Strategic correlativity and network games

We consider the strategic correlativity principle in strategic form games and potential games, which indicate the relationship between an arbitrary pair of players under correlated equilibria. Importantly, the strategies of a pair of players are positively correlated when their expected payoff functions are supermodular, while negatively correlated when their expected payoff functions are submodular. Furthermore, we extend the strategic correlativity principle to strategic form games and potential games in social networks, and investigate the monotonicity of correlated equilibrium in each player's own degree.     

Iterated strict dominance in general games

We offer a definition of iterated elimination of strictly dominated strategies (IESDS^*) for games with (in)finite players, (non)compact strategy sets, and (dis)continuous payoff functions. IESDS^* is always a well-defined order independent procedure that can be used to solve Nash equilibrium in dominance-solvable games. We characterize IESDS^* by means of a “stability” criterion, and offer a sufficient and necessary epistemic condition for IESDS^*. We show by an example that IESDS^* may generate spurious Nash equilibria in the class of Reny's better-reply secure games. We provide sufficient/necessary conditions under which IESDS^* preserves the set of Nash equilibria.     

UNIQUENESS OF EQUILIBRIUM PAYOFFS IN FINITELY REPEATED GAMES WITH IMPERFECT MONITORING*

This paper examines when a finitely repeated game with imperfect monitoring has a unique equilibrium payoff vector. This problem is nontrivial under imperfect monitoring, because uniqueness of equilibrium (outcome) in the stage game does not extend to finitely repeated games. A (correlated) equilibrium is equilibrium minimaxing if any player's equilibrium payoff is her minimax value when the other players choose a correlated action profile from the actions played in the equilibrium. The uniqueness result holds if all stage game correlated equilibria are equilibrium minimaxing and have the same payoffs. The uniqueness result does not hold under weaker conditions.     

Iterated strict dominance in general games

We offer a definition of iterated elimination of strictly dominated strategies (IESDS^*) for games with (in)finite players, (non)compact strategy sets, and (dis)continuous payoff functions. IESDS^* is always a well-defined order independent procedure that can be used to solve Nash equilibrium in dominance-solvable games. We characterize IESDS^* by means of a “stability” criterion, and offer a sufficient and necessary epistemic condition for IESDS^*. We show by an example that IESDS^* may generate spurious Nash equilibria in the class of Reny's better-reply secure games. We provide sufficient/necessary conditions under which IESDS^* preserves the set of Nash equilibria.     

On the existence of pure-strategy perfect equilibrium in discontinuous games

We provide sufficient conditions for a (possibly) discontinuous normal-form game to possess a pure-strategy trembling-hand perfect equilibrium. We first show that compactness, continuity, and quasiconcavity of a game are too weak to warrant the existence of a pure-strategy perfect equilibrium. We then identify two classes of games for which the existence of a pure-strategy perfect equilibrium can be established: (1) the class of compact, metric, concave games satisfying upper semicontinuity of the sum of payoffs and a strengthening of payoff security; and (2) the class of compact, metric games satisfying upper semicontinuity of the sum of payoffs, strengthenings of payoff security and quasiconcavity, and a notion of local concavity and boundedness of payoff differences on certain subdomains of a player's payoff function. Various economic games illustrate our results.     

INCOMPLETE INFORMATION GAMES WITH MULTIPLE PRIORS*

We present a model of incomplete information games, where each player is endowed with a set of priors. Upon arrival of private information, it is assumed that each player “updates” his set of priors to a set of posterior beliefs, and then evaluates his actions by the most pessimistic posterior beliefs. So each player's preferences may exhibit aversion to ambiguity or uncertainty. We define a couple of equilibrium concepts, establish existence results for them, and demonstrate by examples how players’ views on uncertainty about the environment affect the strategic outcomes.     

