Existence of equilibria in countable games: an algebraic approach

Although mixed extensions of finite games always admit equilibria, this is not the case for countable games, the best-known example being Wald's pick-the-larger-integer game. Several authors have provided conditions for the existence of equilibria in infinite games. These conditions are typically of topological nature and are rarely applicable to countable games. Here we establish an existence result for the equilibrium of countable games when the strategy sets are a countable group and the payoffs are functions of the group operation. In order to obtain the existence of equilibria, finitely additive mixed strategies have to be allowed. This creates a problem of selection of a product measure of mixed strategies. We propose a family of such selections and prove existence of an equilibrium that does not depend on the selection. As a byproduct we show that if finitely additive mixed strategies are allowed, then Wald's game admits an equilibrium. We also prove existence of equilibria for nontrivial extensions of matching-pennies and rock-scissors-paper. Finally we extend the main results to uncountable games

From winning strategy to Nash equilibrium

Game theory is usually considered applied mathematics, but a few game-theoretic results, such as Borel determinacy, were developed by mathematicians for mathematics in a broad sense. These results usually state determinacy, i.e. the existence of a winning strategy in games that involve two players and two outcomes saying who wins. In a multi-outcome setting, the notion of winning strategy is irrelevant yet usually replaced faithfully with the notion of (pure) Nash equilibrium. This article shows that every determinacy result over an arbitrary game structure, e.g. a tree, is transferable into existence of multi-outcome (pure) Nash equilibrium over the same game structure. The equilibrium-transfer theorem requires cardinal or order-theoretic conditions on the strategy sets and the preferences, respectively, whereas counter-examples show that every requirement is relevant, albeit possibly improvable. When the outcomes are finitely many, the proof provides an algorithm computing a Nash equilibrium without significant complexity loss compared to the two-outcome case. As examples of application, this article generalises Borel determinacy, positional determinacy of parity games, and finite-memory determinacy of Muller games

The Complexity of Nash Equilibria in Limit-Average Games

We study the computational complexity of Nash equilibria in concurrent games with limit-average objectives. In particular, we prove that the existence of a Nash equilibrium in randomised strategies is undecidable, while the existence of a Nash equilibrium in pure strategies is decidable, even if we put a constraint on the payoff of the equilibrium. Our undecidability result holds even for a restricted class of concurrent games, where nonzero rewards occur only on terminal states. Moreover, we show that the constrained existence problem is undecidable not only for concurrent games but for turn-based games with the same restriction on rewards. Finally, we prove that the constrained existence problem for Nash equilibria in (pure or randomised) stationary strategies is decidable and analyse its complexity.Comment: 34 page

Potential games with continuous player sets

game theory

Bounding Rationality by Discounting Time

Consider a game where Alice generates an integer and Bob wins if he can factor that integer. Traditional game theory tells us that Bob will always win this game even though in practice Alice will win given our usual assumptions about the hardness of factoring. We define a new notion of bounded rationality, where the payoffs of players are discounted by the computation time they take to produce their actions. We use this notion to give a direct correspondence between the existence of equilibria where Alice has a winning strategy and the hardness of factoring. Namely, under a natural assumption on the discount rates, there is an equilibriumwhere Alice has a winning strategy iff there is a linear-time samplable distribution with respect to which Factoring is hard on average. We also give general results for discounted games over countable action spaces, including showing that any game with bounded and computable payoffs has an equilibrium in our model, even if each player is allowed a countable number of actions. It follows, for example, that the Largest Integer game has an equilibrium in our model though it has no Nash equilibria or epsilon-Nash equilibria.Comment: To appear in Proceedings of The First Symposium on Innovations in Computer Scienc