Equilibria and Efficiency Loss in Games on Networks

Social networks are the substrate upon which we make and evaluate many of our daily decisions: our costs and benefits depend on whether---or how many of, or which of---our friends are willing to go to that restaurant, choose that cellular provider, already own that gaming platform. Much of the research on the ``diffusion of innovation,'' for example, takes a game-theoretic perspective on strategic decisions made by people embedded in a social context. Indeed, multiplayer games played on social networks, where the network's nodes correspond to the game's players, have proven to be fruitful models of many natural scenarios involving strategic interaction. In this paper, we embark on a mathematical and general exploration of the relationship between 2-person strategic interactions (a ``base game'') and a ``networked'' version of that same game. We formulate a generic mechanism for superimposing a symmetric 2-player base game $M$ on a social network $G$: each node of $G$ chooses a single strategy from $M$ and simultaneously plays that strategy against each of its neighbors in $G$, receiving as its payoff the sum of the payoffs from playing~$M$ against each neighbor. We denote the \emph{networked game} that results by~$\gamenet{M}{G}$. We are broadly interested in the relationship between properties of~$M$ and of~$\gamenet{M}{G}$: how does the character of strategic interaction change when it is embedded in a social network? We focus on two particular properties: the (pure) price of anarchy and the existence of pure Nash equilibria. We show tight results on the relationship between the price of anarchy in~$M$ and $\gamenet{M}{G}$ in coordination games. We also show that, with some exceptions when $G$ is bipartite, the existence or absence of pure Nash equilibria (and even the guaranteed convergence of best-response dynamics) in $M$ and $\gamenet{M}{G}$ are not entailed in either direction. Taken together, these results suggest that the process of superimposing $M$ on a graph is a nontrivial operation that can have rich, but bounded, effects on the strategic environment.

[1]  D. Strang,et al.  DIFFUSION IN ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: From Hybrid Corn to Poison Pills , 1998 .

[2]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Computing pure nash equilibria in graphical games via markov random fields , 2006, EC '06.

[3]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[4]  Michael Kearns,et al.  Algorithmic Game Theory: Graphical Games , 2007 .

[5]  Edith Elkind,et al.  Nash equilibria in graphical games on trees revisited , 2006, EC '06.

[6]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[7]  J. Nash,et al.  NON-COOPERATIVE GAMES , 1951, Classics in Game Theory.

[8]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[9]  Éva Tardos,et al.  Network games , 2004, STOC '04.

[10]  Stephen E. Margolis,et al.  Network externality : an uncommon tragedy , 1994 .

[11]  H. Young,et al.  Individual Strategy and Social Structure: An Evolutionary Theory of Institutions , 1999 .

[12]  John Langford,et al.  Correlated equilibria in graphical games , 2003, EC '03.

[13]  W. Arthur Inductive Reasoning and Bounded Rationality , 1994 .

[14]  Leeat Yariv,et al.  Diffusion on Social Networks , 2006 .

[15]  Michael L. Littman,et al.  Graphical Models for Game Theory , 2001, UAI.

[16]  W. Arthur,et al.  Inductive Reasoning and Bounded Rationality ( The El Farol Problem ) , 1999 .

[17]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  The complexity of pure Nash equilibria , 2004, STOC '04.

[18]  Vahab S. Mirrokni,et al.  Convergence and approximation in potential games , 2006, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[19]  Thomas W. Valente Network models of the diffusion of innovations , 1996, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[20]  Amir Ronen,et al.  The Local and Global Price of Anarchy of Graphical Games , 2008, SAGT.

[21]  Leeat Yariv,et al.  Diffusion, Strategic Interaction, and Social Structure , 2011, Handbook of Social Economics.

[22]  Edith Elkind,et al.  Computing good nash equilibria in graphical games , 2007, EC '07.

[23]  Nicole Immorlica,et al.  The role of compatibility in the diffusion of technologies through social networks , 2007, EC '07.

[24]  M. Kearns,et al.  Algorithmic Game Theory: Graphical Games , 2007 .

[25]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Algorithmic game theory , 2010, Commun. ACM.

[26]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  On a Network Generalization of the Minmax Theorem , 2009, ICALP.

[27]  D. Fudenberg,et al.  The Theory of Learning in Games , 1998 .

[28]  Camille Roth,et al.  Connections: An Introduction to the Economics of Networks by Sanjeev Goyal , 2010, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[29]  Ashish Sabharwal,et al.  The Impact of Network Topology on Pure Nash Equilibria in Graphical Games , 2007, AAAI.

[30]  Michael Kearns,et al.  Networks preserving evolutionary equilibria and the power of randomization , 2006, EC '06.

[31]  C. Shapiro,et al.  Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility , 1985 .

[32]  M. Jackson,et al.  Diffusion of Behavior and Equilibrium Properties in Network Games , 2007 .

[33]  Maria-Florina Balcan,et al.  Improved equilibria via public service advertising , 2009, SODA.

[34]  C. Papadimitriou Algorithmic Game Theory: The Complexity of Finding Nash Equilibria , 2007 .

[35]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[36]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  The small-world phenomenon: an algorithmic perspective , 2000, STOC '00.

[37]  M. Chwe Communication and Coordination in Social Networks , 2000 .