Revisiting Generalized Nash Games and Variational Inequalities

Generalized Nash games with shared constraints represent an extension of Nash games in which strategy sets are coupled across players through a shared or common constraint. The equilibrium conditions of such a game can be compactly stated as a quasi-variational inequality (QVI), an extension of the variational inequality (VI). In (Eur. J. Oper. Res. 54(1):81–94, 1991), Harker proved that for any QVI, under certain conditions, a solution to an appropriately defined VI solves the QVI. This is a particularly important result, given that VIs are generally far more tractable than QVIs. However Facchinei et al. (Oper. Res. Lett. 35(2):159–164, 2007) suggested that the hypotheses of this result are difficult to satisfy in practice for QVIs arising from generalized Nash games with shared constraints. We investigate the applicability of Harker’s result for these games with the aim of formally establishing its reach. Specifically, we show that if Harker’s result is applied in a natural manner, its hypotheses are impossible to satisfy in most settings, thereby supporting the observations of Facchinei et al. But we also show that an indirect application of the result extends the realm of applicability of Harker’s result to all shared-constraint games. In particular, this avenue allows us to recover as a special case of Harker’s result, a result provided by Facchinei et al. (Oper. Res. Lett. 35(2):159–164, 2007), in which it is shown that a suitably defined VI provides a solution to the QVI of a shared-constraint game.     

Strategic absentmindedness in finitely repeated games

In this paper we consider finitely repeated games in which players can unilaterally commit to behave in an absentminded way in some stages of the repeated game. We prove that the standard conditions for folk theorems can be substantially relaxed when players are able to make this kind of compromises, both in the Nash and in the subgame perfect case. We also analyze the relation of our model with the repeated games with unilateral commitments studied, for instance, in García-Jurado et al. (Int. Game Theory Rev. 2:129–139, 2000). Authors acknowledge the financial support of Ministerio de Educaci ón y Ciencia, FEDER and Fundación Séneca de la Región de Murcia through projects SEJ2005-07637-C02-02, ECO2008-03484-C02-02, MTM2005-09184-C02-02, MTM2008-06778-C02-01 and 08716/PI/08.     

Kalai-Smorodinsky Bargaining Solution Equilibria

Multicriteria games describe strategic interactions in which players, having more than one criterion to take into account, don’t have an a-priori opinion on the relative importance of all these criteria. Roemer (Econ. Bull. 3:1–13, 2005) introduces an organizational interpretation of the concept of equilibrium: each player can be viewed as running a bargaining game among criteria. In this paper, we analyze the bargaining problem within each player by considering the Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining solution (see Kalai and Smorodinsky in Econometrica 43:513–518, 1975). We provide existence results for the so called Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining solution equilibria for a general class of disagreement points which properly includes the one considered by Roemer (Econ. Bull. 3:1–13, 2005). Moreover we look at the refinement power of this equilibrium concept and show that it is an effective selection device even when combined with classical refinement concepts based on stability with respect to perturbations; in particular, we consider the extension to multicriteria games of the Selten’s trembling hand perfect equilibrium concept (see Selten in Int. J. Game Theory 4:25–55, 1975) and prove that perfect Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining solution equilibria exist and properly refine both the perfect equilibria and the Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining solution equilibria.     

Two noncooperative games between a coalition and its surrounding in a class of n-person games with constant sum

A cooperative game engendered by a noncooperative n-person game (the master game) in which any subset of n players may form a coalition playing an antagonistic game against the residual players (the surrounding) that has a (Nash equilibrium) solution, is considered, along with another noncooperative game in which both a coalition and its surrounding try to maximize their gains that also possesses a Nash equilibrium solution. It is shown that if the master game is the one with constant sum, the sets of Nash equilibrium strategies in both above-mentioned noncooperative games (in which a coalition plays with (against) its surrounding) coincide.     

Robust game theory

We present a distribution-free model of incomplete-information games, both with and without private information, in which the players use a robust optimization approach to contend with payoff uncertainty. Our ``robust game' model relaxes the assumptions of Harsanyi's Bayesian game model, and provides an alternative distribution-free equilibrium concept, which we call ``robust-optimization equilibrium,' to that of the ex post equilibrium. We prove that the robust-optimization equilibria of an incomplete-information game subsume the ex post equilibria of the game and are, unlike the latter, guaranteed to exist when the game is finite and has bounded payoff uncertainty set. For arbitrary robust finite games with bounded polyhedral payoff uncertainty sets, we show that we can compute a robust-optimization equilibrium by methods analogous to those for identifying a Nash equilibrium of a finite game with complete information. In addition, we present computational results. The research of the author was partially supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship and by the Singapore-MIT Alliance. The research of the author was partially supported by the Singapore-MIT Alliance.     

Cooperative games of choosing partners and forming coalitions in the marketplace

Two games of interacting between a coalition of players in a marketplace and the residual players acting there are discussed, along with two approaches to fair imputation of gains of coalitions in cooperative games that are based on the concepts of the Shapley vector and core of a cooperative game. In the first game, which is an antagonistic one, the residual players try to minimize the coalition's gain, whereas in the second game, which is a noncooperative one, they try to maximize their own gain as a coalition. A meaningful interpretation of possible relations between gains and Nash equilibrium strategies in both games considered as those played between a coalition of firms and its surrounding in a particular marketplace in the framework of two classes of n-person games is presented. A particular class of games of choosing partners and forming coalitions in which models of firms operating in the marketplace are those with linear constraints and utility functions being sums of linear and bilinear functions of two corresponding vector arguments is analyzed, and a set of maximin problems on polyhedral sets of connected strategies which the problem of choosing a coalition for a particular firm is reducible to are formulated based on the firm models of the considered kind.     

A sufficiency condition for coalitive pareto-optimal solutions

In ak-player, nonzero-sum differential game, there exists the possibility that a group of players will form a coalition and work together. If allk players form the coalition, the criterion usually chosen is Pareto optimality whereas, if the coalition consists of only one player, a minmax or Nash equilibrium solution is sought.In this paper, games with coalitions of more than one but less thank players are considered. Coalitive Pareto optimality is chosen as the criterion. Sufficient conditions are presented for coalitive Pareto-optimal solutions, and the results are illustrated with an example.     

Some interesting properties of maximin strategies

Since the seminal paper of Nash (1950) game theoretic literature has focused mostly on equilibrium and not on maximin (minimax) strategies. We study the properties of these strategies in non-zero-sum strategic games that possess (completely) mixed Nash equilibria. We find that under certain conditions maximin strategies have several interesting properties, some of which extend beyond 2-person strategic games. In particular, for n-person games we specify necessary and sufficient conditions for maximin strategies to yield the same expected payoffs as Nash equilibrium strategies. We also show how maximin strategies may facilitate payoff comparison across Nash equilibria as well as refine some Nash equilibrium strategies.     

Structure of equilibria inN-person non-cooperative games

Here we study the structure of Nash equilibrium points forN-person games. For two-person games we observe that exchangeability and convexity of the set of equilibrium points are synonymous. This is shown to be false even for three-person games. For completely mixed games we get the necessary inequality constraints on the number of pure strategies for the players. Whereas the equilibrium point is unique for completely mixed two-person games, we show that it is not true for three-person completely mixed game without some side conditions such as convexity on the equilibrium set. It is a curious fact that for the special three-person completely mixed game with two pure strategies for each player, the equilibrium point is unique; the proof of this involves some combinatorial arguments.     