Bayesian games with unawareness and unawareness perfection

Applying unawareness belief structures introduced in Heifetz et al. (Games Econ Behav 77:100–121, 2013a), we develop Bayesian games with unawareness, define equilibrium, and prove existence. We show how equilibria are extended naturally from lower to higher awareness levels and restricted from higher to lower awareness levels. We apply Bayesian games with unawareness to investigate the robustness of equilibria to uncertainty about opponents’ awareness of actions. We show that a Nash equilibrium of a strategic game is robust to unawareness of actions if and only if it is not weakly dominated. Finally, we discuss the relationship between standard Bayesian games and Bayesian games with unawareness.     

Cycling in a stochastic learning algorithm for normal form games

In this paper we study a stochastic learning model for 2×2 normal form games that are played repeatedly. The main emphasis is put on the emergence of cycles. We assume that the players have neither information about the payoff matrix of their opponent nor about their own. At every round each player can only observe his or her action and the payoff he or she receives. We prove that the learning algorithm, which is modeled by an urn scheme proposed by Arthur (1993), leads with positive probability to a cycling of strategy profiles if the game has a mixed Nash equilibrium. In case there are strict Nash equilibria, the learning process converges a.s. to the set of Nash equilibria.     

Aggregative games and best-reply potentials

This paper introduces quasi-aggregative games and establishes conditions under which such games admit a best-reply potential. This implies existence of a pure strategy Nash equilibrium without any convexity or quasi-concavity assumptions. It also implies convergence of best-reply dynamics under some additional assumptions. Most of the existing literature’s aggregation concepts are special cases of quasi-aggregative games, and many new situations are allowed for. An example is payoff functions that depend on own strategies as well as a linear combination of the mean and the variance of players’ strategies.     

On the Coalition-Proofness of the Pareto Frontier of the Set of Nash Equilibria

This article shows that the Pareto efficient frontier of the Nash equilibrium set of games with strategic substitutes is coalition-proof under the following conditions: (1) the game has three players, or, alternatively, a player's payoff depends on her own strategy and on the sum (but not on the composition) of other players' strategies; (2) an increase in a player's strategy either raises all other players' payoffs monotonically or reduces them monotonically; and (3) each player's payoff is strictly concave in her own strategy. Under these conditions, the Pareto dominance refinement is equivalent to the coalition-proof Nash equilibrium refinement.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Number: C72.     

Action-Graph Games

Representing and reasoning with games becomes difficult once they involve large numbers of actions and players, because the space requirement for utility functions can grow unmanageably. Action-Graph Games (AGGs) are a fully-expressive game representation that can compactly express utility functions with structure such as context-specific independence, anonymity, and additivity. We show that AGGs can be used to compactly represent all games that are compact when represented as graphical games, symmetric games, anonymous games, congestion games, and polymatrix games, as well as games that require exponential space under all of these existing representations. We give a polynomial-time algorithm for computing a player's expected utility under an arbitrary mixed-strategy profile, and show how to use this algorithm to achieve exponential speedups of existing methods for computing sample Nash equilibria. We present results of experiments showing that using AGGs leads to a dramatic increase in the size of games accessible to computational analysis.²     

Local perfection

We investigate solution concepts for normal-form games with large strategy spaces. “Trembling hand” perfection (THP) is extended to games with compact metric strategy sets. A Nash equilibrium is THP if it is the limit of equilibria in which agents face vanishingly small uncertainty. We refine THP by imposing some structure on the kind of uncertainty that agents face: a THP equilibrium is locally perfect if the uncertainty is “predominantly local” in nature, i.e., if agents' probability assessments assign, in the limit, an overwhelmingly lage proportion of the total probability mass to events “in the vicinity of the truth.”     

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     

Monotone equilibria in Bayesian games of strategic complementarities

For Bayesian games of strategic complementarities, we provide a constructive proof of the existence of a greatest and a least Bayesian Nash equilibrium, each one in strategies that are monotone in type. Our main assumptions, besides strategic complementarities, are that each player's payoff displays increasing differences in own action and the profile of types and that each player's interim beliefs are increasing in type with respect to first-order stochastic dominance (e.g., types are affiliated). The result holds for general action and type spaces (single-, multi-, or infinite-dimensional; continuous or discrete) and no prior is assumed. We also provide the following comparative statics result: the greatest and least equilibria are higher if there is a first-order stochastic dominant shift in the interim beliefs. We apply this result to strategic information revelation in games of voluntary disclosure.     

A general structure theorem for the Nash equilibrium correspondence

I consider n-person normal form games where the strategy set of each player is a non-empty compact convex subset of an Euclidean space, and the payoff function of player i is continuous in joint strategies and continuously differentiable and concave in the player i's strategy. No further restrictions (such as multilinearity of the payoff functions or the requirement that the strategy sets be polyhedral) are imposed. I demonstrate that the graph of the Nash equilibrium correspondence on this domain is homeomorphic to the space of games. This result generalizes a well-known structure theorem in [Kohlberg, E., Mertens, J.-F., 1986. On the strategic stability of equilibria. Econometrica 54, 1003–1037]. It is supplemented by an extension analogous to the unknottedness theorems in [Demichelis S., Germano, F., 2000. Some consequences of the unknottedness of the Walras correspondence. J. Math. Econ. 34, 537–545; Demichelis S., Germano, F., 2002. On (un)knots and dynamics in games. Games Econ. Behav. 41, 46–60]: the graph of the Nash equilibrium correspondence is ambient isotopic to a trivial copy of the space of games.     

Measuring Strategic Uncertainty in Coordination Games

This paper proposes a method to measure strategic uncertainty by eliciting certainty equivalents analogous to measuring risk attitudes in lotteries. We apply this method by conducting experiments on a class of one-shot coordination games with strategic complementarities and choices between simple lotteries and sure payoff alternatives, both framed in a similar way. Despite the multiplicity of equilibria in the coordination games, aggregate behaviour is fairly predictable. The pure or mixed Nash equilibria cannot describe subjects' behaviour. We present two global games with private information about monetary payoffs and about risk aversion. While previous literature treats the parameters of a global game as given, we estimate them and show that both models describe observed behaviour well. The global-game selection for vanishing noise of private signals offers a good recommendation for actual players, given the observed distribution of actions. We also deduce subjective beliefs and compare them with objective probabilities.     

Risk attitudes and the stag-hunt game

A stag-hunt game (with the risky and safe actions) has two pure Nash equilibria that are Pareto-rankable. The risky action leads either to the Pareto-superior equilibrium (high payoff) or to out of equilibrium (low payoff) depending on the opponent’s action. Both players may want to obtain high payoff but uncertainty about the opponent’s action may prevent them to take such strategic risk. This paper investigates how information about the risk attitude of an opponent affects a player’s action choice in the stag-hunt game. I find that although a subject’s propensity to choose the risky action depends on her opponent’s risk attitude, it does not depend on her own risk attitude.     

Brown–von Neumann–Nash dynamics: The continuous strategy case

Brown and von Neumann introduced a dynamical system that converges to saddle points of zero sum games with finitely many strategies. Nash used the mapping underlying these dynamics to prove existence of equilibria in general games. The resulting Brown–von Neumann–Nash dynamics are a benchmark example for myopic adjustment dynamics that, in contrast to replicator dynamics, allow for innovation, but require less rationality than the best response dynamics. This paper studies the BNN dynamics for games with infinitely many strategies. We establish Nash stationarity for continuous payoff functions. For negative semidefinite games (that include zero sum games), we generalize the results of Brown and von Neumann. In addition, we show that evolutionarily robust Nash equilibria are asymptotically stable. A complete stability analysis for doubly symmetric games is also obtained.     

Equilibrium Selection and Consistency

In this paper we show that, for two important classes of strategic games, namely the class of mixed extensions of finite games and the class of games with compact and convex strategy spaces and continuous-concave payoff functions, equilibrium selection is incompatible with One Person Rationality, Consistency and (restricted) Non-Emptiness.