An experimental study of information and mixed-strategy play in the three-person matching-pennies game

Summary. Recent experiments on mixed-strategy play in experimental games reject the hypothesis that subjects play a mixed strategy even when that strategy is the unique Nash equilibrium prediction. However, in a three-person matching-pennies game played with perfect monitoring and complete payoff information, we cannot reject the hypothesis that subjects play the mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium. Given this support for mixed-strategy play, we then consider two qualitatively different learning theories (sophisticated Bayesian and naive Bayesian) which predict that the amount of information given to subjects will determine whether they can learn to play the predicted mixed strategies. We reject the hypothesis that subjects play the symmetric mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium when they do not have complete payoff information. This finding suggests that players did not use sophisticated Bayesian learning to reach the mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium. Received: August 9, 1996; revised version: October 21, 1998     

Minimum-Effort Coordination Games: Stochastic Potential and Logit Equilibrium

This paper revisits the minimum-effort coordination game with a continuum of Pareto-ranked Nash equilibria. Noise is introduced via a logit probabilistic choice function. The resulting logit equilibrium distribution of decisions is unique and maximizes a stochastic potential function. In the limit as the noise vanishes, the distribution converges to an outcome that is analogous to the risk-dominant outcome for 2 × 2 games. In accordance with experimental evidence, logit equilibrium efforts decrease with increases in effort costs and the number of players, even though these parameters do not affect the Nash equilibria. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C72, C92.     

Stability of the cooperative equilibrium in N-person prisoners' dilemma with sequential moves

Summary. Nishihara [3] showed that N-person prisoners' dilemma has a cooperative Nash equilibrium, if the players decide their actions sequentially in the order determined by Nature under a certain information structure, and if each player's payoffs satisfy a certain inequality. This paper examines the stability of this cooperative equilibrium against two matters: players' slight mistakes and deviations by coalitions. The main results are as follows: (i) if the inequality on each player's payoffs strictly holds, then the cooperative equilibrium is a strictly proper equilibrium; (ii) if N≤3, and if full cooperation is Pareto efficient in N-person prisoners' dilemma, then the cooperative equilibrium is a strong Nash equilibrium; (iii) the cooperative equilibrium is in general a coalition-proof Nash equilibrium. Received: June 23, 1997; revised version: December 2, 1997     

Pairwise epistemic conditions for Nash equilibrium

We introduce a framework for modeling pairwise interactive beliefs and provide an epistemic foundation for Nash equilibrium in terms of pairwise epistemic conditions locally imposed on only some pairs of players. Our main result considerably weakens not only the standard sufficient conditions by Aumann and Brandenburger (1995), but also the subsequent generalization by Barelli (2009). Surprisingly, our conditions do not require nor imply mutual belief in rationality.     

Stackelberg thresholds in network routing games or the value of altruism

It is well known that the Nash equilibrium in network routing games can have strictly higher cost than the optimum cost. In Stackelberg routing games, where a fraction of flow is centrally-controlled, a natural problem is to route the centrally-controlled flow such that the overall cost of the resulting equilibrium is minimized.We consider the scenario where the network administrator wants to know the minimum amount of centrally-controlled flow such that the cost of the resulting equilibrium solution is strictly less than the cost of the Nash equilibrium. We call this threshold the Stackelberg threshold and prove that for networks of parallel links with linear latency functions, it is equal to the minimum of the Nash flows on links carrying more optimum flow than Nash flow.Our approach also provides a simpler proof of characterization of the minimum fraction that must be centrally controlled to induce the optimum solution.     

基于博弈论的上市公司会计信息披露失真成因分析

笔者运用博弈论作为主要的分析工具,通过对证券市场各利益主体逐个分析,揭示了信息披露失真的主要成因。上市公司会计信息披露失真是各参与方利益冲突而相互博弈的结果,是由个体理性出发而导致的集体非理性。在分析信息披露失真原因基础上,给出了相应的治理对策建议和应达到的理想的纳什均衡。     

Optimal Individual Decisions with a Psycho-materialistic Utility Function

This paper proposes a theoretical model aimed at interpreting the outcome of some games. It is often observed that players do not play the Nash equilibrium, when their utility is modelled on their payoff only. However, other models which include psychological variables fail to describe the behaviours observed. Here I propose a utility function which encompasses both monetary and psychological payoffs in such a way that the predictions fit the actual decisions of the players observed in experiments.     

Learning by trial and error

A person learns by trial and error if he occasionally tries out new strategies, rejecting choices that are erroneous in the sense that they do not lead to higher payoffs. In a game, however, strategies can become erroneous due to a change of behavior by someone else. We introduce a learning rule in which behavior is conditional on whether a player experiences an error of the first or second type. This rule, called interactive trial and error learning, implements Nash equilibrium behavior in any game with generic payoffs and at least one pure Nash equilibrium.     

On Non-Nash Equilibria

I consider generalisations of the Nash equilibrium concept based on the idea that in equilibrium the players' beliefs should not be contradicted, even if they could possibly be incorrect. This possibility depends on the information about opponents' behaviour available to the players in equilibrium. Therefore the players' information is crucial for this notion of equilibrium, called Conjectural Equilibrium in general and Rationalizable Conjectural Equilibrium (Rubinstein-Wolinsky 1994) when the game and the players' Bayesian rationality are common knowledge. In this paper I argue for a refinement of Rationalizable Conjectural Equilibrium showing by propositions and by examples how this equilibrium notion works and how the suitable equilibrium concept depends on the players' information.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers: C72, D83, D82.     

Reputation with observed actions

Summary A single long-run player plays a fixed stage game (simultaneous orsequential move) against an infinite sequence of short-run opponents that play only once but can observe all past realized actions. Assuming that the probability distributions over types of long and short-run players have full support, we show that the long-run player can always establish a reputation for theStackelberg strategy and is therefore guaranteed almost his Stackelberg payoff in all Nash equilibria of the repeated game.The financial support of the National Science Foundation, Grant SES 90-7999, and of Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche is gratefully acknowledged. I wish to thank David Levine, Wolfgang Pesendorfer and Seminar Participants at UCLA, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid and University of Naples for useful discussions and suggestions.     

Congestion games with load-dependent failures: Identical resources

We define a new class of games, congestion games with load-dependent failures (CGLFs). In a CGLF each player can choose a subset of a set of available resources in order to try and perform his task. We assume that the resources are identical but that players' benefits from successful completion of their tasks may differ. Each resource is associated with a cost of use and a failure probability which are load-dependent. Although CGLFs in general do not have a pure strategy Nash equilibrium, we prove the existence of a pure strategy Nash equilibrium in every CGLF with nondecreasing cost functions. Moreover, we present a polynomial time algorithm for computing such an equilibrium.     

On the impossibility of achieving no regrets in repeated games

Regret-minimizing strategies for repeated games have been receiving increasing attention in the literature. These are simple adaptive behavior rules that lead to no regrets and, if followed by all players, exhibit nice convergence properties: the average play converges to correlated equilibrium, or even to Nash equilibrium in certain classes of games. However, the no-regret property relies on a strong assumption that each player treats her opponents as unresponsive and fully ignores the opponents’ possible reactions to her actions. We show that if at least one player is slightly responsive, it is impossible to achieve no regrets, and convergence results for regret minimization with responsive opponents are unknown.     

Co-ordination, Spillovers, and Cheap Talk

We analyze the role of cheap-talk in two player games with one-sided incomplete information. We identify conditions under which (1) players can fully communicate and coordinate on efficient Nash equilibria of the underlying complete information game; and (2) players cannot communicate so cheap-talk does not alter the equilibrium set of the Bayesian game. We present examples that illustrate several issues that arise when there is two-sided incomplete information. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C72, D82.     

Nash equilibria in ∞-dimensional spaces: an approximation theorem

Summary. We show, by employing a density result for probability measures, that in games with a finite number of players and ∞-dimensional pure strategy spaces Nash equilibria can be approximated by finite mixed strategies. Given ε>0, each player receives an expected utility payoff ε/2 close to his Nash payoff and no player could change his strategy unilaterally and do better than ε. Received: July 15, 1997; revised version: February 6, 1998     

Anonymity in nonatomic games

This paper purpose is twofold. First, it offers a critical review of the proofs of existence of pure strategy Nash Equilibria in nonatomic games. In particular, it focuses on the alternative ways of formalizing the critical assumption of anonymity. Second, the paper proves the existence of pure strategy Nash Equilibria by relaxing anonymity and allowing instead for “limited anonymity” (i.e. players’ decisions depend on the average strategy of a finite number of players’ subsets and not on the average strategy of the whole set of players). (JEL: C72, C79)     

Are the treasures of game theory ambiguous?

Goeree and Holt (Am Econ Rev 91:1402?C1422, 2001) experimentally study a number of games. In each case, they initially find strong support for Nash equilibrium; however, by changing an apparently irrelevant parameter, they find results which contradict Nash equilibrium. In this paper, we study the five normal form games from Goeree and Holt (Am Econ Rev 91:1402?C1422, 2001). We argue that their results may be explained by the hypothesis that subjects view their opponents?? behaviour as ambiguous. Ambiguity-aversion causes players to avoid strategies, which give low out of equilibrium payoffs. Similarly, ambiguity preference can make strategies with high payoffs more attractive.     

Better-reply dynamics and global convergence to Nash equilibrium in aggregative games

We consider n-person games with quasi-concave payoffs that depend on a player's own action and the sum of all players' actions. We show that a discrete-time, stochastic process in which players move towards better replies—the better-reply dynamics—converges globally to a Nash equilibrium if actions are either strategic substitutes or strategic complements for all players around each Nash equilibrium that is asymptotically stable under a deterministic, adjusted best-reply dynamics. We present an example of a 2-person game with a unique equilibrium where the derivatives of the best-reply functions have different signs and the better-reply dynamics does not converge.     

N-PERSON NASH BNARGAINING WITH VARIABEL THREATS*

We consider two models of n-person bargaining problems with the endogenous determination of disagreement points. In the first model, which is a direct extension of Nash's variable threat bargaining model, the disagreement point is determined as an equilibrium threat point. In the second model, the disagreement point is given as a Nash equilibrium of the underlying noncooperative game. These models are formulated as extensive games, and axiomatizations of solutions are given for both models. It is argued that for games with more than two players, the first bargaining model does not preserve some important properties valid for two-person games, e.g., the uniqueness of equilibrium payoff vector. We also show that when the number of players is large, any equilibrium threat point becomes approximately a Nash equilibrium in the underlying noncooperative game, and vice versa. This result suggests that the difference between the two models becomes less significant when the number of players is large.     

Fault tolerance in large games

A Nash equilibrium is an optimal strategy for each player under the assumption that others play according to their respective Nash strategies, but it provides no guarantees in the presence of irrational players or coalitions of colluding players. In fact, no such guarantees exist in general. However, in this paper we show that large games are innately fault tolerant. We quantify the ways in which two subclasses of large games – λ-continuous games and anonymous games – are resilient against Byzantine faults (i.e. irrational behavior), coalitions, and asynchronous play. We also show that general large games have some non-trivial resilience against faults.