Pure strategy Nash equilibria and the probabilistic prospects of Stackelberg players

We consider the set of all m×n bimatrix games with ordinal payoffs. We show that on the subset E of such games possessing at least one pure strategy Nash equilibrium, both players prefer the role of leader to that of follower in the corresponding Stackelberg games. This preference is in the sense of first-degree stochastic dominance by leader payoffs of follower payoffs. It follows easily that on the complement of E, the follower’s role is preferred in the same sense. Thus we see a tendency for leadership preference to obtain in the presence of multiple pure strategy Nash equilibria in the underlying game.     

Bounded rationality, strategy simplification, and equilibrium

It is frequently suggested that predictions made by game theory could be improved by considering computational restrictions when modeling agents. Under the supposition that players in a game may desire to balance maximization of payoff with minimization of strategy complexity, Rubinstein and co-authors studied forms of Nash equilibrium where strategies are maximally simplified in that no strategy can be further simplified without sacrificing payoff. Inspired by this line of work, we introduce a notion of equilibrium whereby strategies are also maximally simplified, but with respect to a simplification procedure that is more careful in that a player will not simplify if the simplification incents other players to deviate. We study such equilibria in two-player machine games in which players choose finite automata that succinctly represent strategies for repeated games; in this context, we present techniques for establishing that an outcome is at equilibrium and present results on the structure of equilibria.     

Variational inequality formulation for the games with random payoffs

We consider an n-player non-cooperative game with random payoffs and continuous strategy set for each player. The random payoffs of each player are defined using a finite dimensional random vector. We formulate this problem as a chance-constrained game by defining the payoff function of each player using a chance constraint. We first consider the case where the continuous strategy set of each player does not depend on the strategies of other players. If a random vector defining the payoffs of each player follows a multivariate elliptically symmetric distribution, we show that there exists a Nash equilibrium. We characterize the set of Nash equilibria using the solution set of a variational inequality (VI) problem. Next, we consider the case where the continuous strategy set of each player is defined by a shared constraint set. In this case, we show that there exists a generalized Nash equilibrium for elliptically symmetric distributed payoffs. Under certain conditions, we characterize the set of a generalized Nash equilibria using the solution set of a VI problem. As an application, the random payoff games arising from electricity market are studied under chance-constrained game framework.     

Advertising coordination games of a manufacturer and a retailer while introducing a new product

Two kinds of vertical cooperative advertising program are considered in a distribution channel constituted by a manufacturer and a retailer, where the manufacturer pays part of the retailer’s advertising costs. In the first participation scheme, the manufacturer chooses his/her advertising participation rate in the retailer’s advertising effort and then each player determines the advertising effort that maximizes his/her profit. In the second scheme, the retailer chooses the manufacturer’s participation rate and then the manufacturer determines the advertising efforts of both players with the objective of maximizing the manufacturer’s profit. Each participation scheme corresponds to a special Stackelberg game: the manufacturer is the leader of the first, while the retailer is the leader of the second. The Stackelberg equilibrium advertising efforts and participation rate in both games are provided. Then the equilibrium strategies of the two players in the analyzed scenarios are compared with the Nash equilibrium in the competitive framework. Finally, the conditions which suggest a special kind of agreement to a player are analyzed. This work was supported by the Italian Ministry of University and Research and the University of Padua.     

Equilibrium selection and altruistic behavior in noncooperative social networks

Given their importance in determining the outcome of many economic interactions, different models have been proposed to determine how social networks form and which structures are stable. In Bala and Goyal (Econometrica 68, 1181–1229, 2000), the one-sided link formation model has been considered, which is based on a noncooperative game of network formation. They found that the empty networks, the wheel in the one-way flow of benefits case and the center-sponsored star in the two-way flow case play a fundamental role since they are strict Nash equilibria of the corresponding games for a certain class of payoff functions. In this paper, we first prove that all these network structures are in weakly dominated strategies whenever there are no strict Nash equilibria. Then, we exhibit a more accurate selection device between these network architectures by considering “altruistic behavior” refinements. Such refinements that we investigate here in the framework of finite strategy sets games have been introduced by the authors in previous papers.     

