Stochastic Evolutionary Game Dynamics

Traditional game theory studies strategic interactions in which the agents make rational decisions. Evolutionary game theory differs in two key respects: the focus is on large populations of individuals who interact at random rather than on small numbers of players; and individuals are assumed to employ simple adaptive rules rather than to engage in perfectly rational behavior. In such a setting, an equilibrium is a rest point of the population-level dynamical process rather than a form of consistency between beliefs and strategies. This chapter shows how the theory of stochastic dynamical systems can be used to characterize the equilibria that are most likely to be selected when the evolutionary process is subject to small persistent perturbations. Such equilibria are said to be stochastically stable. The implications of stochastic stability are discussed in a variety of settings, including 2 A— 2 games, bargaining games, public-goods games, potential games, and network games. Stochastic stability often selects equilibria that are familiar from traditional game theory: in 2 A— 2 games one obtains the risk-dominant equilibrium, in bargaining games the Nash bargaining solution, and in potential games the potential-maximizing equilibrium. However, the justification for these solution concepts differs between the two approaches. In traditional game theory, equilibria are justified in terms of rationality, common knowledge of the game, and common knowledge of rationality. Evolutionary game theory dispenses with all three of these assumptions; nevertheless, some of the main solution concepts survive in a stochastic evolutionary setting.

[1]  Sheldon M. Ross,et al.  Stochastic Processes , 2018, Gauge Integral Structures for Stochastic Calculus and Quantum Electrodynamics.

[2]  A. Gittelsohn,et al.  Small Area Variations in Health Care Delivery , 1973, Science.

[3]  D. McFadden Quantal Choice Analysis: A Survey , 1976 .

[4]  W. G. S. Hines Mutations, perturbations and evolutionarily stable strategies , 1982 .

[5]  John Nachbar “Evolutionary” selection dynamics in games: Convergence and limit properties , 1990 .

[6]  Karl Sigmund,et al.  Game dynamics, mixed strategies, and gradient systems , 1987 .

[7]  A. Rubinstein Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model , 1982 .

[8]  J. M. Smith The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts. , 1974, Journal of theoretical biology.

[9]  J. Nash THE BARGAINING PROBLEM , 1950, Classics in Game Theory.

[10]  M. Freidlin,et al.  Random Perturbations of Dynamical Systems , 1984 .

[11]  W. Hines,et al.  Evolutionary Stable Strategies: A Review of Basic Theory , 1987 .

[12]  Samuel Karlin,et al.  A First Course on Stochastic Processes , 1968 .

[13]  H. Rosenthal,et al.  Participation and the provision of discrete public goods: a strategic analysis , 1984 .

[14]  J. M. Smith,et al.  The Logic of Animal Conflict , 1973, Nature.

[15]  P. Taylor,et al.  Evolutionarily Stable Strategies and Game Dynamics , 1978 .

[16]  Josef Hofbauer,et al.  The theory of evolution and dynamical systems , 1988 .

[17]  M. Kimura,et al.  An introduction to population genetics theory , 1971 .

[18]  J. Nash NON-COOPERATIVE GAMES , 1951, Classics in Game Theory.

[19]  John C. Harsanyi,et al.  Общая теория выбора равновесия в играх / A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games , 1989 .

[20]  J M Smith,et al.  Evolution and the theory of games , 1976 .

[21]  W. G. S. Hines,et al.  Strategy stability in complex populations , 1980, Journal of Applied Probability.

[22]  1 What Is Game Theory Trying to Accomplish ? , 1985 .

[23]  E. C. Zeeman,et al.  Population dynamics from game theory , 1980 .

[24]  M W Feldman,et al.  Kin selection and the evolution of monogamy. , 1988, Science.

[25]  J. Weibull,et al.  Strategy subsets closed under rational behavior , 1991 .

[26]  D. Fudenberg,et al.  Evolutionary Dynamics with Aggregate Shocks , 1992 .

[27]  A. Gittelsohn,et al.  Variations in medical care among small areas. , 1982, Scientific American.