A comparative study of game theoretic and evolutionary models for software agents

Most of the existing work in the study of bargaining behaviour uses techniques from game theory. Game theoretic models for bargaining assume that players are perfectly rational and that this rationality in common knowledge. However, the perfect rationality assumption does not hold for real-life bargaining scenarios with humans as players, since results from experimental economics show that humans find their way to the best strategy through trial and error, and not typically by means of rational deliberation. Such players are said to be boundedly rational. In playing a game against an opponent with bounded rationality, the most effective strategy of a player is not the equilibrium strategy but the one that is the best reply to the opponent's strategy. The evolutionary model provides a means for studying the bargaining behaviour of boundedly rational players. This paper provides a comprehensive comparison of the game theoretic and evolutionary approaches to bargaining by examining their assumptions, goals, and limitations. We then study the implications of these differences from the perspective of the software agent developer

Evolutionary Game Theory

Articl

Evolving Neural Networks for the Capture Game

Postprin

From genes to behavior: placing cognitive models in the context of biological pathways.

Connecting neural mechanisms of behavior to their underlying molecular and genetic substrates has important scientific and clinical implications. However, despite rapid growth in our knowledge of the functions and computational properties of neural circuitry underlying behavior in a number of important domains, there has been much less progress in extending this understanding to their molecular and genetic substrates, even in an age marked by exploding availability of genomic data. Here we describe recent advances in analytical strategies that aim to overcome two important challenges associated with studying the complex relationship between genes and behavior: (i) reducing distal behavioral phenotypes to a set of molecular, physiological, and neural processes that render them closer to the actions of genetic forces, and (ii) striking a balance between the competing demands of discovery and interpretability when dealing with genomic data containing up to millions of markers. Our proposed approach involves linking, on one hand, models of neural computations and circuits hypothesized to underlie behavior, and on the other hand, the set of the genes carrying out biochemical processes related to the functioning of these neural systems. In particular, we focus on the specific example of value-based decision-making, and discuss how such a combination allows researchers to leverage existing biological knowledge at both neural and genetic levels to advance our understanding of the neurogenetic mechanisms underlying behavior

Effects of a rationing rule on the ausubel auction: a genetic algorithm implementation

The increasing use of auctions as a selling mechanism has led to a growing interest in the subject. Thus both auction theory and experimental examinations of these theories are being developed. A recent method used for carrying out examinations on auctions has been the design of computational simulations. The aim of this article is to develop a genetic algorithm to find automatically a bidder optimal strategy while the other players are always bidding sincerely. To this end a specific dynamic multiunit auction has been selected: the Ausubel auction, with private values, dropout information, and with several rationing rules implemented. The method provides the bidding strategy (defined as the action to be taken under different auction conditions) that maximizes the bidder's payoff. The algorithm is tested under several experimental environments that differ in the elasticity of their demand curves, number of bidders and quantity of lots auctioned. The results suggest that the approach leads to strategies that outperform sincere bidding when rationing is needed.Publicad

Aspiration Dynamics of Multi-player Games in Finite Populations

Studying strategy update rules in the framework of evolutionary game theory, one can differentiate between imitation processes and aspiration-driven dynamics. In the former case, individuals imitate the strategy of a more successful peer. In the latter case, individuals adjust their strategies based on a comparison of their payoffs from the evolutionary game to a value they aspire, called the level of aspiration. Unlike imitation processes of pairwise comparison, aspiration-driven updates do not require additional information about the strategic environment and can thus be interpreted as being more spontaneous. Recent work has mainly focused on understanding how aspiration dynamics alter the evolutionary outcome in structured populations. However, the baseline case for understanding strategy selection is the well-mixed population case, which is still lacking sufficient understanding. We explore how aspiration-driven strategy-update dynamics under imperfect rationality influence the average abundance of a strategy in multi-player evolutionary games with two strategies. We analytically derive a condition under which a strategy is more abundant than the other in the weak selection limiting case. This approach has a long standing history in evolutionary game and is mostly applied for its mathematical approachability. Hence, we also explore strong selection numerically, which shows that our weak selection condition is a robust predictor of the average abundance of a strategy. The condition turns out to differ from that of a wide class of imitation dynamics, as long as the game is not dyadic. Therefore a strategy favored under imitation dynamics can be disfavored under aspiration dynamics. This does not require any population structure thus highlights the intrinsic difference between imitation and aspiration dynamics