Advertisement

On the Existence of Nash Equilibrium in Games with Resource-Bounded Players

  • Joseph Y. Halpern
  • Rafael Pass
  • Daniel ReichmanEmail author
Conference paper
  • 194 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11801)

Abstract

We consider computational games, sequences of games \(\mathcal {G}=(G_1,G_2,\ldots )\) where, for all n, \(G_n\) has the same set of players. Computational games arise in electronic money systems such as Bitcoin, in cryptographic protocols, and in the study of generative adversarial networks in machine learning. Assuming that one-way functions exist, we prove that there is 2-player zero-sum computational game \(\mathcal {G}\) such that, for all n, the size of the action space in \(G_n\) is polynomial in n and the utility function in \(G_n\) is computable in time polynomial in n, and yet there is no \(\epsilon \)-Nash equilibrium if players are restricted to using strategies computable by polynomial-time Turing machines, where we use a notion of Nash equilibrium that is tailored to computational games. We also show that an \(\epsilon \)-Nash equilibrium may not exist if players are constrained to perform at most T computational steps in each of the games in the sequence. On the other hand, we show that if players can use arbitrary Turing machines to compute their strategies, then every computational game has an \(\epsilon \)-Nash equilibrium. These results may shed light on competitive settings where the availability of more running time or faster algorithms can lead to a “computational arms race”, precluding the existence of equilibrium. They also point to inherent limitations of concepts such as “best response” and Nash equilibrium in games with resource-bounded players.

Keywords

Nash equilibrium Bounded rationality Turing machines 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Halpern was supported in part by NSF grants IIS-178108 and IIS-1703846, a grant from the Open Philanthropy Foundation, ARO grant W911NF-17-1-0592, and MURI grant W911NF-19-1-0217. Pass was supported in part by NSF grant IIS-1703846. Most of the work was done while Reichman was a postdoc at Cornell University.

References

  1. 1.
    Ben-Sasson, E., Tauman-Kalai, A., Kalai, E.: An approach to bounded rationality. In: Proceedings of the 19th Neural Information Processing Systems Conference, pp. 145–152 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brassard, G., Chaum, D., Crépeau, C.: Minimum disclosure proofs of knowledge. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 37, 156–189 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, X., Deng, X., Teng, S.H.: Settling the complexity of two-player Nash equilibrium. J. ACM 53(3) (2009) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Courtois, N.T., Bahack, L.: On subversive miner strategies and block with holding attack in bitcoin digital currency (2014). arXiv preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.1718
  5. 5.
    Daskalakis, C., Goldberg, P.W., Papadimitriou, C.H.: The complexity of computing a Nash equilibrium. In: Proceedings of the 38th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 71–78 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dodis, Y., Halevi, S., Rabin, T.: A cryptographic solution to a game theoretic problem. In: Bellare, M. (ed.) CRYPTO 2000. LNCS, vol. 1880, pp. 112–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44598-6_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feigenbaum, J., Koller, D., Shor, P.W.: A game-theoretic classification of interactive complexity classes. In: Proceedings of the Structure in Complexity Theory Conference, pp. 227–237 (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fortnow, L., Impagliazzo, R., Kabanets, V., Umans, C.: On the complexity of succinct zero-sum games. Comput. Complex. 17(3), 353–376 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fortnow, L., Santhanam, R.: Bounding rationality by discounting time. In: Proceedings of Innovations in Computer Science Conference, pp. 143–155 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halpern, J.Y., Pass, R.: Algorithmic rationality: game theory with costly computation. J. Econ. Theory 156, 246–268 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2014.04.007MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halpern, J.Y., Pass, R., Reichman, D.: On the nonexistence of equilibrium in computational games (2019)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halpern, J.Y., Pass, R., Seeman, L.: Computational extensive-form games. In: Proceedings of 17th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC 2016), pp. 681–698 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holenstein, T.: Pseudorandom generators from one-way functions: a simple construction for any hardness. In: Halevi, S., Rabin, T. (eds.) TCC 2006. LNCS, vol. 3876, pp. 443–461. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11681878_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lipton, R.J., Markakis, E.: Nash equilibria via polynomial equations. In: Farach-Colton, M. (ed.) LATIN 2004. LNCS, vol. 2976, pp. 413–422. Springer, Heidelberg (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24698-5_45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maschler, M., Solan, E., Zamir, S.: Game Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Megiddo, N., Wigderson, A.: On play by means of computing machines. In: Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge: Proceedings of 1986 Conference, pp. 259–274 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2008). http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
  18. 18.
    Nash, J.: Non-cooperative games. Ann. Math. 54, 286–295 (1951)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neyman, A.: Bounded complexity justifies cooperation in finitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma. Econ. Lett. 19, 227–229 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Neyman, A.: The positive value of information. Games Econ. Behav. 3, 350–355 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neyman, A.: Finitely repeated games with finite automata. Math. Oper. Res. 23, 513–552 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oliehook, F., Savani, R., Gallego, J., van der Poel, E., Gross, R.: Beyond local Nash equilibria for adversarial networks (2018). http://arxiv.org/abs/1806.07268
  23. 23.
    Papadimitriou, C.H., Yannakakis, M.: On complexity as bounded rationality. In: Proceedings of 26th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 726–733 (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rubinstein, A.: Finite automata play the repeated prisoner’s dilemma. J. Econ. Theory 39, 83–96 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schoenebeck, G., Vadhan, S.: The computational complexity of nash equilibria in concisely represented games. Theory Comput. 4, 270–279 (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Simon, H.A.: A behavioral model of rational choice. Quart. J. Econ. 49, 99–118 (1955).  https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wee, H.: On obfuscating point functions. In: Proceedings of the 37th ACM Annual Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 523–532 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Y. Halpern
    • 1
  • Rafael Pass
    • 1
  • Daniel Reichman
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Princeton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations