Focal point (game theory)

Last updated

In game theory, a focal point (or Schelling point) is a solution that people tend to choose by default in the absence of communication in order to avoid coordination failure. [1] The concept was introduced by the American economist Thomas Schelling in his book The Strategy of Conflict (1960). [2] Schelling states that "[p]eople can often concert their intentions or expectations with others if each knows that the other is trying to do the same" in a cooperative situation (p. 57), so their action would converge on a focal point which has some kind of prominence compared with the environment. However, the conspicuousness of the focal point depends on time, place and people themselves. It may not be a definite solution.

Contents

Existence

The existence of the focal point is first demonstrated by Schelling with a series of questions. Here is one example: to determine the time and place to meet a stranger in New York City, but without being able to communicate in person beforehand. In this coordination game, any place and time in the city could be an equilibrium solution. Schelling asked a group of students this question, and found the most common answer was "noon at (the information booth at) Grand Central Terminal". There is nothing that makes Grand Central Terminal a location with a higher payoff because people could just as easily meet at another public location, such as a bar or a library, but its tradition as a meeting place raises its salience and therefore makes it a natural "focal point". [2] Later, Schelling's informal experiments have been replicated under controlled conditions with monetary incentives by Judith Mehta. [3]

The existence of focal points can help explain the use of social norms, including traditional gender roles, in order to ensure coordination, and why changing said norms can be difficult. [1]

Theories

Although the concept of a focal point has been widely accepted in game theory, it is still unclear how a focal point forms. The researchers have proposed theories from two aspects.

The level-n theory

Stahl and Wilson argue that a focal point is formed because players would try to predict how other players act. They model the level of "rational expectation" players by their ability to

  1. form priors (models) about the behavior of other players;
  2. choose the best responses given these priors.

A level-0 player will choose actions regardless of the actions of other players. A level-1 player believes that all other players are level-0 types. A level-n player estimates that all other players are level-0, 1, 2, ..., n-1 types. Based on experimental data, most of the players only use one model to predict the behavior of all the other players. Although the hierarchy of types could be indefinite, the benefits of higher levels would decrease substantially while incurring a much greater cost. [4] Because of the limit of players' expectation level and players' priors, it is possible to reach an equilibrium in games without communication.

The cognitive hierarchy theory

The cognitive hierarchy (CH) theory is a derivation of level-n theory. A level-n player from the CH model would assume that their strategy is the most sophisticated and that the levels 0, 1, 2, ..., n-1 on which their opponents play follow a normalized Poisson distribution. [5] This model works well in multi-player games where the players need to estimate a number in a given range, such as the Guess 2/3 of the average game. A player would be able to determine the value which they should play based on the assumed distribution of lower-level players described by the Poisson distribution. [5] Another example of a game involving CH theory is the Keynesian beauty contest.

The team reasoning

Bacharach argued that people could find a focal point because they act as members of a team instead of individuals in a cooperative game. [6] With the identity changed, the player follows the prescription of an imaginary group leader to maximize the group interest.

Examples

Schelling's questions

Here is a subset of the questions raised by Schelling to prove the existence of a focal point. [2]

  1. Head-tail game: Name "heads" or "tails". If the two players name the same, they win an award, otherwise, they get nothing.
  2. Letter order game: Give an order to letters A, B, and C. If the three players give the same order, they win an award, otherwise they get nothing.
  3. Split money game: Two players share $100. They first write down their individual claims on a sheet of paper. If their claims add to $100 or less, both of them will get exactly what they claimed, but if the sum is higher than $100 they get nothing.

The results of the informal experiments are

  1. For the two players, A and B, in head-tail game. 16 out of 22 A and 15 out of 22 B chose "heads".
  2. For the three players, A, B, and C, in letter order game. 9 out of 12 A, 10 out of 12 B, and 14 out of 16 C wrote "ABC".
  3. For the players to claim part of the $100. 36 out of 40 chose $50. 2 of the remainder chose $49 and $49.99.

