Selection Equilibria of Higher-Order Games

In applied game theory the modelling of each player’s intentions and motivations is a key aspect. In classical game theory these are encoded in the payoff functions. In previous work [2,4] a novel way of modelling games was introduced where players and their goals are more naturally described by a special class of higher-order functions called quantifiers. We refer to these as higher-order games. Such games can be directly and naturally implemented in strongly typed functional programming languages such as Haskell [3]. In this paper we introduce a new solution concept for such higher-order games, which we call selection equilibrium. The original notion proposed in [4] is now called quantifier equilibrium. We show that for a special class of games these two notions coincide, but that in general, the notion of selection equilibrium seems to be the right notion to consider, as illustrated through variants of coordination games where agents are modelled via fixed-point operators. This paper is accompanied by a Haskell implementation of all the definitions and examples

Evolutionary games in the multiverse

Evolutionary game dynamics of two players with two strategies has been studied in great detail. These games have been used to model many biologically relevant scenarios, ranging from social dilemmas in mammals to microbial diversity. Some of these games may in fact take place between a number of individuals and not just between two. Here, we address one-shot games with multiple players. As long as we have only two strategies, many results from two player games can be generalized to multiple players. For games with multiple players and more than two strategies, we show that statements derived for pairwise interactions do no longer hold. For two player games with any number of strategies there can be at most one isolated internal equilibrium. For any number of players $\boldsymbol{d}$ with any number of strategies n, there can be at most (d-1)^(n-1) isolated internal equilibria. Multiplayer games show a great dynamical complexity that cannot be captured based on pairwise interactions. Our results hold for any game and can easily be applied for specific cases, e.g. public goods games or multiplayer stag hunts

Compositional game theory

We introduce open games as a compositional foundation of economic game theory. A compositional approach potentially allows methods of game theory and theoretical computer science to be applied to large-scale economic models for which standard economic tools are not practical. An open game represents a game played relative to an arbitrary environment and to this end we introduce the concept of coutility, which is the utility generated by an open game and returned to its environment. Open games are the morphisms of a symmetric monoidal category and can therefore be composed by categorical composition into sequential move games and by monoidal products into simultaneous move games. Open games can be represented by string diagrams which provide an intuitive but formal visualisation of the information flows. We show that a variety of games can be faithfully represented as open games in the sense of having the same Nash equilibria and off-equilibrium best responses.Comment: This version submitted to LiCS 201

Efficiency Gains from Team-Based Coordination: Large-Scale Experimental Evidence

The need for efficient coordination is ubiquitous in organizations and industries. The literature on the determinants of efficient coordination has focused on individual decision-making so far. In reality, however, teams often have to coordinate with other teams. We present an experiment with 825 participants, using six different coordination games, where either individuals or teams interact with each other. We find that teams coordinate much more efficiently than individuals. This finding adds one important cornerstone to the recent literature on the conditions for successful coordination. We explain the differences between individuals and teams using the experience weighted attraction learning model.coordination games, individual decision-making, team decision-making, experience-weighted attraction learning, experiment

Correlated equilibria, incomplete information and coalitional deviations

This paper proposes new concepts of strong and coalition-proof correlated equilibria where agents form coalitions at the interim stage and share information about their recommendations in a credible way. When players deviate at the interim stage, coalition-proof correlated equilibria may fail to exist for two-player games. However, coalition-proof correlated equilibria always exist in dominance-solvable games and in games with positive externalities and binary actions

The Evolutionary Price of Anarchy: Locally Bounded Agents in a Dynamic Virus Game

The Price of Anarchy (PoA) is a well-established game-theoretic concept to shed light on coordination issues arising in open distributed systems. Leaving agents to selfishly optimize comes with the risk of ending up in sub-optimal states (in terms of performance and/or costs), compared to a centralized system design. However, the PoA relies on strong assumptions about agents\u27 rationality (e.g., resources and information) and interactions, whereas in many distributed systems agents interact locally with bounded resources. They do so repeatedly over time (in contrast to "one-shot games"), and their strategies may evolve. Using a more realistic evolutionary game model, this paper introduces a realized evolutionary Price of Anarchy (ePoA). The ePoA allows an exploration of equilibrium selection in dynamic distributed systems with multiple equilibria, based on local interactions of simple memoryless agents. Considering a fundamental game related to virus propagation on networks, we present analytical bounds on the ePoA in basic network topologies and for different strategy update dynamics. In particular, deriving stationary distributions of the stochastic evolutionary process, we find that the Nash equilibria are not always the most abundant states, and that different processes can feature significant off-equilibrium behavior, leading to a significantly higher ePoA compared to the PoA studied traditionally in the literature

Timing and Virtual Observability in Ultimatum Bargaining and "Weak Link" Coordination Games

Previous studies have shown that simply knowing one player moves first can affect behavior in games, even when the first-mover's moves are known to be unobservable. This observation violates the game-theoretic principle that timing of unobserved moves is irrelevant, but is consistent with virtual observability, a theory of how timing can matter without the ability to observe actions. However, this previous research only shows that timing matters in games where knowledge that one player moved first can help select that player's preferred equilibrium, presenting an alternative explanation to virtual observability. We extend this work by varying timing of unobservable moves in ultimatum bargaining games and “weak link” coordination games. In the latter, the equilibrium selection explanation does not predict any change in behavior due to timing differences. We find that timing without observability affects behavior in both games, but not substantially