Mixed-strategy equilibria in the Nash Demand Game

In the Nash Demand Game, each of the two players announces the share he demands of an amount of money that may be split between them. If the demands can be satisfied, they are; otherwise, neither player receives any money. This game has many pure-strategy equilibria. This paper characterizes mixed-strategy equilibria. The condition critical for an equilibrium is that players’ sets of possible demands be balanced. Two sets of demands are balanced if each demand in one set can be matched with a demand in the other set such that they sum to one. For Nash’s original game, a complete characterization is given of the equilibria in which both players’ expected payoffs are strictly positive. The findings are applied to the private provision of a discrete public good.     

Coordination of strategic responses to security threats: Laboratory evidence

Laboratory experiments are used to evaluate the extent to which players in games can coordinate investments that diminish the probability of losses due to security breaches or terrorist attacks. In this environment, economically sensible investments may be foregone if their potential benefits are negated by failures to invest in security at other sites. The result is a coordination game with a desirable high-payoff, high-security equilibrium and an undesirable low-security equilibrium that may result if players do not expect others to invest in security. One unique feature of this coordination situation is that investment in security by one player generates a positive externality such that all other players’ expected payoffs are increased, regardless of those other players’ investment decisions. Coordination failures are pervasive in a baseline experiment with simultaneous decisions, but coordination is improved if players are allowed to move in an endogenously determined sequence. In addition, coordinated security investments are observed more often when the largest single security threat to individuals is preventable by their own decisions to invest in security. The security coordination game is a “potential game,” and the success of coordination on the more secure equilibrium is related to the notion of potential function maximization and basin of attraction.      

Competition and coordination in experimental minority games

This work presents experimental results on a coordination game in which agents must repeatedly choose between two sides, and a positive fixed payoff is assigned only to agents who pick the minoritarian side. We conduct laboratory experiments in which stationary groups of five players play the game for 100 periods, and manipulate two treatment variables: the amount of information about other players’ past choices and the salience of information regarding the game history (i.e., the length of the string of past outcomes that players can see on the screen while choosing). Our main findings can be summarized as follows: aggregate efficiency in the game is in most cases significantly higher than the level corresponding to the symmetric mixed strategy Nash equilibrium. In addition, providing players with information about individual choices in the group does not improve aggregate efficiency with respect to when such information is absent. Displaying information about more rounds than just the previous one, on the other hand, seems to have a positive effect on aggregate efficiency. At the individual level, we find a stronger statistical relation between players’ current choices and their own past choices than between players’ choices and previous aggregate outcomes. In addition, the depth of the relation between present and past choices seems to be affected by the prompt availability of information about the game history. Finally, we detect evidence of a mutual co-adaptation between players’ choices over time that is partly responsible for the high level of efficiency observed.      

Equilibrium existence and approximation of regular discontinuous games

Many conditions have been introduced to ensure equilibrium existence in games with discontinuous payoff functions. This paper introduces a new condition, called regularity, that is simple and easy to verify. Regularity requires that if there is a sequence of strategies converging to s* such that the players’ payoffs along the sequence converge to the best-reply payoffs at s*, then s* is an equilibrium. We show that regularity is implied both by Reny’s better-reply security and Simon and Zame’s endogenous sharing rule approach. This allows us to explore a link between these two distinct methods. Although regularity implies that the limits of e{\epsilon}-equilibria are equilibria, it is in general too weak for implying equilibrium existence. However, we are able to identify extra conditions that, together with regularity, are sufficient for equilibrium existence. In particular, we show how regularity allows the technique of approximating games both by payoff functions and space of strategies.     

Private provision of a discrete public good: efficient equilibria in the private-information contribution game

We study the voluntary provision of a discrete public good via the contribution game. Players independently and simultaneously make nonrefundable contributions to fund a discrete public good, which is provided if and only if contributions cover the cost of production. We characterize nonconstant continuous symmetric equilibria, giving sufficient conditions for their existence. We show the common normalization by which players’ values are distributed over [0, 1] is not without loss of generality: if the distribution over this interval has continuous density f with f(0) >  0, then no (nonconstant) continuous symmetric equilibrium exists. We study in detail the case in which players’ private values are uniformly distributed, showing that, generically, when one continuous equilibrium exists, a continuum of continuous equilibria exists. For any given cost of the good, multiple continuous equilibria cannot be Pareto ranked. Nevertheless, not all continuous equilibria are interim incentive efficient. The set of interim incentive efficient equilibria is exactly determined. The authors thank Manfred Dix, George Mailath, Andrew Postlewaite, and an anonymous referee for their comments.     

The Colonel Blotto game

In the Colonel Blotto game, two players simultaneously distribute forces across n battlefields. Within each battlefield, the player that allocates the higher level of force wins. The payoff of the game is the proportion of wins on the individual battlefields. An equilibrium of the Colonel Blotto game is a pair of n-variate distributions. This paper characterizes the unique equilibrium payoffs for all (symmetric and asymmetric) configurations of the players’ aggregate levels of force, characterizes the complete set of equilibrium univariate marginal distributions for most of these configurations, and constructs entirely new and novel equilibrium n-variate distributions.I am grateful to Jason Abrevaya, Dan Kovenock, James C. Moore, Roger B. Nelsen, and three anonymous referees for very helpful comments. A version of this paper was presented at the 2005 Midwest Economic Theory Meetings. This paper is based on the first chapter of my Ph.D. dissertation     

A bargaining model in general equilibrium

The goal of the paper is to present a simple model of rational endogenous household formation in a general equilibrium framework in which Pareto optimality at the economy level is not necessarily obtained. The simplest example of household formation is the case in which pairs of individuals engage themselves in a bargaining process on the division of some wealth: if an agreement on the distribution is (not) reached, we can say that the household is (not) formed. The vast majority of existing bargaining models predicts agreements on an efficient outcome. A seminal paper by Crawford (Econometrica 50:607–637, 1982) describes a very simple game with incomplete information in which, even with rational agents, disagreement causes welfare losses. We embed that model in a general equilibrium framework and present some results on equilibria both in the bargaining game and the associated exchange economy. Crawford’s results support Schelling’s intuition on the reasons of disagreement: it may arise if players’ commitments are reversible. Crawford shows that high probabilities of reversibility tend to favor the bargaining impasse, in fact with low probability. We prove that even if those probabilities are arbitrarily close to zero, disagreement is an equilibrium outcome, with high probability. That conclusion seems to be an even stronger support to Schelling’s original viewpoint. In the exchange economy model with that noncooperative bargaining game as a first stage, we present significant examples of economies for which equilibria exist. Because of disagreement, Pareto suboptimal exchange economy equilibria exist for all elements in the utility function and endowment spaces and they may coexist with Pareto optimal equilibria even at the same competitive prices.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

A simple note on herd behaviour

In his ‘Simple model of herd behaviour’, (Banerjee A (1992) A simple model of herd behaviour. Q J Econ CVII:797–817) shows that—in a sequential game—if the first two players have chosen the same action, player 3 and all subsequent players will ignore his/her own information and start a herd, an irreversible one. In this paper, we analyse the role played by the tie-breaking assumptions in reaching the equilibrium. We show that: players’ strategies are parameter dependent—an incorrect herd may be reversed; a correct herd is irreversible.

Behavior in one-shot traveler’s dilemma games: model and experiments with advice

We report results of one-shot traveler’s dilemma game experiments to test the predictions of a model of introspection. The model describes a noisy out-of-equilibrium process by which players reach a decision of what to do in one-shot games. To test the robustness of the model and to compare it to other models of introspection without noise, we introduce non-binding advice. Advice has the effect of coordinating all players’ beliefs onto a common strategy. Experimentally, advice is implemented by asking subjects who participated in a repeated traveler’s dilemma game to recommend an action to subjects playing one-shot games with identical parameters. In contrast to observations, models based on best-response dynamics would predict lower claims than the advised. We show that our model’s predictions with and without advice are consistent with the data.      

Corporate social responsibility and the ‘game of catallaxy’: the perspective of constitutional economics

The paper examines the issue of corporate social responsibility (CSR) from the perspective of constitutional economics, focusing on the distinction between a political community’s constitutional choice of the rules of the “market game,” and the market players’ sub-constitutional choice of strategies within these rules. Three versions of CSR-demands are identified and discussed, a “soft,” a “hard”, and a “radical” version. The soft version is concerned with the issue of how “socially responsible” corporations ought to play the market game within existing rules. The hard version is about how the rules of the market ought to be changed in order to induce “socially responsible” corporate behavior. And the radical version questions the compatibility of CSR and the logic of the market game, calling in effect for adopting some alternative economic regime.

