An iterated hawk-and-dove game
A fundamental problem in multi agent systems is conflict resolution. A conflict occurs in general when the agents have to deal with inconsistent goals, such as a demand for shared resources. We investigate some theoretical game approaches as efficient methods to examine a class of conflicts in multi agent systems.
In the first part of the paper, we look at the hawk-and-dove game both from an evolutionary and from an iterated point of view. An iterated hawk-and-dove game is not the same as an infinitely repeated evolutionary game because in an iterated game the agents are supposed to know what happened in the previous moves. In an evolutionary game evolutionary stable strategies will be most successful but not necessarily be a unique solution. An iterated game can be modeled as a mixture of a prisoner's dilemma game and a chicken game. These kinds of games are generally supposed to have successful cooperating strategies.
The second part of the paper discusses situations where a chicken game is a more appropriate model than a prisoner's dilemma game.
The third part of the paper describes our simulation of iterated prisoner's dilemma and iterated chicken games. We study a parameterized class of cooperative games, with these classical games as end cases, and we show that chicken games to a higher extent reward cooperative strategies than defecting strategies.
The main results of our simulation are that a chicken game is more cooperating than a prisoner's dilemma because of the values of the payoff matrix. None of the strategies in our simulation actually analyses its score and acts upon it, which gave us significant linear changes in score between the games when linear changes were made to the payoff matrix. All the top six strategies are nice and have small or moderate differences in scores between chicken game and prisoner's dilemma. The 11 worst strategies, with a lower score than random, either start with defect or, if they start with cooperation, are not nice. All of these strategies are doing significantly worse in the chicken game than in the prisoner's dilemma.
Keywordsmulti agent systems hawk-and-dove game prisoner's dilemma chicken game evolutionary stable strategies
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- R. Axelrod “More Effective Choice in the Prisoner's Dilemma” Journal of Conflict Resolution vol. 24 No. 3, p. 3–25, 1980b.Google Scholar
- R. Axelrod and W.D. Hamilton “The evolution of cooperation” Science vol. 211 1981.Google Scholar
- R. Axelrod The Evolution of Cooperation Basic Books Inc. 1984.Google Scholar
- K. Lindgren “Evolutionary Phenomena in Simple Dynamics” in Artificial life II ed. Ch. G Langton, C. Taylor, J. D. Farmer and S. Rasmussen Addison Wesley 1991.Google Scholar
- B Lomborg “Game theory vs. Multiple Agents: The Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma” in Artificial Social Systems ed. C. Castelfranchi and E. Werner Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 830 1994.Google Scholar
- R.D. Luce and H. Raiffa Games and Decisions Dover Publications Inc. 1957.Google Scholar
- P. Mathieu and J.P. Delahaye http:/www.lifl.fr/~mathieu/ipd/Google Scholar
- A. Rapoport and M. Guyer, “A taxonomy of 2*2 games” Yearbook of the Society for General Systems Research, XI:203–214, 1966.Google Scholar
- A. Rapoport and A.M. Chammah Prisoner's Dilemma A Study in Conflict and Cooperation Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press 1965.Google Scholar
- B. Russell Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare Simon & Schuster 1959.Google Scholar
- T. Sandholm and F. Ygge “On the gains and losses of speculation in equilibrium markets” to appear in IJCAI 1997 proceedings.Google Scholar
- J. Maynard Smith and G.R. Price, “The logic of animal conflict” Nature vol. 246, 1973.Google Scholar
- J. Maynard Smith, Evolution and the theory of games, Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
- M.A. Wellman “A computational Market Model for Distributed Configuration Design” Proceedings of AAAI '94, Morgan-Kaufman: 401–407, 1994.Google Scholar