Eki

Author(s):  
Herbert Gintis

This chapter summarizes the book's main points, covering game theory, the commonality of beliefs, the limits of rationality, social norms as correlated equilibria, and how reason is bounded by sociality, not irrationality. Among the conclusions are that game theory is an indispensable tool in modeling human behavior. Behavioral disciplines that reject or peripheralize game theory are theoretically handicapped. The Nash equilibrium is not the appropriate equilibrium concept for social theory. The correlated equilibrium is the appropriate equilibrium concept for a set of rational individuals having common priors. Social norms are correlated equilibria. The behavioral disciplines today have four incompatible models of human behavior. The behavioral sciences must develop a unified model of choice that eliminates these incompatibilities and that can be specialized in different ways to meet the heterogeneous needs of the various disciplines.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Boudaghi ◽  
F. Mahan ◽  
A. Isazadeh

Abstract It is crystal clear that discovering the rules for finding a specific pattern among given data for extraction of association rules and rule-based learning systems has been defined. There is much research that make use of game theory for the processes contributing to discovery of rules. In recent years, modeling based on game theory in rule learning sphere has gained much more attention by computer scientists. When there is independence between the strategies used by two or more different players the strategy game modeling could be used. In this view, strategic play is a desirable model for situations with no permanent strategic relationship among interactions. In addition, Nash equilibrium is the most widely used solution concept in game theory. This concept is a state-of-the-art interpretation of a strategy game. Each player has an accurate prediction of other players' behavior and acts according to such a rational prediction. In the present study, by extracting rules from frequent patterns we have presented a model that can extract learning rules by abstraction based on game theory, which can be used not only for association rules but also for rule-based learning systems. Also, the introduced method can be easily generalized to fuzzy data. To Find Nash Equilibrium (FNE) in the proposed method, we used meta-heuristic Bus Transportation Algorithm (BTA).The results indicated that the method reduces computational complexity in the associate rule discovery process and rule learning, provided that FNE is solved.


Author(s):  
Herbert Gintis

This chapter deals with the basic concepts of game theory. It presents the formulations for the extensive form, normal form, and Nash equilibrium. It concludes with a brief discussion of correlated equilibrium, a solution concept that has been neglected in classical game theory but is a more natural solution concept than the Nash equilibrium. This is because the correlated equilibrium directly addresses the central weaknesses of the Nash equilibrium concept: its lack of a mechanism for choosing among various equally plausible alternatives, for coordinating the behaviors of players who are indifferent among several pure strategies, and for providing incentives for players to follow the suggested strategy even when they may have private payoffs that would lead self-regarding agents to do otherwise.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (02) ◽  
pp. 2050005
Author(s):  
V. K. OIKONOMOU ◽  
J. JOST

At a mixed Nash equilibrium, the payoff of a player does not depend on her own action, as long as her opponent sticks to his. In a periodic strategy, a concept developed in a previous paper [V. K. Oikonomou and J. Jost, Periodic strategies: A new solution concept and an algorithm for nontrivial strategic form games, Adv. Compl. Syst. 20(5) (2017) 1750009], in contrast, the own payoff does not depend on the opponent’s action. Here, we generalize this to multi-player simultaneous perfect information strategic form games. We show that also in this class of games, there always exists at least one periodic strategy, and we investigate the mathematical properties of such periodic strategies. In addition, we demonstrate that periodic strategies may exist in games with incomplete information; we shall focus on Bayesian games. Moreover, we discuss the differences between the periodic strategies formalism and cooperative game theory. In fact, the periodic strategies are obtained in a purely non-cooperative way, and periodic strategies are as cooperative as the Nash equilibria are. Finally, we incorporate the periodic strategies in an epistemic game theory framework, and discuss several features of this approach.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document