Computing a quasi-perfect equilibrium of a two-player game

Refining an algorithm due to Koller, Megiddo and von Stengel, we show how to apply Lemke’s algorithm for solving linear complementarity programs to compute a quasi-perfect equilibrium in behavior strategies of a given two-player extensive-form game of perfect recall. A quasi-perfect equilibrium is known to be sequential, and our algorithm thus resolves a conjecture of McKelvey and McLennan in the positive. A quasi-perfect equilibrium is also known to be normal-form perfect and our algorithm thus provides an alternative to an algorithm by von Stengel, van den Elzen and Talman. For the case of a zero-sum game, we devise variants of the algorithm that rely on linear programming rather than linear complementarity programming and use the simplex algorithm or other algorithms for linear programming rather than Lemke’s algorithm. We argue that these latter algorithms are relevant for recent applications of equilibrium computation to artificial intelligence.     

Understanding some recent existence results for discontinuous games

We introduce a new condition, weak better-reply security, and show that every compact, locally convex, metric, quasiconcave and weakly better-reply secure game has a Nash equilibrium. This result is established using simple generalizations of classical ideas. Furthermore, we show that, when players’ action spaces are metric and locally convex, it implies the existence results of Reny (Econometrica 67:1029–1056, 1999) and Carmona (J Econ Theory 144:1333–1340, 2009) and that it is equivalent to a recent result of Barelli and Soza (On the Existence of Nash Equilibria in Discontinuous and Qualitative Games, University of Rochester, Rochester, 2009). Our general existence result also implies a new existence result for weakly upper reciprocally semicontinuous and weakly payoff secure games that satisfy a strong quasiconcavity property.     

Proper belief revision and equilibrium in dynamic games

We present a theory of rationality in dynamic games in which players, during the course of the game, may revise their beliefs about the opponents’ utility functions. The theory is based upon the following three principles: (1) the players’ initial beliefs about the opponents’ utilities should agree on some profile u of utility functions, (2) every player should believe, at each of his information sets, that his opponents are carrying out optimal strategies and (3) a player at information set h should not change his belief about an opponent's ranking of strategies a and b if both a and b could have led to h. Scenarios with these properties are called preference conjecture equilibria for the profile u of utility functions. We show that every normal form proper equilibrium for u induces a preference conjecture equilibrium for u, thus implying existence of preference conjecture equilibrium.     

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.     

Equilibrium selection through incomplete information in coordination games: an experimental study

We perform an experiment on a pure coordination game with uncertainty about the payoffs. Our game is closely related to models that have been used in many macroeconomic and financial applications to solve problems of equilibrium indeterminacy. In our experiment, each subject receives a noisy signal about the true payoffs. This game (inspired by the “global” games of Carlsson and van Damme, Econometrica, 61, 989–1018, 1993) has a unique strategy profile that survives the iterative deletion of strictly dominated strategies (thus a unique Nash equilibrium). The equilibrium outcome coincides, on average, with the risk-dominant equilibrium outcome of the underlying coordination game. In the baseline game, the behavior of the subjects converges to the theoretical prediction after enough experience has been gained. The data (and the comments) suggest that this behavior can be explained by learning. To test this hypothesis, we use a different game with incomplete information, related to a complete information game where learning and prior experiments suggest a different behavior. Indeed, in the second treatment, the behavior did not converge to equilibrium within 50 periods in some of the sessions. We also run both games under complete information. The results are sufficiently similar between complete and incomplete information to suggest that risk-dominance is also an important part of the explanation.      

Bargaining and markets: complexity and the competitive outcome

Rubinstein and Wolinsky (Rev. Econ. Stud. 57 (1990) 63-78) consider a simple decentralised market game in which agents meet randomly or voluntarily and bargain over the terms of trade. They show that any individually rational price can be sustained as a sequential equilibrium even though the model has a unique competitive outcome. Here, I consider Rubinstein and Wolinsky's model and show that if complexity costs of implementing strategies enter players’ preferences, together with the standard payoff in the game, then every equilibrium is stationary/Markov and induces the unique competitive price. Thus, I demonstrate that aversion to complexity may provide a justification for the competitive outcome.     

Stochastic strategy adjustment in coordination games

Summary. The paper explores a model of equilibrium selection in coordination games, where agents from an infinite population stochastically adjust their strategies to changes in their local environment. Instead of playing perturbed best-response, it is assumed that agents follow a rule of ‘switching to better strategies with higher probability’. This behavioral rule is related to bounded-rationality models of Rosenthal (1989) and Schlag (1998). Moreover, agents stay with their strategy in case they successfully coordinate with their local neighbors. Our main results show that both strict Nash equilibria of the coordination game correspond to invariant distributions of the process, hence evolution of play is not ergodic but instead depends on initial conditions. However, coordination on the risk-dominant equilibrium occurs with probability one whenever the initial fraction contains infinitely many agents, independent of the spatial distribution of these agents. Received: March 14, 2000; revised version: June 21, 2001