These games suggest that focal points have some saliency. These characteristics make them preferable choices to people. Furthermore, people would assume each other has also noticed the saliency and make the same decision. [3]

In coordination game

Coordination game example Focal point squares.jpg
Coordination game example

In a simple example, two people unable to communicate with each other are each shown a panel of four squares and asked to select one; if and only if they both select the same one, they will each receive a prize. Three of the squares are blue and one is red. Assuming they each know nothing about the other player, but that they each do want to win the prize, then they will, reasonably, both choose the red square.

The red square is not in a sense a better square; they could win by both choosing any square and in this sense, all squares are technically a Nash equilibrium. The red square is the "right" square to select only if a player can be sure that the other player has selected it, but by hypothesis neither can. However, it is the most salient and notable square, so—lacking any other one—most people will choose it, and this will in fact (often) work.

Collision game

Collision game example Collision game.jpg
Collision game example

Focal points can also have real-life applications. For example, imagine two bicycles headed towards each other and in danger of crashing. Avoiding collision becomes a coordination game where each player's winning choice depends on the other player's choice. Each player, in this case, has the choice to go straight, swerve to the left or swerve to the right. Both players want to avoid crashing, but neither knows what the other will do. [7] In this case, the decision to swerve right can serve as a focal point which leads to the winning right-right outcome. It seems a natural focal point in places using right-hand traffic.

This idea of anti-coordination game is also apparent in the game of chicken, which involves two cars racing toward each other on a collision course and in which the driver who first decides to swerve is seen as a coward, while no driver swerving results in a fatal collision for both.

“Guess 2/3 of the average” game

The Guess 2/3 of the average game shows the level-n theory in practice. In this game, players are tasked with guessing an integer from 0 to 100 inclusive which they believe is closest to 2/3 of the average of all players’ guesses. A Nash equilibrium can be found by thinking through each level:

As N grows, 2/3 of the average will trend towards zero. At this point, the only Nash equilibrium is for all players to guess 0

Adding repetition to the game introduces a focal point at the Nash equilibrium solution of 0. This was shown by Camerer as, “[when] the game is played multiple times with the same group, the average moves close to 0.” [5] Introducing the iterative aspect to the game forces all players onto higher levels of thinking which allows them all to play guesses trending towards 0.

Spontaneous Schelling games

While in the previous examples the players are explicitly given a shared premise, the uncommunicated aspect of Schelling games can be taken to its extreme by eliminating even this, thus relying on other people spontaneously deciding to play a premise-less Schelling game, and coordinating on the game premise itself without communication. For instance, among all possible premises, one might come up with the natural premise of "Schelling in-person meeting" and, without informing anyone at all, appear in front of the White House on noon January 1st, hoping others have converged on the same premise, and from it the same time and place. [8] Or similarly, one might come up with the salient online premise of "Schelling Wikipedia edit", which would be this one.

See also

Related Research Articles

An evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) is a strategy that is impermeable when adopted by a population in adaptation to a specific environment, that is to say it cannot be displaced by an alternative strategy which may be novel or initially rare. Introduced by John Maynard Smith and George R. Price in 1972/3, it is an important concept in behavioural ecology, evolutionary psychology, mathematical game theory and economics, with applications in other fields such as anthropology, philosophy and political science.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Game theory</span> Mathematical models of strategic interactions

Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions. It has applications in many fields of social science, and is used extensively in economics, logic, systems science and computer science. Initially, game theory addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which a participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by the losses and gains of the other participant. In the 1950s, it was extended to the study of non zero-sum games, and was eventually applied to a wide range of behavioral relations. It is now an umbrella term for the science of rational decision making in humans, animals, and computers.

Zero-sum game is a mathematical representation in game theory and economic theory of a situation that involves two competing entities, where the result is an advantage for one side and an equivalent loss for the other. In other words, player one's gain is equivalent to player two's loss, with the result that the net improvement in benefit of the game is zero.

