IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02082849.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Coordination of agents through Learning and Evolutionary Processes : a Game Theory Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Anne-Gaëlle Lefeuvre
  • Maurice Baslé

    (CREM - Centre de recherche en économie et management - UNICAEN - Université de Caen Normandie - NU - Normandie Université - UR - Université de Rennes - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

This article deals with the problem of agents' coordination, and with its treatment through game theory. Contrary to most works published on the subject, the emphasis is made on the process rather than on the final coordination's outcome. The problem of coordination concerns a group of individuals-or organizations-which pursue their own interests and try to establish a new and more efficient convention, i.e. a new behavioral regularity. The study of the coordination process allows us to have a better view of the different phenomena implicated in the determination of the final outcome and to understand their influence on it. Our starting point is the observation that individuals, because of their group membership, will influence each other. We shall try to show, how, in an uncertain universe, these interactions can contribute to learning on both sides, thus modifying the knowledge and then, the strategies of individuals in the emergence of an agreement. At the moment, game theory constitutes, one of the tools which is the most used in the treatment of coordination problems. Game theory deals with cases in which individuals make choices in interaction, and must be able to determine the equilibrium on which the coordination will be made. However, in many cases, it is not possible to choose one equilibrium rather than an other. It implies either to use equilibrium refinements which impose additional stability criteria to reduce the field of possible outcomes or to obtain irresolution. To study a process, we need to be within a dynamic framework, that is to postulate that individuals' choices are not simultaneous but sequential (players observe the past play before decision making). We also need to postulate incomplete information because individuals have no reason to know in every detail how the other members of the group choose their strategies. Therefore, individuals (i.e. players) have prior beliefs about the types of other players. According to the information they dispose from each play, players will have the possibility to update their expectations and beliefs. Usually, the updating process follows the Bayes rule (the Bayes rule determines the posterior probability that a player follows a particular type). This rational process of belief updating is the natural way, in game theory, to introduce a learning process. One of the main point we want to make in this article is to know if learning phenomena are limited to this unique bayesian process. To answer the question, we start by questioning Schelling's works (1986). Indeed, T. Schelling maintains that in the research process (in a tacit way) of a common solution such as the meeting point problem, « imagination often dominates reasoning and pure logic... ».[Schelling, T., 1986, p.83]. T. Schelling also emphasizes the behavior of the population as a whole, as well as the influence of population coordination on individual decision making. « The force of many social behavioral rules (...) stems from the fact that they constitute the solution of a coordination game. Everyone thinks it would be respected by others, the contrary would imply that deviant players would be pointed at by society. Fashion in clothes or also in cars arises from a process in which nobody wants to remain outside of the emerging majority and cannot go against the course of events » [Schelling, T., 1986, p.122]. For T. Schelling, learning is not exclusively produced by rational calculation, other processes seem to put pressure on the decisions of the agents. We want to know what these pressures are, where they take place, but also which models of evolution they follow. Then, we try to see if evolutionary games constitute the appropriate tool of formalization. Through this paper, we expect to go beyond the usual presentation of coordination in game theory (section 1) and to integrate learning processes (section 2) as well as the evolutionary processes 1 Faculté des Sciences Economiques-7, place Hoche-35065 RENNES CEDEX-France, Tel. 00 33 (0)2.99.25.35.33-FAX 00 33 (0)2

