Advertisement

Computational Economics

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 83–103 | Cite as

Paradox Lost: The Evolution of Strategies in Selten’s Chain Store Game

  • William M. Tracy
Article

Abstract

The classical game theoretic resolutions to Selten’s Chain Store game are unsatisfactory; they either alter the game to avoid the paradox or struggle to organize the existing experimental data. This paper applies co-evolutionary algorithms to the Chain Store game and demonstrates that the resulting system’s dynamics are neither intuitively paradoxical nor contradicted by the existing experimental data. Specifically, some parameterizations of evolutionary algorithms promote genetic drift. Such drift can lead the system to transition among the game’s various Nash Equilibria. This has implications for policy makers as well as for computational modelers.

Keywords

Market entry Evolutionary Computation Genetic drift Equilibria selection Chain Store Paradox Genetic Algorithms 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work benefited substantially from conversations with John Miller, Bill McKelvey, Scott Carr, and John Holland. Comments from Computational Economics Editor Hans Amman and anonymous reviewers also significantly improved this paper.

References

  1. Alkemade, F., La Poutré, J. A., & Amman, H. M. (2006). Robust evolutionary algorithm design for socioeconomic simulation. Computational Economics, 28(4), 355–370. doi: 10.1007/s10614-006-9051-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (1995). Auctions with artificial adaptive agents. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arifovic, J. (2001). Evolutionary dynamics of the transitions across the nash equilibria of a tacit coordination game. European Journal of Economic and Social Systems, 15(3), 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  5. Axelrod, R. (1987). Evolution of strategies in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. In L. Davis (Ed.), Genetic algorithms and simulated annealing, research notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 24, pp. 32–41). London: Pitman.Google Scholar
  6. Binmore, K., & Samuelson, L. (1999). Evolutionary drift and equilibrium selection. Review of Economic Studies, 66, 363–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bullard, J., & Duffy, J. (1999). Using genetic algorithms to model the evolution of heterogeneous beliefs. Computation Economics, 13(1), 41–60. doi: 10.1023/A:1008610307810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Casari, M. (2004). Can genetic algorithms explain experimental anomalies? An application to common property resources. Computation Economics, 24(3), 257–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Camerer, C., & Weigelt, K. (1988). Experimental tests of a sequential equilibrium reputation model. Econometrica, 56(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Canning, D. (1992). Average behavior in learning-models. Journal of Economic Theory, 57(2), 442–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, S., & Ni, C. (1996). Genetic algorithm learning and the chain-store game. International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, 1996, 480–484.Google Scholar
  12. Dawid, H. (1999). Adaptive learning by genetic algorithms: Analytical results and applications to economic models. Berlin: Springer Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eaton, C., & Morrison, W. (2003). Evolutionary stability in the investment-opportunism-retaliation game. Journal of Bio-Economics, 5(1), 27–45.Google Scholar
  14. Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1996). Game theory. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Harrald, P., & Morrison, W. (2001). Sleepers, thresholds, and gateways: Drift and stability in dynamic evolutionary games (working paper). Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University.Google Scholar
  16. Haruvy, E., Roth, A., & Ünver, M. (2006). The dynamics of law clerk matching: An experimental and computational investigation of proposals for reform of the market. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 30, 457–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holland, J. (1975). Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  18. Holland, J., & Miller, J. (1991). Artificial adaptive agents in economic-theory. American Economic Review, 81(2), 365–370.Google Scholar
  19. Jung, Y., Kagel, J., & Levin, D. (1994). On the existence of predatory pricing: An experimental-study of reputation and entry deterrence in the chain-store game. Rand Journal of Economics, 25(1), 72–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kandori, M., Mailath, G., & Rob, R. (1993). Learning, mutation, and long-run equilibria in games. Econometrica, 61(1), 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kreps, D., & Wilson, R. (1982a). Sequential equilibria. Econometrica, 50(4), 863–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kreps, D., & Wilson, R. (1982b). Reputation and imperfect information. Journal of Economic Theory, 27(2), 253–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCarthy, I. (2009). Simulating sequential search models with genetic algorithms: Analysis of price ceilings, taxes, advertising and welfare. Computational Economics, 34(3), 217–241. doi: 10.1007/s10614-008-9164-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, J. (1988). The evolution of automata in the repeated prisoner’s dilemma. In Two essays on the economics of imperfect information. Ph.D: Dissertation, University of Michigan, Michigan.Google Scholar
  25. Miller, J. (1998). Active nonlinear tests (ANTs) of complex simulation models. Management Science, 44(6), 820–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Milgram, P., & Roberts, J. (1982). Predation, reputation, and entry deterrence. Journal of Economic Theory, 27(2), 280–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Selten, R. (1978). The chain store paradox. Theory and Decision, 9, 127–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith, J. (1972). Game theory and the evolution of fighting. In On evolution. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Traulsen, A., Semmann, S., Sommerfeld, R., Krambeck, H., & Milinski, M. (2010). Human strategy updating in evolutionary games. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, PNAS Early Edition. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0912515107.
  30. Ünver, M. (2001). Backward unraveling over time: The evolution of strategic behavior in the entry-level British medical labor markets. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25, 1035–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Young, P. (1993). The evolution of conventions. Econometrica, 61, 57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Young, P. (1996). The economics of convention. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(2), 105–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteLally School of Management and TechnologyTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations