In game theory, a non-atomic game (NAG) is a generalization of the normal-form game to a situation in which there are so many players so that they can be considered as a continuum. NAG-s were introduced by David Schmeidler;[1] he extended the theorem on existence of a Nash equilibrium, which John Nash originally proved for finite games, to NAG-s.

Motivation

edit

Schmeidler motivates the study of NAG-s as follows:[1]

"Nonatomic games enable us to analyze a conflict situation where the single player has no influence on the situation but the agregative behavior of "large" sets of players can change the payoffs. The examples are numerous: Elections, many small buyers from a few competing firms, drivers that can choose among several roads, and so on."

Definitions

edit

In a standard ("atomic") game, the set of players is a finite set. In a NAG, the set of players is an infinite and continuous set P, which can be modeled e.g. by the unit interval [0,1]. There is a Lebesgue measure defined on the set of players, which represents how many players of each "type" there are.

Each player can choose one of m actions ("pure strategies"). Note that the set of actions, in contrast to the set of players, remains finite as in standard games. Players can also choose a mixed strategy - a probability distribution over actions. A strategy profile is a measurable function from the set of players P to the set of probability distributions on actions; the function assigns to each point p in P a probability distribution x(p); it represents the fact that the infinitesimal player p has chosen the mixed strategy x(p).

Let x be a strategy profile. The choice of an infinitesimal player p has no effect on the general outcome, but affects his own payoff. Specifically, for each pure action j in [m] there is a function uj that maps each player p in P and each strategy profile x to the utility that player p receives when he plays j and all the other players play as in x. As player p plays a mixed strategy x(p), his payoff is the inner product  .

A strategy profile x is called pure if x(p) is a pure strategy almost everywhere on P.

A strategy profile x is called an equilibrium if for every player p and every mixed strategy y, the following holds almost everywhere:

 

Existence of equilibrium

edit

David Schmeidler proved the following theorems:[1]

  1. If for all p the function u(p,*) is continuous, and for all x and i,j the set {p | ui(p,x) > uj(p,x)} is measureable, then an equilibrium exists. The proof uses the Glicksberg fixed-point theorem.
  2. If, in addition to the above conditions, u(p,x) depends only on   (the integral of x over P[clarification needed]), then a pure-strategy equilibrium exists. The proof uses a theorem by Robert Aumann. The additional condition is essential: there is an example of a game satisfying the conditions of Theorem 1, with no pure-strategy equilibrium.

He also showed that Nash's equilibrium theorem follows as a corollary from Theorem 2. Specifically, given a finite normal-form game G with n players, one can construct a non-atomic game H such that each player in G corresponds to an sub-interval of P of length 1/n. The utility function is defined in a way that satisfies the conditions to Theorem 2. A pure-strategy equilibrium in H corresponds to an Nash equilibrium (with possibly mixed strategies) in G.

Finite number of types

edit

A special case of the general model is that there is a finite set T of player types. Each player type t is represented by a sub-interval of Pt of the set of players P. The length of the sub-interval represents the amount of players of that type. For example, it is possible that 1/2 the players are of type 1, 1/3 are of type 2, and 1/6 are of type 3. Players of the same type have the same utility function, but they may choose different strategies.

Nonatomic congestion games

edit

A special sub-class of nonatomic games contains the nonatomic variants of congestion games (NCG). This special case can be described as follows.

  • There is a finite set E of congestible elements (e.g. roads or resources).
  • There are n types of players. For each type i there is a number  , representing the amount of players of that type (the rate of traffic for that type).
  • For each type i there is a set   of possible strategies (possible subsets of E).
  • Different players of the same type may choose different strategies. For every strategy s in Si, let   denote the fraction of players in type i using strategy s. By definition,  . We denote  
  • For each element e in E, the load on e is defined as the sum of fractions of players using e, that is,  . The delay experienced by players using e is defined by a delay function  . This function must be monotone, positive, and continuous.
  • The total disutility of each player choosing strategy s is the sum of delays on all edges in the subset s:  .
  • A strategy profile is an equilibrium if for every player type i, and for every two strategies s1,s2 in Si, if  , then  . That is: if a positive measure of players of type i choose s1, then no other possible strategy would give them a strictly lower delay.

NCG-s were first studied by Milchtaich,[2] Friedman[3] and Blonsky.[4] Roughgarden and Tardos[5] studied the price of anarchy in NCG-s.

Computing an equilibrium in an NCG can be rephrased as a convex optimization problem, and thus can be solved in wealky-polynomial time (e.g. by the ellipsoid method). Fabrikant, Papadimitriou and Talwar[6] presented a strongly-polytime algorithm for finding a PNE in the special case of network NCG-s. In this special case there is a graph G; for each type i there are two nodes si and ti from G; and the set of strategies available to type i is the set of all paths from si to ti. If the utility functions of all players are Lipschitz continuous with constant L, then their algorithm computes an e-approximate PNE in strongly-polynomial time - polynomial in n, L and 1/e.

Generalizations

edit

The two theorems of Schmeidler can be generalized in several ways:[1]: Final remarks 

  • In Theorem 2, instead of requiring that u(p,x) depends only on   , one an require that u(p,x) depends only on   , where P1,...,Pk are Lebesgue-measureable subsets of P.
  • In Theorem 1, instead of requiring that each player's strategy space is a simplex, it is sufficient to require that each player's strategy space is a compact convex subset of Rm. If the additional assumption of Theorem 2 holds, then there exists an equilibrium in which the strategy of almost every player p is an extreme point of the strategy space of p.

See also

edit

References

edit
  1. ^ a b c d Schmeidler, David (1973-04-01). "Equilibrium points of nonatomic games". Journal of Statistical Physics. 7 (4): 295–300. doi:10.1007/BF01014905. ISSN 1572-9613.
  2. ^ Milchtaich, Igal (1996). "Congestion Models of Competition". The American Naturalist. 147 (5): 760–783. doi:10.1086/285878. ISSN 0003-0147. JSTOR 2463089. S2CID 55004212.
  3. ^ Friedman, Eric J. (1996-09-01). "Dynamics and Rationality in Ordered Externality Games". Games and Economic Behavior. 16 (1): 65–76. doi:10.1006/game.1996.0074. ISSN 0899-8256.
  4. ^ Blonski, Matthias (1999-08-01). "Anonymous Games with Binary Actions". Games and Economic Behavior. 28 (2): 171–180. doi:10.1006/game.1998.0699. ISSN 0899-8256.
  5. ^ Roughgarden, Tim; Tardos, Éva (2004-05-01). "Bounding the inefficiency of equilibria in nonatomic congestion games". Games and Economic Behavior. 47 (2): 389–403. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2003.06.004. ISSN 0899-8256. S2CID 10778635.
  6. ^ Fabrikant, Alex; Papadimitriou, Christos; Talwar, Kunal (2004-06-13). "The complexity of pure Nash equilibria". Proceedings of the thirty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. STOC '04. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 604–612. doi:10.1145/1007352.1007445. ISBN 978-1-58113-852-8. S2CID 1037326.