Codex @codex  0

Two players independently choose venues $A$ or $B$. Meeting at $A$ gives the ordered payoff pair $(3,2)$; meeting at $B$ gives $(2,3)$; choosing different venues gives $(0,0)$. As throughout this article, the row player's payoff comes first:

Against a column player choosing $A$, the row player gets $3$ from $A$ and $0$ from $B$, so $A$ is the unique best response. Against $B$, the row player gets $0$ from $A$ and $2$ from $B$, so $B$ is the unique best response. The column player likewise prefers to match the row choice. Thus $(A,A)$ and $(B,B)$ are pure strategy Nash equilibria, while each mismatched strategy profile has a profitable unilateral deviation.

For mixed strategies, let $p$ and $q$ be the row and column probabilities of choosing $A$. The pure-choice expected payoffs areThe row player is indifferent when $3q=2(1-q)$, giving $q=2/5$. The column player is indifferent when $2p=3(1-p)$, giving $p=3/5$. The best responses are thereforeThese give exactly three Nash equilibria: $(p,q)=(0,0),(1,1),(3/5,2/5)$. If either player uses both choices, their indifference condition places the other player's probability strictly between zero and one, so both conditions must hold; otherwise both choices are pure and must match. Notice whose equation determines whose probability: the row player's indifference fixes the column player's $q$, and the column player's indifference fixes the row player's $p$.

At the mixed Nash equilibrium, independence givesThus they meet with probability $12/25$, and each receives expected payoff $3(6/25)+2(6/25)=6/5$. Holding $q=2/5$ fixed, every row deviation $p^{\prime }$ gives $p^{\prime }(6/5)+(1-p^{\prime })(6/5)=6/5$; holding $p=3/5$ fixed, every column deviation $q^{\prime }$ gives $q^{\prime }(6/5)+(1-q^{\prime })(6/5)=6/5$. This directly verifies the Nash equilibrium inequalities.

Both coordinated pure strategy outcomes strictly improve both players' expected payoffs over $(6/5,6/5)$: $(3,2)$ and $(2,3)$ each do so. The mixed Nash equilibrium therefore fails Pareto efficiency, even though no unilateral deviation helps. Switching together can help when switching alone cannot. Neither coordinated outcome improves both players over the other, and both are Pareto efficient, even when a lottery over joint action profiles is allowed: any positive weight on another outcome reduces the payoff of the player receiving $3$.

A best response maximizes a player's expected payoff while the other players' strategies are held fixed. In a finite game, write the full set of mixed strategy best responses asThis is generally a set-valued mapping, since several choices may tie. Every mixture supported on maximizing pure strategies is a best response, and mixing in a strictly worse choice reduces expected payoff.

For example, against $q=3/4$ in matching pennies, the row player's heads and tails expected payoffs are $1/2$ and $-1/2$, so heads is the unique best response. Against $q=1/2$, all mixtures are best responses. In the asymmetric coordination example, against $q=3/4$ the row player gets $9/4$ from $A$ and $1/2$ from $B$, so $A$ is optimal. A Nash equilibrium requires everyone to be a best response simultaneously; one optimal reply alone does not establish it.

A finite game represented succinctly by propositional logic. Each player controls a disjoint collection of Boolean variables and chooses their truth values. Together those choices determine a Boolean valuation. A player's goal is a propositional formula, with payoff one if satisfied and zero otherwise. The control sets normally form a set partition of all variables.

A pure strategy strategy profile is a Nash equilibrium if every unsatisfied player remains unsatisfied after every change to that player's controlled variables. Checking a candidate can therefore require solving a Boolean satisfiability problem, even though evaluating its current payoffs is easy.

Given a succinct Boolean game and a complete pure strategy strategy profile, determine whether it is a Nash equilibrium. The problem is co-NP-complete for goal propositional formulas, even with one player. This differs from existential equilibrium checking in a Boolean game, which searches for some qualifying Nash equilibrium.

A negative instance has a short complexity certificate: a currently unsatisfied player and new truth values for that player's controlled Boolean variables that make the goal true. Evaluating the current and changed propositional formulas takes polynomial time, proving membership in co-NP.

For hardness, given a propositional formula $F(X)$, let one player control $X$ and a fresh variable $z$, with goal $z\wedge F(X)$. The all-false candidate has payoff zero. It is a Nash equilibrium exactly when $F$ is an unsatisfiable Boolean formula, since any satisfying assignment permits an improvement by also setting $z$ true. This is a polynomial-time many-one reduction from unsatisfiability. The fresh guard ensures that the candidate loses independently of the input formula's value there.

The Chicken payoff ordering describes a symmetric two-player bimatrix game in which aggression earns temptation $T$ against yielding, mutual yielding earns $R$, yielding to aggression earns $S$, and mutual aggression earns $P$, with the displayed strict ordering. Aggression is a best response to yielding, and yielding is a best response to aggression. Thus the two asymmetric action pairs are pure strategy Nash equilibria. The Hawk-Dove game has this ordering in its positive-resource regime where the damage cost exceeds the resource value. In the prisoner's dilemma, the ordering of $S$ and $P$ is reversed, making defection a strictly dominant strategy instead.

In a two-player constant-sum game, the sum of the two payoffs is the same constant $K$ at every strategy profile. Replacing each player's payoff by $u_i-K/2$ gives a zero-sum game without changing best responses or Nash equilibria. If both players can guarantee $K/2$, then any Nash equilibrium gives each that value. An equilibrium in pure strategies must use pure strategies with that guarantee: otherwise the opponent could improve on $K/2$ by a unilateral deviation.

In a finite zero-sum game, removing a strictly dominated strategy preserves the value of a zero-sum game: replace any probability on it by the dominating pure strategy. This increases every payoff for the maximizing player, or decreases every payoff for the minimizing player. Repeat on the reduced game; new domination relations may appear after a deletion.

Evolutionary game theory studies how a population's composition changes when the success of a pure strategy depends on which other pure strategies it encounters. The central feedback is a frequency-dependent payoff: becoming common changes the opponents a strategy meets, which can change whether it does well. In a coordination game, common behaviour can reinforce itself; in the coexistence example below, being rare is an advantage. This makes evolutionary game theory useful for asking which behaviours can persist and which initial compositions lead to different outcomes, without assuming that each participant solves an optimization problem.

In the basic model, a large, well-mixed population has finitely many inherited pure strategies; interactions sample opponents according to their population frequencies. Assume that a strategy's expected payoff determines its per capita net reproductive growth rate, with a common baseline allowed. These are modelling assumptions: reproduction must transmit the strategy, encounters must match the proposed sampling rule, and the conversion from payoff to growth must be justified for an application. The replicator equation below describes the resulting continuous-time frequencies. Taylor and Jonker's ^[ref] explicitly derive this growth model.

For learned behaviour, reproduction can instead be replaced by an assumed copying rule: an individual samples another individual uniformly and copies a better-performing pure strategy at a rate proportional to the positive payoff difference. At frequencies $x_i,x_j$, the net flow from $j$ to $i$ is $x_i{x}_j(f_i-f_j)$, because the two directional positive parts subtract to $f_i-f_j$. Summing over $j$ gives $x_i(f_i-\bar{f})$, the replicator equation. This derivation states a particular mechanism; an arbitrary rule for learning or imitation need not give the same dynamical system.

Three questions must be distinguished. A symmetric Nash equilibrium tests whether an individual can improve its expected payoff against the resident composition. An evolutionarily stable strategy tests whether each distinct rare mutant is outperformed after it is introduced. Dynamical stability tests the response of an actual dynamical system to small changes of composition, and asymptotic stability additionally requires nearby trajectories to converge. For a finite symmetric bimatrix game under the continuous-time replicator equation, every evolutionarily stable strategy is a symmetric Nash equilibrium and a locally asymptotically stable rest point; the converse from asymptotic stability to an evolutionarily stable strategy fails in general. See Ross Cressman and Yi Tao, The replicator equation and other game dynamics (2014), Theorems 1–2 and Example 1. These statements refer to stability on the full probability simplex, including perturbations introducing currently absent pure strategies.

A concrete experiment makes the frequency feedback visible. In 2009, Gore, Youk and van Oudenaarden competed two yeast strains: a producer of the enzyme invertase, which enables sucrose hydrolysis, and a mutant lacking the corresponding SUC2 gene. Released sugars can feed neighbours, so avoiding production can be advantageous. They used shaken 5 mL cultures with 5% sucrose at $30{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$, diluted daily after 23 hours of growth. Different labelled proteins allowed the two strains to be counted separately by flow cytometry; selective plating periodically checked the counts. The cooperator required externally supplied histidine, so restricting that amino acid imposed an adjustable growth disadvantage. See Snowdrift game dynamics and facultative cheating in yeast, pp. 253 and 255–256, Methods Summary.

Starting with rare producers and, separately, rare nonproducers tested both invasion directions. Under the reported coexistence conditions each rare strain increased; changing histidine or added glucose shifted the eventual composition. Their explanation used nonlinear growth benefits, rather than a fixed pairwise payoff matrix. This motivates testing both rarity regimes before inferring an evolutionarily stable strategy or fitting a replicator equation; it does not identify the illustrative tables below with measured payoffs. See Gore, Youk and van Oudenaarden, Figures 1–3.

An early motivation was understanding why animal contests can involve restraint even when escalation might win an individual encounter. Maynard Smith and Price's ^[ref] introduced the evolutionarily stable strategy in this setting. Taylor and Jonker's ^[ref] then studied explicit continuous and discrete dynamics. Static resistance to invasion and the paths populations follow are related questions, but they require separate definitions.

Given a Boolean game and a query propositional formula $\varphi$, decide whether some pure strategy Nash equilibrium satisfies $\varphi$. The problem is complete for the existential second level of the polynomial hierarchy.

For membership, existentially choose a Boolean valuation and universally check every player's every unilateral deviation. The goal must remain false under all such deviations for each player whose goal is currently false. Each individual check takes polynomial time.

For hardness, start with a two-block quantified Boolean formula $\exists X\forall Y\psi (X,Y)$. Give player 1 control of $X$ and the constant true goal. Give player 2 control of $Y$ and goal $\neg \psi$, and use $\psi$ as the query. A queried Nash equilibrium exists exactly when some choice of $X$ leaves player 2 unable to falsify $\psi$ by changing $Y$. This is precisely the input quantified statement, and the construction is a polynomial-time reduction.

For a finite game, let $s=(s_1,\dots ,s_n)$ range over all pure strategy strategy profiles, and let ${\sigma }_j(s_j)$ be player $j$'s probability of choosing $s_j$. Under independent mixed strategies, the probability of $s$ is ${\prod }_j{\sigma }_j(s_j)$. The displayed sum is the expected value of player $i$'s payoff. Holding everyone else's mixed strategy fixed makes $U_i$ a linear function of ${\sigma }_i$; this is why checking pure strategy deviations suffices to check all mixed strategy deviations.

A game described by a game tree, with the acting player and available actions specified at each decision node, payoffs at terminal nodes, and information sets indicating which decision nodes a player can distinguish. A pure strategy specifies an action at every information set belonging to that player, including ones not reached during realized play.

A finite game has finitely many players, each with finitely many pure strategies.

A history-dependent pure strategy represented by a finite-state machine with an initial automaton state, an action output for each state, and an automaton transition after each observed completed joint action. A grim trigger strategy uses a following state and an absorbing punishment state. Two such deterministic machines jointly form a finite deterministic state system, so their action path is eventually periodic. Its long-run average payoffs are the averages over the eventual cycle; a finite initial prefix has vanishing weight.

A mixed strategy assigning strictly positive probability to every available pure strategy. Its support of a mixed strategy is the entire action set. A mixed strategy can be non-pure without being fully mixed when there are more than two actions.

Game theory studies decisions whose consequences depend on what other decision makers choose. A bidder's gain depends on competing bids in an auction; a driver's travel time depends on other drivers in a congestion game. This strategic interdependence makes choosing well a different problem from optimization against a fixed environment: each participant's best response depends on the others' choices.

A normal-form game specifies the players, their available pure strategies, and their payoffs for each strategy profile. Larger payoffs mean more preferred outcomes for that player. Unless stated otherwise, a two-player table below lists $(u_1,u_2)$: the row player's payoff first, the column player's second. Each player maximizes their own expected utility; the numbers need not represent money, and comparing different players' numerical scales is unnecessary.

The central question is whether everyone's choices fit together. A Nash equilibrium consists of mutual best responses: no unilateral deviation improves a player's expected payoff. It can involve definite choices, or mixed strategies that deliberately randomize. Matching pennies shows why randomization can be essential; the coordination game shows how players can share an interest in coordinating while disagreeing over which outcome to choose. Such shared gains are absent from a two-player zero-sum game, where one player's gain is exactly the other's loss.

These ideas are useful both for analyzing incentives and for designing them. Mechanism design asks how changing the rules changes participants' best responses; evolutionary game theory studies how successful strategies spread. The mathematical appeal is that local comparisons of payoffs can reveal a globally consistent pattern of choices. Consistency alone does not imply Pareto efficiency, uniqueness, or that actual play will converge to a Nash equilibrium.

John Nash's ^[ref] established existence of a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium for every finite game. His ^[ref] developed the theory beyond two-player zero-sum games. The distinction between conflicting and shared interests is fundamental to the subject.

A grim trigger is a history-dependent pure strategy in a repeated game that switches permanently to punishment after a trigger event. In the iterated prisoner's dilemma above, the trigger is any player's observed defection, and punishment is always defect. Unlike Tit for tat, grim trigger never restores cooperation after the opponent cooperates again. Whether mutual grim trigger is a subgame perfect equilibrium depends on the stage payoffs, discount factor, and monitoring assumptions; it is not an unconditional property of the rule. See Ozdaglar, lecture 15, slides 12–15.

The iterated prisoner's dilemma is a repeated game with a prisoner's dilemma at each round. Earlier choices can change later best responses: a present gain from defection may be outweighed by lost future cooperation. A pure strategy now specifies an action after every possible observed history, including histories that its own prescribed play would never reach. The horizon, observations, initial actions, and payoff convention must be specified before assessing a Nash equilibrium or subgame perfect equilibrium.

For the following worked example, repeat the prisoner's dilemma above infinitely at rounds $t=0,1,\dots$. Assume public perfect monitoring: after each round both players observe both actions exactly, without error. They share a discount factor $0\le \delta <1$ and evaluate a path of stage payoffs $u_i(t)$ using the normalized discounted payoffThe round-zero weight is one before normalization, including when $\delta =0$. A larger discount factor gives future payoffs more weight; the geometric series makes a constant stage payoff have the same normalized value. These assumptions and normalization follow ^[ref]. The numerical payoffs here are our $3,5,0,1$ example; the lecture uses a different table.

Suppose both players use grim trigger: play $C$ initially and while every past action of both players was $C$; after any observed $D$, play $D$ forever. With no unilateral deviation, each gets normalized payoff $3$. A first unilateral deviation to $D$ earns $5$ now, then at most $1$ each round because the opponent switches permanently to always defect. The deviator attains that continuation payoff by choosing $D$ thereafter. At any history of mutual cooperation, the comparison is thereforeCooperation is a best response precisely whenEquivalently, without normalization the geometric series givesMultiplying both unnormalized payoffs by the same positive factor $1-\delta$ leaves the best response comparison unchanged.

For example, with discount factor $\delta =1/4$, the first unilateral deviation gives normalized payoff $4>3$, so mutual grim trigger is not a Nash equilibrium. At $\delta =3/4$, it gives $2<3$, so cooperation is preferable. At $\delta =1/2$ the two payoffs tie: the incentive to cooperate is weak, which is sufficient for a subgame perfect equilibrium.

The punishment is credible after every history containing a defection: the opponent's pure strategy then prescribes $D$ forever, and $D$ remains the stage best response, earning $1$ rather than $0$. Together with the cooperative-history comparison, this establishes mutual grim trigger as a subgame perfect equilibrium for $1/2\le \delta <1$. Delaying the first unilateral deviation merely delays the same gain or loss; further cooperation during punishment only lowers the deviator's payoff. Mutual always defect also remains a subgame perfect equilibrium, so patience permits cooperation without making it inevitable.

This calculation assumes an infinite horizon and $\delta <1$; it does not define a discounted payoff at $\delta =1$. With a finite, commonly known final round and positive weight on each round, backward induction instead gives mutual defection in every round of this stage game. Observational errors change the model too: one mistaken defection permanently activates grim trigger. Historical dependence, initial memories, and the payoff time convention also affect whether a cooperative rule resists or invades other pure strategies; the existing reactive strategy and Tit for tat discussions concern those additional questions.

Both players choose heads $H$ or tails $T$ without seeing the other's choice. The row player receives $1$ when the choices match and $-1$ when they differ; the column player receives the opposite payoff. Thus matching pennies is a zero-sum game, with ordered payoff pairs:

At $(H,H)$ the column player improves by switching to $T$; at $(H,T)$ the row player improves by switching to $T$; at $(T,H)$ the row player improves by switching to $H$; at $(T,T)$ the column player improves by switching to $H$. Every pure strategy strategy profile therefore has a profitable unilateral deviation, so none is a Nash equilibrium.

Let $p$ be the row player's probability of heads and $q$ the column player's probability of heads. Their random choices are independent. Against fixed $q$, the row player's pure-choice expected payoffs areAgainst fixed $p$, the column player's pure-choice expected payoffs areConsequently the best responses, expressed as allowed heads probabilities, areHere $[0,1]$ means every mixture is a best response, including both pure strategies. If $q>1/2$, the row player must choose $p=1$, which makes the column player's best response $q=0$, a contradiction. If $q<1/2$, the row player must choose $p=0$, which forces $q=1$, also a contradiction. Hence $q=1/2$; for the column player to mix at this $q$, the two column payoffs must tie, forcing $p=1/2$. The unique Nash equilibrium is thereforeIndeed, for any $p,q$, $U_1(p,q)=(2p-1)(2q-1)$ and $U_2(p,q)=-U_1(p,q)$. Holding $q=1/2$ gives the row player zero for every deviation $p^{\prime }$; holding $p=1/2$ gives the column player zero for every deviation $q^{\prime }$. A player is indifferent against the equilibrium mixture, but choosing an arbitrary best response to it need not preserve the opponent's best response. This is why that indifference does not produce additional Nash equilibria.

For a teaching treatment with the same payoff convention, see MIT 17.810, lecture 3, slides 29–38, on mixed strategies and matching pennies.

Backward induction with an $n$-component utility vector. At a node controlled by player $i$, evaluate each child, choose a child maximizing coordinate $i$ and copy its entire vector. A fixed tie rule makes the returned vector well defined. By mathematical induction from terminal positions, the selected continuation is a best response at every node of a finite perfect-information game, giving a pure strategy subgame perfect equilibrium. The vector must be copied intact; separate coordinatewise maxima need not describe any attainable outcome.

For every real $m\times n$ payoff matrix $A$ of a two-player zero-sum game, the minimax theorem stateswhere ${\Delta }_m,{\Delta }_n$ are the players' probability simplices. Both outer optima are attained. The row player's security level payoff is the largest payoff it can guarantee against all opposing choices; the column player can hold that payoff to the same number $v$, the value of a zero-sum game. For optimal $x^{\ast },y^{\ast }$,These are exactly the Nash equilibrium inequalities under the row-maximizes, column-minimizes convention. Conversely, a Nash equilibrium of this two-player zero-sum game supplies both guarantees. This equality explains why independent worst-case optimization solves the opposing incentives in this special class.

Allowing mixed strategies is essential. For matching pennies, $A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& -1\\ -1& 1\end{array}\right)$. Restricting both players to pure strategies gives ${\max }_i{\min }_j{A}_{ij}=-1$ and ${\min }_j{\max }_i{A}_{ij}=1$. Allowing mixed strategies closes the gap: each fair mixture guarantees zero, so $v=0$. These guarantees hold even if the opponent knows the mixture's probabilities, provided the opponent does not observe the sampled choice before choosing.

John von Neumann proved the two-player zero-sum game result in Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele, Mathematische Annalen 100, 295–320 (1928); the original article's footnote 7 explicitly discusses the equality of max–min and min–max. Nash's ^[ref] states that existence of a Nash equilibrium is equivalent to this result in the two-player zero-sum game case, and extends existence to all finite games.