Coalitional Colonel Blotto Games with Application to the Economics of Alliances

In Borel’s Colonel Blotto game two players simultaneously allocate their respective endowments of a resource across n battlefields, the higher allocation wins each battlefield, and players maximize the number of battlefields won. Here we examine two players who may form an alliance before separately competing in two disjoint Colonel Blotto games against a common adversary. Despite a lack of common interests, unilateral transfers—in a direction consistent with the exploitation hypothesis—arise for a range of parameter configurations. Such transfers alter the adversary’s strategy and the combination of the direct and strategic effects benefits both allies.     

A Blotto game with multi-dimensional incomplete information

We examine a multi-dimensional incomplete information Colonel Blotto game in which each player’s n-tuple of battlefield valuations is drawn from a common n-variate joint distribution function that is uniform on the non-negative orthant of the surface of a sphere.     

The non-constant-sum Colonel Blotto game

The Colonel Blotto game is a two-player constant-sum game in which each player simultaneously distributes his fixed level of resources across a set of contests. In the traditional formulation of the Colonel Blotto game, the players?? resources are ??use it or lose it?? in the sense that any resources that are not allocated to one of the contests are forfeited. This article examines a non-constant-sum version of the Colonel Blotto game that relaxes this use it or lose it feature. We find that if the level of asymmetry between the players?? budgets is below a threshold, then there exists a one-to-one mapping from the unique set of equilibrium univariate marginal distribution functions in the constant-sum game to those in the non-constant-sum game. Once the asymmetry of the players?? budgets exceeds the threshold, this relationship breaks down and we construct a new equilibrium.     

An experimental investigation of Colonel Blotto games

This article examines behavior in the two-player, constant-sum Colonel Blotto game with asymmetric resources in which players maximize the expected number of battlefields won. The experimental results support the main qualitative predictions of the theory. In the auction treatment, where winning a battlefield is deterministic, disadvantaged players use a “guerilla warfare” strategy that stochastically allocates zero resources to a subset of battlefields. Advantaged players employ a “stochastic complete coverage” strategy, allocating random, but positive, resource levels across the battlefields. In the lottery treatment, where winning a battlefield is probabilistic, both players divide their resources equally across all battlefields. However, we also find interesting behavioral deviations from the theory and discuss their implications.     

Sequential,nonzero-sum “Blotto”: Allocating defensive resources prior to attack

The strategic allocation of resources across multiple fronts has long been studied in the context of Blotto games in which two players simultaneously select their allocations. However many allocation problems are sequential. For example, a state trying to defend against a terrorist attack generally allocates some or all of its resources before the attacker decides where to strike. This paper studies the allocation problem confronting a defender who must decide how to distribute limited resources across multiple sites before an attacker chooses where to strike. Unlike many Blotto games which only have very complicated mixed-strategy equilibria, the sequential, nonzero-sum “Blotto” game always has a very simple pure-strategy subgame perfect equilibrium. Further, the defender always plays the same pure strategy in any equilibrium, and the attacker's equilibrium response is generically unique and entails no mixing. The defender minmaxes the attacker in equilibrium even though the game is nonzero-sum, and the attacker strikes the site among its best replies that minimizes the defender's expected losses.     

Sequential, nonzero-sum “Blotto”: Allocating defensive resources prior to attack

The strategic allocation of resources across multiple fronts has long been studied in the context of Blotto games in which two players simultaneously select their allocations. However many allocation problems are sequential. For example, a state trying to defend against a terrorist attack generally allocates some or all of its resources before the attacker decides where to strike. This paper studies the allocation problem confronting a defender who must decide how to distribute limited resources across multiple sites before an attacker chooses where to strike. Unlike many Blotto games which only have very complicated mixed-strategy equilibria, the sequential, nonzero-sum “Blotto” game always has a very simple pure-strategy subgame perfect equilibrium. Further, the defender always plays the same pure strategy in any equilibrium, and the attacker's equilibrium response is generically unique and entails no mixing. The defender minmaxes the attacker in equilibrium even though the game is nonzero-sum, and the attacker strikes the site among its best replies that minimizes the defender's expected losses.     

Policy Bias Equivalence under Common Agency

This paper studies interest group influence on policy making. Lobbying occurs in a first price auction where an interest group wins with certainty, if her bid exceeds the loser’s bid by the policy maker’s valuation for the socially best policy. Otherwise the latter implements the privately known best policy. In equilibrium the size of the policy maker’s valuation does not matter for the size of the policy bias. The idea is to construct a “reference game” and to shift the support of the equilibrium mixed strategies into the original game, without altering the structure of the densities.     

A game of timing and visibility

We consider the following abstraction of competing publications. There are n players in the game. Each player i chooses a point x_i in the interval [0,1], and a player's payoff is the distance from its point x_i to the next larger point, or to 1 if x_i is the largest. For this game, we give a complete characterization of the Nash equilibrium for the two-player game, and, more important, we give an efficient approximation algorithm to compute numerically the symmetric Nash equilibrium for the n-player game. The approximation is computed via a discrete version of the game. In both cases, we show that the (symmetric) equilibrium is unique. Our algorithmic approach to the n-player game is non-standard in that it does not involve solving a system of differential equations. We believe that our techniques can be useful in the analysis of other timing games.     

Contests with limited resources

Many interesting phenomena (electoral competition, R&D races, lobbying) are instances of multiple simultaneous contests with unconditional commitment of limited resources. Specifically, the following game is analyzed. Two players compete in a number of simultaneous contests. The players have limited resources (budgets) and must decide how to allocate these to the different contests. In each contest the player who expends more resources than his adversary wins a corresponding prize. Mixed-strategy equilibria are characterized in the case of identical values and budgets and the connections with the classical Blotto game are analyzed.     

Evolutionary Stability in Alternating-Offers Bargaining Games

This paper characterizes modified evolutionarily stable strategies (messes) in Rubinstein's alternating-offers, infinite-horizon bargaining game. We show that a mess causes agreement to be achieved immediately, with neither player willing to delay the agreement by one period in order to achieve the other player's share of the surplus. Each player's share of the surplus is then bounded between the shares received by the two players in the unique subgame-perfect equilibrium of Rubinstein's game. As the probability of a break-down in negotiations becomes small (or discount factors become large), these bounds collapse on the subgame-perfect equilibrium.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers C70, C78.     

A Blotto game with Incomplete Information

We consider a Blotto game with Incomplete Information. A pure-strategy symmetric monotonic Bayesian equilibrium is found and its properties are discussed.     

A cake for Cournot

A cake division mechanism is presented that is equivalent in terms of the size of the pieces of the cake n players’ receive in equilibrium to the quantities that n firms in a Cournot oligopoly supply in equilibrium. This mechanism extends to equivalence between cake division and Nash’s ‘divide the dollar’ game.     

The symmetric multiple prize all-pay auction with complete information

This paper extends the analysis of the n-player all-pay auction with complete information to cover the case of m≤n prizes, valued in weakly decreasing order, but symmetrically across players. We provide a complete characterization of the Nash equilibrium distributions for this class of auctions and provide an exact expression for the expected revenue generated.     

Undecidability of the existence of pure Nash equilibria

Summary. The purpose of this paper is to show that for any positive integer n, there exists no algorithm which decides for each non-cooperative n-person game in strategic form with partially computable payoff functions whether it has a pure Nash equilibrium or not.Received: 20 March 2002, Revised: 23 April 2003, JEL Classification Numbers: C72.The author thanks the Referee and the Associate Editor for offering critical comments on this paper, which is dedicated to his brother Konstantinos Efstathiou Sofronidis.     

Error cascades in observational learning: An experiment on the Chinos game

The paper reports an experimental study based on a variant of the popular Chinos game, which is used as a simple but paradigmatic instance of observational learning. There are three players, arranged in sequence,each of which wins a fixed price if she manages to guess the total number of coins lying in everybody?s hands. Our evidence shows that, despite the remarkable frequency of equilibrium outcomes, deviations from optimal play are also significant. And when such deviations occur, we find that, for any given player position, the probability of a mistake is increasing in the probability of a mistake of her predecessors. This is what we call an error cascade, which we measure by evaluating the (heterogeneous) Quantal Response Equilibrium which better suits our data. We also check the robustness of our findings when we allow for belief heterogeneity by applying Kübler and Weizsäcker?s (2004) cognitive frame of limited depth of reasoning.     

Correlated Nash equilibrium

We modify the epistemic conditions for Nash equilibrium only to accommodate Gilboa and Schmeidler's [I. Gilboa, D. Schmeidler, Maxmin expected utility with nonunique prior, J. Math. Econ. 18 (1989) 141-153] maxmin expected utility preferences, and identify the equilibrium concept in n-player strategic games that characterizes the modified epistemic conditions. The epistemic characterization supports the equilibrium concept as a minimal generalization of Nash equilibrium, in the sense that it deviates from Nash equilibrium only in terms of players' attitude towards ambiguity. Consequently, comparing it with Nash equilibrium constitutes a ceteris paribus study of the effects of ambiguity on how a game is played. For example, with ambiguity, (beliefs about) action choices are in general correlated.     

Correlated Equilibrium in Stochastic Games

We study the existence of uniform correlated equilibrium payoffs in stochastic games. The correlation devices that we use are either autonomous (they base their choice of signal on previous signals, but not on previous states or actions) or stationary (their choice is independent of any data and is drawn according to the same probability distribution at every stage). We prove that any n-player stochastic game admits an autonomous correlated equilibrium payoff. When the game is positive and recursive, a stationary correlated equilibrium payoff exists. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C72, C73.     

A “Super” Folk Theorem for dynastic repeated games

We analyze dynastic repeated games. These are repeated games in which the stage game is played by successive generations of finitely-lived players with dynastic preferences. Each individual has preferences that replicate those of the infinitely-lived players of a standard discounted infinitely-repeated game. Individuals live one period and do not observe the history of play that takes place before their birth, but instead create social memory through private messages received from their immediate predecessors. Under mild conditions, when players are sufficiently patient, all feasible payoff vectors (including those below the minmax of the stage game) can be sustained by sequential equilibria of the dynastic repeated game with private communication. In particular, the result applies to any stage game with n  ≥  4 players for which the standard Folk Theorem yields a payoff set with a non-empty interior. We are also able to characterize fully the conditions under which a sequential equilibrium of the dynastic repeated game can yield a payoff vector not sustainable as a subgame perfect equilibrium of the standard repeated game. For this to be the case it must be that the players’ equilibrium beliefs violate a condition that we term “inter-generational agreement.” A previous version of this paper was circulated as Anderlini et al. (2005). We are grateful to Jeff Ely, Leonardo Felli, Navin Kartik, David Levine, Stephen Morris, Michele Piccione, Andrew Postlewaite, Lones Smith and to seminar audiences at Bocconi, Cambridge, CEPR-Guerzensee, Chicago, Columbia, Edinburgh, Essex, Georgetown, Leicester, LSE, Northwestern, Oxford, Rome (La Sapienza), Rutgers, SAET-Vigo, Stanford, SUNY-Albany, UCL, UC-San Diego, Venice and Yale for helpful feedback.     

Multilateral bargaining: conditional and unconditional offers

Summary. We present a game in which n persons split a cake, where a distinction between conditional and unconditional offers is made. This distinction sheds light on the contrasting results obtained in the previous literature of multilateral bargaining. By allowing the proposer to make both conditional and unconditional offers, we show that the game has a unique subgame perfect Nash equilibrium outcome. Received: March 14, 2000; revised version: March 13, 2001     

The supercore for normal-form games

This paper analyzes the supercore of a system derived from a normal-form game. For the case of a finite game with pure strategies, we define a sequence of games and show that the supercore coincides with the set of Nash equilibria of the last game in that sequence. This result is illustrated with the characterization of the supercore for the n-person prisoner's dilemma. With regard to the mixed extension of a normal-form game, we show that the set of Nash equilibrium profiles coincides with the supercore for games with a finite number of Nash equilibria.