Loss of skills in coordination games

This paper deals with 2-player coordination games with vanishing actions, which are repeated games where all diagonal payoffs are strictly positive and all non-diagonal payoffs are zero with the following additional property: At any stage beyond r, if a player has not played a certain action for the last r stages, then he unlearns this action and it disappears from his action set. Such a game is called an r-restricted game. To evaluate the stream of payoffs we use the average reward. For r = 1 the game strategically reduces to a one-shot game and for r ≥ 3 in Schoenmakers (Int Game Theory Rev 4:119–126, 2002) it is shown that all payoffs in the convex hull of the diagonal payoffs are equilibrium rewards. In this paper for the case r = 2 we provide a characterization of the set of equilibrium rewards for 2 × 2 games of this type and a technique to find the equilibrium rewards in m × m games. We also discuss subgame perfection.     

大博弈中Nash均衡的存在性

研究了具有任意多个局中人的非合作博弈(大博弈)中Nash均衡的存在性.将1969年Ma的截口定理推广得到新的截口定理.用这个新的截口定理进一步证明了:1)大博弈中Nash均衡的存在性;2)纯策略集为紧度量空间而且支付函数为连续函数时,连续大博弈中混合策略Nash均衡的存在性.并且存在性定理推出了2010年Salonen的结果,即此研究结果较Salonen的结论更具普遍意义.     

Learning algorithms for repeated bimatrix Nash games with incomplete information

The purpose of this paper is to study a particular recursive scheme for updating the actions of two players involved in a Nash game, who do not know the parameters of the game, so that the resulting costs and strategies converge to (or approach a neighborhood of) those that could be calculated in the known parameter case. We study this problem in the context of a matrix Nash game, where the elements of the matrices are unknown to both players. The essence of the contribution of this paper is twofold. On the one hand, it shows that learning algorithms which are known to work for zero-sum games or team problems can also perform well for Nash games. On the other hand, it shows that, if two players act without even knowing that they are involved in a game, but merely thinking that they try to maximize their output using the learning algorithm proposed, they end up being in Nash equilibrium.This research was supported in part by NSF Grant No. ECS-87-14777.     

Independent mistakes in large games

Economic models usually assume that agents play precise best responses to others' actions. It is sometimes argued that this is a good approximation when there are many agents in the game, because if their mistakes are independent, aggregate uncertainty is small. We study a class of games in which players' payoffs depend solely on their individual actions and on the aggregate of all players' actions. We investigate whether their equilibria are affected by mistakes when the number of players becomes large. Indeed, in generic games with continuous payoff functions, independent mistakes wash out in the limit. This may not be the case if payoffs are discontinuous. As a counter-example we present the n players Nash bargaining game, as well as a large class of “free-rider games.” Received: November 1997/Final version: December 1999     

Dynamic consistency in incomplete information games under ambiguity

We develop a general framework of incomplete information games under ambiguity which extends the traditional framework of Bayesian games to the context of Ellsberg-type ambiguity. We then propose new solution concepts called ex ante and interim Γ-maximin equilibrium for solving such games. We show that, unlike the standard notion of Bayesian Nash equilibrium, these concepts may lead to rather different recommendations for the same game under ambiguity. This phenomenon is often referred to as dynamic inconsistency. Moreover, we characterize the sufficient condition under which dynamic consistency is assured in this generalized framework.     

Remarks on existence and uniqueness of Cournot–Nash equilibria in the non-potential case

This article is devoted to various methods (optimal transport, fixed-point, ordinary differential equations) to obtain existence and/or uniqueness of Cournot–Nash equilibria for games with a continuum of players with both attractive and repulsive effects. We mainly address separable situations but for which the game does not have a potential, contrary to the variational framework of Blanchet and Carlier (Optimal transport and Cournot–Nash equilibria, 2012). We also present several numerical simulations which illustrate the applicability of our approach to compute Cournot–Nash equilibria.