Suggested Citation

  • Anne-Gaëlle Lefeuvre & Maurice Baslé, 1997. "Coordination of agents through Learning and Evolutionary Processes : a Game Theory Approach," Post-Print hal-02082849, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02082849
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02082849
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-02082849/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kalai, Ehud & Lehrer, Ehud, 1993. "Rational Learning Leads to Nash Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(5), pages 1019-1045, September.
    2. Young, H Peyton, 1993. "The Evolution of Conventions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(1), pages 57-84, January.
    3. Ulrich Schwalbe & Siegfried K. Berninghaus, 1996. "Conventions, local interaction, and automata networks," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 297-312.
    4. Mailath, George J., 1992. "Introduction: Symposium on evolutionary game theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 259-277, August.
    5. J. Van Huyck & R. Battalio & F. Rankin, 1996. "On the Evolution of Convention: Evidence from Coordination Games," Levine's Working Paper Archive 548, David K. Levine.
    6. Joseph Farrell & Matthew Rabin, 1996. "Cheap Talk," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 103-118, Summer.
    7. Vega-Redondo, Fernando (ed.), 1996. "Evolution, Games, and Economic Behaviour," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198774723.
    8. Brown, Paul M., 1995. "Learning from experience, reference points, and decision costs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 381-399, August.
    9. Blume, Lawrence & Easley, David, 1992. "Evolution and market behavior," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 9-40, October.
    10. Lawrence Blume & David Easley, 1993. "Rational Expectations and Rational Learning," Game Theory and Information 9307003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Weibull, Jörgen W., 1997. "What have we learned from Evolutionary Game Theory so far?," Working Paper Series 487, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 26 Oct 1998.
    2. Ball, Richard, 2017. "Violations of monotonicity in evolutionary models with sample-based beliefs," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 100-104.
    3. Jacques Durieu & Philippe Solal, 2012. "Models of Adaptive Learning in Game Theory," Chapters, in: Richard Arena & Agnès Festré & Nathalie Lazaric (ed.), Handbook of Knowledge and Economics, chapter 11, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Alos-Ferrer, Carlos & Ania, Ana B., 2005. "The asset market game," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1-2), pages 67-90, February.
    5. Lagunoff, Roger, 1997. "On the dynamic selection of mechanisms for provision of public projects," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 21(10), pages 1699-1725, August.
    6. Gehrig, Thomas & Güth, Werner & Leví0nský, René & Popova, Vera, 2010. "On the evolution of professional consulting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 113-126, October.
    7. Mauricio G. Villena & Marcelo J. Villena, 2004. "Evolutionary Game Theory and Thorstein Veblen’s Evolutionary Economics: Is EGT Veblenian?," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(3), pages 585-610, September.
    8. Ellison, Glenn & Fudenberg, Drew & Imhof, Lorens A., 2009. "Random matching in adaptive dynamics," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 98-114, May.
    9. Hsiao-Chi Chen & Yunshyong Chow & Li-Chau Wu, 2013. "Imitation, local interaction, and coordination," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 42(4), pages 1041-1057, November.
    10. Hopkins, Ed, 1999. "Learning, Matching, and Aggregation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 79-110, January.
    11. Karandikar, Rajeeva & Mookherjee, Dilip & Ray, Debraj & Vega-Redondo, Fernando, 1998. "Evolving Aspirations and Cooperation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 292-331, June.
    12. Blume, Andreas, 1998. "Communication, Risk, and Efficiency in Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 171-202, February.
    13. La Ferrara, Eliana & Gulesci, Selim & Jindani, Sam & Smerdon, David & Sulaiman, Munshi & Young, H. Peyton, 2021. "A Stepping Stone Approach to Understanding Harmful Norms," CEPR Discussion Papers 15776, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Arnold, Tone & Schwalbe, Ulrich, 2002. "Dynamic coalition formation and the core," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 363-380, November.
    15. Edward Cartwright, 2002. "Learning to play approximate Nash equilibria in games with many players," Levine's Working Paper Archive 506439000000000070, David K. Levine.
    16. Berninghaus, Siegfried K. & Ehrhart, Karl-Martin & Keser, Claudia, 2002. "Conventions and Local Interaction Structures: Experimental Evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 177-205, May.
    17. Siegfried K. Berninghaus & Karl-Martin Ehrhart & Claudia Keser, 2000. "Conventions and Local Interaction Structures: Experimental Evidence," CIRANO Working Papers 2000s-36, CIRANO.
    18. Ehud Kalai & Ehud Lehrer, 1990. "Merging Economic Forecasts," Discussion Papers 1035, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    19. Levine, David K. & Modica, Salvatore, 2013. "Anti-Malthus: Conflict and the evolution of societies," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 289-306.
    20. Ana B. Ania & Andreas Wagener, 2009. "The Open Method of Coordination (OMC)," Vienna Economics Papers vie0904, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02082849. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.