Learning to Learn, Pattern Recognition, and Nash Equilibrium

The paper studies a large class of bounded-rationality, probabilistic learning models on strategic-form games. The main assumption is that players “recognize” cyclic patterns in the observed history of play. The main result is convergence with probability one to a fixed pattern of pure strategy Nash equilibria, in a large class of “simple games” in which the pure equilibria are nicely spread along the lattice of the game. We also prove that a necessary condition for convergence of behavior to a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium is that the players consider arbitrarily long histories when forming their predictions.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers: C72, D83.     

Evolutionary stability and lexicographic preferences

We explore the interaction between evolutionary stability and lexicographic preferences. To do so, we define a limit Nash equilibrium for a lexicographic game as the limit of Nash equilibria of nearby games with continuous preferences. Nash equilibria of lexicographic games are limit Nash equilibria, but not conversely. Modified evolutionarily stable strategies (Binmore and Samuelson, 1992. J. Econ. Theory 57, 278–305) are limit Nash equilibria. Modified evolutionary stability differs from “lexicographic evolutionarily stability” (defined by extending the common characterization of evolutionary stability to lexicographic preferences) in the order in which limits in the payoff space and the space of invasion barriers are taken.     

Undominated Nash Implementation with Collusion and Renegotiation

This article looks at implementation in economic environments when agents have perfect information about the state of the world, but cannot commit not to renegotiate bad outcomes or to collude against each other. If renegotiation satisfies a weak condition of disagreement point monotonicity, then any Pareto-efficient social choice function can be implemented if there are at least three agents who play undominated Nash equilibria. The mechanism does not use modulo or integer games, has no bad mixed strategy equilibria, and is “bounded.”Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Number: D71.     

A Noncooperative Analysis of Hotelling's Location Game

We study the location equilibrium in Hotelling's model of spatial competition. As d'Aspremontet al.have shown, with quadratic consumer transportation cost the two sellers will seek to move as far away from each other as possible. We show that the location game possesses an infinity of mixed strategy Nash equilibria. In these equilibria coordination failure invalidates the principle of “maximum differentiation” and firms may even locate at the same point.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers: C72, D43, L11.     

Games with Imperfectly Observable Commitment

[1]claims that, in models of commitment, “the first-mover advantage is eliminated when there is aslightamount of noise associated with the observation of the first-mover's selection.” We show that the validity of this claim depends crucially on the restriction to pure strategy equilibria. The game analyzed by Bagwell always has a mixed equilibrium that is close to the Stackelberg equilibrium when the noise is small. Furthermore, an equilibrium selection theory that combines elements from the theory of[7]with elements from the theory of [6], actually selects this “noisy Stackelberg equilibrium.”Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Number: C72.     

Bargaining under a deadline: evidence from the reverse ultimatum game

We study a “reverse” ultimatum game, in which proposers have multiple chances to offer responders a division of some fixed pie. The game ends if the responder accepts an offer, or if, following a rejection, the proposer decides not to make a better offer. The unique subgame perfect equilibrium gives the proposer the minimum possible payoff. Nevertheless, the experimental results are not too different from those of the standard ultimatum game, although proposers generally receive slightly less than half of the surplus.We use the reverse ultimatum game to study deadlines experimentally. With a deadline, the subgame perfect equilibrium prediction is that the proposer gets the entire surplus.Deadlines are used strategically to influence the outcome, and agreements are reached near the deadline. Strategic considerations are evident in the differences in observed behavior between the deadline and no deadline conditions, even though agreements are substantially less extreme than predicted by perfect equilibrium.     

Cooperative Outcomes through Noncooperative Games

This paper shows the equivalence between the stable solution set of any cooperative game in characteristic form (G1) and the subgame perfect Nash equilibria in pure strategies of a certain noncooperative game (G2). Players of G1 are named "agents." G2 is played by different players ("principals") who compete in wages to attract agents. The equivalence result holds when there are enough principals (if the game is superadditive, two principals suffice). Finally, another related cooperative game (G3) is constructed with both principals and agents as players. For G2 and G3 the same result is then proven, for any number of principals. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C71 and C72.     

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.     

