A myopic adjustment process leading to best-reply matching

We analyze a myopic strategy adjustment process in strategic-form games. It is shown that the steady states of the continuous time limit, which is constructed assuming frequent play and slow adjustment of strategies, are exactly the best-reply matching equilibria, as discussed by Droste, Kosfeld, and Voorneveld (2000. Mimeo, Tilburg University). In a best-reply matching equilibrium every player ‘matches’ the probability of playing a pure strategy to the probability that this pure strategy is a best reply to the pure-strategy profile played by his opponents. We derive stability results for the steady states of the continuous time limit in 2×2 bimatrix games and coordination games. Analyzing the asymptotic behavior of the stochastic adjustment process in discrete time shows convergence to minimal curb sets of the game. Moreover, absorbing states of the process correspond to best-reply matching equilibria of the game.     

Fictitious play in ‘one-against-all’ multi-player games

Summary. A compound game is an (n + 1) player game based on n two-person subgames. In each of these subgames player 0 plays against one of the other players. Player 0 is regulated, so that he must choose the same strategy in all n subgames. We show that every fictitious play process approaches the set of equilibria in compound games for which all subgames are either zero-sum games, potential games, or games. Received: July 18, 1997; revised version: December 4, 1998     

Delayed agreements and nonexpected utility

The unexplained occurrence of inefficient delays in reaching agreement is known in the economics literature as the “Hicks paradox.” This paper describes a strategic situation in which players may play a simultaneous move game either before or after a move of Nature. The structure is such that if the players were expected utility maximizers, they would be indifferent over the order of play. However, if at least one of the players is a nonexpected utility maximizer, for example, if player one has preferences over lotteries which exhibit betweenness and fanning out, such a player may strictly prefer to wait before playing the game. If both players exhibit fanning out and betweenness, then there exist games in which both prefer to delay agreement.     

The One-Shot-Deviation Principle for Sequential Rationality

This article analyzes the fictitious play process originally proposed for strategic form games by Brown (1951) and Robinson (1951). We interpret the process as a model of preplay thinking performed by players before acting in a one-shot game. This model is one of bounded rationality. We discuss how fictitious play should then be defined for extensive form games and conclude that this is somewhat problematic. We therefore study two alternative definitions. For either of these, under a weak condition of initial uncertainty, a convergence point of a fictitious play sequence is a sequential equilibrium. For generic games of perfect information initial uncertainty also implies convergence of fictitious play.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Number: C72.     

Fictitious Play in Extensive Form Games

This article analyzes the fictitious play process originally proposed for strategic form games by Brown (1951) and Robinson (1951). We interpret the process as a model of preplay thinking performed by players before acting in a one-shot game. This model is one of bounded rationality. We discuss how fictitious play should then be defined for extensive form games and conclude that this is somewhat problematic. We therefore study two alternative definitions. For either of these, under a weak condition of initial uncertainty, a convergence point of a fictitious play sequence is a sequential equilibrium. For generic games of perfect information initial uncertainty also implies convergence of fictitious play.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Number: C72.     

Brown's original fictitious play

What modern game theorists describe as “fictitious play” is not the learning process George W. Brown defined in his 1951 paper. Brown's original version differs in a subtle detail, namely the order of belief updating. In this note we revive Brown's original fictitious play process and demonstrate that this seemingly innocent detail allows for an extremely simple and intuitive proof of convergence in an interesting and large class of games: nondegenerate ordinal potential games.     

Dynamics in near-potential games

We consider discrete-time learning dynamics in finite strategic form games, and show that games that are close to a potential game inherit many of the dynamical properties of potential games. We first study the evolution of the sequence of pure strategy profiles under better/best response dynamics. We show that this sequence converges to a (pure) approximate equilibrium set whose size is a function of the “distance” to a given nearby potential game. We then focus on logit response dynamics, and provide a characterization of the limiting outcome in terms of the distance of the game to a given potential game and the corresponding potential function. Finally, we turn attention to fictitious play, and establish that in near-potential games the sequence of empirical frequencies of player actions converges to a neighborhood of (mixed) equilibria, where the size of the neighborhood increases according to the distance to the set of potential games.     

Revisiting games of incomplete information with analogy-based expectations

This paper studies the effects of analogy-based expectations in static two-player games of incomplete information. Players are assumed to be boundedly rational in the way they forecast their opponent's state-contingent strategy: they bundle states into analogy classes and play best-responses to their opponent's average strategy in those analogy classes. We provide general properties of analogy-based expectation equilibria and apply the model to a variety of well known games. We characterize conditions on the analogy partitions for successful coordination in coordination games under incomplete information [Rubinstein, A., 1989. The electronic mail game: Strategic behavior under ‘almost common knowledge’. Amer. Econ. Rev. 79, 385–391], we show how analogy grouping of the receiver may facilitate information transmission in Crawford and Sobel's cheap talk games [Crawford, V.P., Sobel, J., 1982. Strategic information transmission. Econometrica 50, 1431–1451], and we show how analogy grouping may give rise to betting in zero-sum betting games such as those studied to illustrate the no trade theorem.     

Does seeing more deeply into a game increase one’s chances of winning?

The substantively rational value of the games studied in this paper does not help predict subject performance in the experiment at all. An accurate model must account for the cognitive ability of the people playing the game. This paper investigates whether the variation in measured rationality bounds is correlated with the probability of winning when playing against another person in games that exceed both players’ estimated rationality bound. Does seeing deeper into a game matter when neither player can see to the end of the game? Subjects with higher measured bounds win 63 percent of the time and the larger the difference the more frequently they win.     

Learning from Personal Experience: One Rational Guy and the Justification of Myopia

The paper examines a large population analog of fictitious play in which players learn from personal experience, focusing on what happens when a single rational player is added to the population. Because the learning process naturally generates contagion dynamics, the rational player at times has an incentive to act nonmyopically. In 2 × 2 games the dynamics are asymmetric and favor risk dominant equilibria. A variety of other examples are presented.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Number: C7.     

Endogenous transfers in the Prisoner's Dilemma game: An experimental test of cooperation and coordination

We test a two-stage compensation mechanism for promoting cooperation in Prisoner's Dilemma games. Players first simultaneously choose binding non-negative amounts to pay their counterparts for cooperating, and then play the induced game knowing these amounts. In our games, all payment pairs consistent with mutual cooperation in subgame-perfect equilibrium transform these games into coordination games, with both mutual cooperation and mutual defection as Nash equilibria in the second stage. When endogenous transfer payments are not permitted, cooperation is much less likely. Mutual cooperation is most likely when the (sufficient) payments are identical, and it is also substantially more likely with payment pairs that bring the mutual-cooperation payoffs closer together. Both the Fehr–Schmidt and Charness–Rabin models predict that transfers that make final payoffs closer are preferred; however, they do not explain why equal transfers are particularly effective. Transfers are also effective in sustaining cooperation even when they are imposed and not chosen.     

Voluntary provision of a pure public good as the game of ‘chicken’

The voluntary exchange model, where the amount of a public good and contributions to its cost are simultaneously determined, is treated as a (2×2) non-cooperative non-constant-sum game. Three conceptually different types of games emerge. One of them is ‘Chicken’; each player can gain by pre-emptively threatening to pay nothing—unless the other player acts likewise. ‘Zero public goods’ is thus a possible outcome of voluntary exchange, even though it is Pareto inferior.     

Learning Dynamics in Games with Stochastic Perturbations

Consider a generalization of fictitious play in which agents′ choices are perturbed by incomplete information about what the other side has done, variability in their payoffs, and unexplained trembles. These perturbed best reply dynamics define a nonstationary Markov process on an infinite state space. It is shown, using results from stochastic approximation theory, that for 2 × 2 games it converges almost surely to a point that lies close to a stable Nash equilibrium, whether pure or mixed. This generalizes a result of Fudenherg and Kreps, who demonstrate convergence when the game has a unique mixed equilibrium. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: 000, 000, 000.     

Noncooperative foundations of stable sets in voting games

This paper investigates optimal play in coordination games in which cognition plays an important role. In our game logically omniscient players would be able to identify a distinct coordination opportunity from other obvious facts. Real players may be unable to make the required inference. Our main experimental results are that in a coordination task with a cognitive component (1) players play differently when playing against themselves rather than against another player, and (2) given the opportunity, players signal cognition by choosing the coordination task over an outside option, a phenomenon which we refer to as cognitive forward induction.     

The role of strategic uncertainty in games: An experimental study of cheap talk and contracts in the Nash demand game

We utilise results from a human-subjects experiment to examine the connection between strategic uncertainty and outcomes in games. Our basic game is a Nash demand game where one player has an outside option available. A “chat” treatment allows bargainers to send cheap-talk messages prior to playing the basic game, and in a “contracts” treatment, they can additionally propose and accept binding contracts. We propose that strategic uncertainty comprises at least two facets: “coordination-type”, which is lower in the chat game than in the basic game, and “rationality-type”, which is lower in the contracts game than in the chat game. We find that both types of strategic uncertainty impact bargaining outcomes: moving from the basic game to the chat game, and thence to contracts, improves several aspects of outcomes, such as higher efficiency, less opting out and less under-demanding. Other results include a treatment effect on the types of agreements that are reached.     

Extensive and strategic forms: Games and models for games

This paper aims to make precise, in the context of epistemic models for games, some relations between the normal or strategic form representation of a game and the extensive or dynamic form representation. It is argued, first, that epistemic models defined for strategic form representations provide all the materials necessary for defining models for corresponding extensive form representations of the game, models that provide information about the way the game is played that is sufficient to evaluate the rationality of the choices that the players make, and are disposed to make, in the course of playing the dynamic game. Second, two definitions of rationality are compared — one for strategy choices in the normal form representation, and one for the individual choices that the player is disposed to make in the course of playing the dynamic game. It is shown that they are essentially equivalent in games with perfect recall. The main focus is on the intuitive foundational assumptions about rationality and dynamic choice that are needed to motivate the definitions. It is argued that to evaluate the rationality of a player's choices in a dynamic context, it is essential to distinguish passive knowledge (knowledge about nature and about the prior beliefs and strategy choices of other players that is based on observation and inference) fromactive knowledge (knowledge about one's own choices and future choices that is grounded in one's decisions).     

Learning with perfect information

For extensive form games with perfect information, consider a learning process in which, at any iteration, each player unilaterally deviates to a best response to his current conjectures of others' strategies; and then updates his conjectures in accordance with the induced play of the game. We show that, for generic payoffs, the outcome of the game becomes stationary, and is consistent with Nash equilibrium. In general, if payoffs have ties or if players observe more of each others' strategies than is revealed by plays of the game, the same result holds provided a rationality constraint is imposed on unilateral deviations: no player changes his moves in subgames that he deems unreachable, unless he stands to improve his payoff there. Moreover, with this constraint, the sequence of strategies and conjectures also becomes stationary, and yields a self-confirming equilibrium.     

Equilibrium play in matches: Binary Markov games

We study two-person extensive form games, or “matches,” in which the only possible outcomes (if the game terminates) are that one player or the other is declared the winner. The winner of the match is determined by the winning of points, in “point games.” We call these matches binary Markov games. We show that if a simple monotonicity condition is satisfied, then (a) it is a Nash equilibrium of the match for the players, at each point, to play a Nash equilibrium of the point game; (b) it is a minimax behavior strategy in the match for a player to play minimax in each point game; and (c) when the point games all have unique Nash equilibria, the only Nash equilibrium of the binary Markov game consists of minimax play at each point. An application to tennis is provided.     

Individually selecting among conventions - an evolutionary and experimental analysis

Conventions can be narrowly interpreted as coordinated ways of equilibrium play, telling all players which of possibly several equilibria to play or more broadly how to choose in a game without imposing the equilibrium property. Since coordination often takes place before learning about the game, one has to coordinate on a prescribing principle. For the subclass of 2×2-bimatrix games with two strict equilibria, we analyze the evolutionary stability of various such principles. In our experiment, we allow participants to coordinate on principles before playing various games. Based on between-subjects treatments, participants do so being completely (they know neither their role nor the game parameters), partially (they know either their role or the game parameters) ignorant, or with no veil of ignorance (they know their role and the game parameters).     

Imitation and selective matching in reputational games

This paper investigates imitation and selective matching in reputational games with an outside option. We identify two classes of such games, ultimatum and trust games. By selective matching we mean that short-run players have the possibility of selecting the long-run player they play against. We find that selective matching (unlike random matching) favors the equilibrium associated to reputation in the ultimatum game, but not in the trust game.