In game theory, the Nash equilibrium is the most commonly-used solution concept for non-cooperative games. A Nash equilibrium is a situation where no player could gain by changing their own strategy. The idea of Nash equilibrium dates back to the time of Cournot, who in 1838 applied it to his model of competition in an oligopoly.

The game of chicken, also known as the hawk-dove game or snowdrift game, is a model of conflict for two players in game theory. The principle of the game is that while the ideal outcome is for one player to yield, individuals try to avoid it out of pride, not wanting to look like "chickens". Each player taunts the other to increase the risk of shame in yielding. However, when one player yields, the conflict is avoided, and the game essentially ends.

In game theory, the best response is the strategy which produces the most favorable outcome for a player, taking other players' strategies as given. The concept of a best response is central to John Nash's best-known contribution, the Nash equilibrium, the point at which each player in a game has selected the best response to the other players' strategies.

A coordination game is a type of simultaneous game found in game theory. It describes the situation where a player will earn a higher payoff when they select the same course of action as another player. The game is not one of pure conflict, which results in multiple pure strategy Nash equilibria in which players choose matching strategies. Figure 1 shows a 2-player example.

In game theory, the centipede game, first introduced by Robert Rosenthal in 1981, is an extensive form game in which two players take turns choosing either to take a slightly larger share of an increasing pot, or to pass the pot to the other player. The payoffs are arranged so that if one passes the pot to one's opponent and the opponent takes the pot on the next round, one receives slightly less than if one had taken the pot on this round, but after an additional switch the potential payoff will be higher. Therefore, although at each round a player has an incentive to take the pot, it would be better for them to wait. Although the traditional centipede game had a limit of 100 rounds, any game with this structure but a different number of rounds is called a centipede game.

In game theory, a move, action, or play is any one of the options which a player can choose in a setting where the optimal outcome depends not only on their own actions but on the actions of others. The discipline mainly concerns the action of a player in a game affecting the behavior or actions of other players. Some examples of "games" include chess, bridge, poker, monopoly, diplomacy or battleship.

In game theory, a strategy Adominates another strategy B if A will always produces a better result than B, regardless of how any other player plays matter how that player's opponent or opponents play. Some very simple games can be solved using dominance.

In game theory, "guess ⁠2/3⁠ of the average" is a game where players simultaneously select a real number between 0 and 100, inclusive. The winner of the game is the player(s) who select a number closest to ⁠2/3⁠ of the average of numbers chosen by all players.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unique bid auction</span> Auction in which bidders are not allowed to place bids of equal amounts

A unique bid auction is a type of strategy game related to traditional auctions where the winner is usually the individual with the lowest unique bid, although less commonly the auction rules may specify that the highest unique bid is the winner. Unique bid auctions are often used as a form of competition and strategy game where bidders pay a fee to make a bid, or may have to pay a subscription fee in order to be able to participate.

Equilibrium selection is a concept from game theory which seeks to address reasons for players of a game to select a certain equilibrium over another. The concept is especially relevant in evolutionary game theory, where the different methods of equilibrium selection respond to different ideas of what equilibria will be stable and persistent for one player to play even in the face of deviations of the other players. This is important because there are various equilibrium concepts, and for many particular concepts, such as the Nash equilibrium, many games have multiple equilibria.

In game theory, an epsilon-equilibrium, or near-Nash equilibrium, is a strategy profile that approximately satisfies the condition of Nash equilibrium. In a Nash equilibrium, no player has an incentive to change his behavior. In an approximate Nash equilibrium, this requirement is weakened to allow the possibility that a player may have a small incentive to do something different. This may still be considered an adequate solution concept, assuming for example status quo bias. This solution concept may be preferred to Nash equilibrium due to being easier to compute, or alternatively due to the possibility that in games of more than 2 players, the probabilities involved in an exact Nash equilibrium need not be rational numbers.

In game theory, the traveler's dilemma is a non-zero-sum game in which each player proposes a payoff. The lower of the two proposals wins; the lowball player receives the lowball payoff plus a small bonus, and the highball player receives the same lowball payoff, minus a small penalty. Surprisingly, the Nash equilibrium is for both players to aggressively lowball. The traveler's dilemma is notable in that naive play appears to outperform the Nash equilibrium; this apparent paradox also appears in the centipede game and the finitely-iterated prisoner's dilemma.

Cooperative bargaining is a process in which two people decide how to share a surplus that they can jointly generate. In many cases, the surplus created by the two players can be shared in many ways, forcing the players to negotiate which division of payoffs to choose. Such surplus-sharing problems are faced by management and labor in the division of a firm's profit, by trade partners in the specification of the terms of trade, and more.

In algorithmic game theory, a succinct game or a succinctly representable game is a game which may be represented in a size much smaller than its normal form representation. Without placing constraints on player utilities, describing a game of players, each facing strategies, requires listing utility values. Even trivial algorithms are capable of finding a Nash equilibrium in a time polynomial in the length of such a large input. A succinct game is of polynomial type if in a game represented by a string of length n the number of players, as well as the number of strategies of each player, is bounded by a polynomial in n.

In economics, coordination failure is a concept that can explain recessions through the failure of firms and other price setters to coordinate. In an economic system with multiple equilibria, coordination failure occurs when a group of firms could achieve a more desirable equilibrium but fail to because they do not coordinate their decision making. Coordination failure can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, if one firm decides a recession is imminent and fires its workers, other firms might lose demand from the lay-offs and respond by firing their own workers leading to a recession at a new equilibrium. Coordination failure can also be associated with sunspot equilibria and animal spirits.

A Markov perfect equilibrium is an equilibrium concept in game theory. It has been used in analyses of industrial organization, macroeconomics, and political economy. It is a refinement of the concept of subgame perfect equilibrium to extensive form games for which a pay-off relevant state space can be identified. The term appeared in publications starting about 1988 in the work of economists Jean Tirole and Eric Maskin.

Cognitive hierarchy theory (CHT) is a behavioral model originating in behavioral economics and game theory that attempts to describe human thought processes in strategic games. CHT aims to improve upon the accuracy of predictions made by standard analytic methods, which can deviate considerably from actual experimental outcomes.

References

  1. 1 2 Pastin, Ivan; Pastine, Tuvana; Humberstone, Tom (2017). Game Theory: A Graphic Guide. United Kingdom: Icon Books Inc. pp. 54–61. ISBN   978-1-78578-082-0.
  2. 1 2 3 Schelling, Thomas C. (1960). The strategy of conflict (First ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN   978-0-674-84031-7.
  3. 1 2 Mehta, Judith; Starmer, Chris; Sugden, Robert (1994). "The Nature of Salience: An Experimental Investigation of Pure Coordination Games". The American Economic Review. 84 (3): 658–673. ISSN   0002-8282. JSTOR   2118074.
  4. ↑ Stahl, Dale O.; Wilson, Paul W. (1 July 1995). "On Players′ Models of Other Players: Theory and Experimental Evidence" (PDF). Games and Economic Behavior. 10 (1): 218–254. doi:10.1006/game.1995.1031. ISSN   0899-8256.
  5. 1 2 3 Camerer, Colin F.; Ho, Teck-Hua; Chong, Juin-Kuan (1 August 2004). "A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games" (PDF). The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 119 (3): 861–898. doi:10.1162/0033553041502225. ISSN   0033-5533.
  6. ↑ Bacharach, Michael (1 June 1999). "Interactive team reasoning: A contribution to the theory of co-operation". Research in Economics. 53 (2): 117–147. doi:10.1006/reec.1999.0188. ISSN   1090-9443.
  7. ↑ "Focal Points (or Schelling Points): How We Naturally Organize in Games of Coordination – Mind Your Decisions". mindyourdecisions.com. Retrieved 2017-12-12.
  8. ↑ "Tweet about Schelling Point Meetup". x.com. Retrieved 2025-01-14.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.