Trading networks with price-setting agents

In a wide range of markets, individual buyers and sellers trade through intermediaries, who determine prices via strategic considerations. Typically, not all buyers and sellers have access to the same intermediaries, and they trade at correspondingly different prices that reflect their relative amounts of power in the market. We model this phenomenon using a game in which buyers, sellers, and traders engage in trade on a graph that represents the access each buyer and seller has to the traders. We show that the resulting game always has a subgame perfect Nash equilibrium, and that all equilibria lead to an efficient allocation of goods. Finally, we analyze trader profits in terms of the graph structure — roughly, a trader can command a positive profit if and only if it has an “essential” connection in the network, thus providing a graph-theoretic basis for quantifying the amount of competition among traders.     

Competitive capitalism and cooperative labor management in a dynamic nutshell

Competitive capitalism and co-operative labor management are both formulated as differential games: The former, as a game between capitalists and workers, and the latter as one between an elected council and workers. The two systems are compared against the background of neoclassical optimal growth theory, at their respective equilibria and in terms of their rates of approach toward these states, all within a dynamic “nutshell” model extended from the static one of Dirickx and Sertel (1979).     

War and peace: Third-party intervention in conflict

This paper develops a simple sequential-move game to characterize the endogeneity of third-party intervention in conflict. We show how a third party's “intervention technology” interacts with the canonical “conflict technologies” of two rival parties in affecting the sub-game perfect Nash equilibrium outcome. From the perspective of deterrence strategy, we find that it is more costly for a third party to support an ally to deter a challenger from attacking (i.e., to maintain peace or acquiescence), as compared to the alternative case when the third party supports the ally to gain a disputed territory by attacking (i.e., to create war), ceteris paribus. However, an optimally intervening third party can be either “peace-making”, “peace-breaking”, or neither depending on the characteristics of the conflict and the stakes the third party holds with each of the rival parties.     

Concatenate coordination and mutual coordination

We tell of the evolving meaning of the term coordination as used by economists. The paper is based on systematic electronic searches (on “coord,” etc.) of major works and leading journals. The term coordination first emerged in professional economics around 1880, to describe the directed productive concatenation of factors or activities within a firm. Also, transportation economists used the term to describe the concatenation of routes and trips of a transportation system. These usages represent what we term concatenate coordination. The next major development came in the 1930s from several LSE economists (Hayek, Plant, Hutt, and Coase), who extended that concept beyond the eye of any actual coordinator. That is, they wrote of the concatenate coordination of a system of polycentric or spontaneous activities. These various applications of concatenate coordination prevailed until the next major development, namely, Thomas Schelling and game models. Here coordination referred to a mutual meshing of actions. Game theorists developed crisp ideas of coordination games (like “battle of the sexes”), coordination equilibria, convention, and path dependence. This “coordination” was not a refashioning, but rather a distinct concept, one we distinguish as mutual coordination. As game models became more familiar to economists, it was mutual coordination that economists increasingly had in mind when they spoke of “coordination.” Economists switched, so to speak, to a new semantic equilibrium. Now, mutual coordination overshadows the older notion of concatenate coordination. The two senses of coordination are conceptually distinct and correspond neatly to the two dictionary definitions of the verb to coordinate. Both are crucial to economics. We suggest that distinguishing between the two senses can help to clarify “coordination” talk. Also, compared to talk of “efficiency” and “optimality,” concatenate coordination allows for a richer, more humanistic, and more openly aesthetic discussion of social affairs. The narrative is backed up by Excel worksheets that report on systematic content searches of the writings of economics using the worldwide web and, using JSTOR, of Quarterly Journal of Economics, Economic Journal, Journal of Political Economy, American Economic Review, and Economica.     

Ascending auctions for multiple objects: the case for the Japanese design

Summary. We consider two ascending auctions for multiple objects, namely, an English and a Japanese auction, and derive a perfect Bayesian equilibrium of the Japanese auction by exploiting its strategic equivalence with the survival auction, which consists of a finite sequence of sealed-bid auctions. Thus an equilibrium of a continuous time game is derived by means of backward induction in finitely many steps. We then show that all equilibria of the Japanese auction induce equilibria of the English auction, but that many collusive or signaling equilibria of the English auction do not have a counterpart in the Japanese auction.Received: 2 September 2004, Revised: 20 April 2005, JEL Classification Numbers: C72, D44.Fabrizio Germano: Correspondence toWe are indebted to Philippe Jehiel for useful discussions and to Nicolas Vieille for suggestions in the proof of Proposition 2; we also thank seminar audiences in Athens, Basel, Beer-Sheva, Berlin, Brussels, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Exeter, Lausanne, Lisbon, London, Louvain-la-Neuve, Namur and Tel Aviv. Germano acknowledges financial support from Euopean Commission, TMR Network Grant ERBFMRXCT0055, “Cooperation and Information” as well from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology, Grants SEC2001-0792, SEJ2004-06319, and in form of a Ramon y Cajal Fellowship. Lovo is member of GREGHEC, unité CNRS, FRE-2810. The support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is also gratefully acknowledged. The work was part of the programme of the ESRC Research for Economic Learning and Social Evolution.     

Commitment Robust Equilibria and Endogenous Timing

This paper investigates which equilibria of a game are still viable when players have the opportunity to commit themselves. To that end we study a model of endogenous timing in which players face the trade-off between committing early and moving late. It is shown that mixed (resp. pure) equilibria of the original game are subgame perfect (resp. persistent) in the timing game only when no player has an incentive to move first. Consequently, mixed equilibria are viable only if no player has an incentive to move first. One needs strong evolutionary solution concepts to draw that conclusion for pure equilibria.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Number: C72.     

An evolutionary model of speculative attacks

We build an evolutionary model of currency crises incorporating learning through imitation and experimentation by heterogeneous agents. Foreign currency speculators in the model interact and learn over time through experimentation. Drawing on results from game theory, we show that the resulting dynamic converges to a unique long run equilibrium, in which the currency is “attacked” if the economic fundamentals are sufficiently adverse. Evolutionary selection is thus shown as a way to resolve the issue of indeterminacy of equilibria associated with models of currency crises.JEL Classification: C63, F31, D83, C72I am grateful to Jasmina Arifovic, Peter Garber, Pravin Krishna, Blake LeBaron, Nidhiya Menon, Srinivas Thiruvadanthai and Tiemen Woutersen for useful remarks and suggestions. All errors remain my own.     

Existence of perfect equilibria: a direct proof

We provide a direct proof of the existence of perfect equilibria in finite normal form games and extensive games with perfect recall. It is done by constructing a correspondence whose fixed points are precisely the perfect equilibria of a given finite game. Existence of a fixed point is secured by a generalization of Kakutani theorem, which is proved in this paper. This work offers a new approach to perfect equilibria, which would hopefully facilitate further study on this topic. We also hope our direct proof would be the first step toward building an algorithm to find the set of all perfect equilibria of a strategic game.     

Reinterpreting mixed strategy equilibria: a unification of the classical and Bayesian views

We provide a new interpretation of mixed strategy equilibria that incorporates both von Neumann and Morgenstern's classical concealment role of mixing, as well as the more recent Bayesian view originating with Harsanyi. For any two-person game, G, we consider an incomplete information game, in which each player's type is the probability he assigns to the event that his mixed strategy in G is “found out” by his opponent. We show that, generically, any regular equilibrium of G can be approximated by an equilibrium of in which almost every type of each player is strictly optimizing. This leads us to interpret i's equilibrium mixed strategy in G as a combination of deliberate randomization by i together with uncertainty on j's part about which randomization i will employ. We also show that such randomization is not unusual: for example, i's randomization is nondegenerate whenever the support of an equilibrium contains cyclic best replies.     

The local best response criterion: An epistemic approach to equilibrium refinement

The standard refinement criteria for extensive form games, including subgame perfect, perfect, perfect Bayesian, sequential, and proper, reject important classes of reasonable Nash equilibria and accept many unreasonable Nash equilibria. This paper develops a new refinement criterion, based on epistemic game theory, that captures the concept of a Nash equilibrium that is plausible when players are rational. I call this the local best response (LBR) criterion. This criterion is conceptually simpler than the standard refinement criteria because it does not depend on out-of-equilibrium, counterfactual, or passage to the limit arguments. The LBR is also informationally richer because it clarifies the epistemic conditions that render a Nash equilibrium reasonable. The LBR criterion appears to render the traditional refinement criteria superfluous.     

Egalitarianism and Efficiency in Repeated Symmetric Games

We analyze the symmetric equilibria of repeated symmetric games where there is a conflict of interests over equilibria—the battle-of-the-sexes or the hawk–dove game are key examples. If one restricts attention to symmetric equilibria, efficient equilibria must be egalitarian. For finitely repeated games, and generic discount factors, there is a unique outcome path which ensures efficiency within the class of symmetric equilibria. This is also true for the infinitely repeated games if the players are sufficiently impatient. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C72, C73.