IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sce/scecf9/344.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Influence of Evolutionary Selection Schemes on the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma

Author

Listed:
  • David van Bragt

    (CWI Amsterdam)

  • Cees van Kemenade

    (CWI Amsterdam)

  • Han La Poutre

    (CWI Amsterdam)

Abstract

We study Genetic Algorithms (GA) to simulate the emergence of cooperation in nonzero-sum and noncooperative competitions between different agents. The evolution of cooperation is not obvious in here since, in "nonzero-sum" competition, the benefits of one agent are not necessarily equal to the penalties of the other. Further, in "noncooperative" situations both participants have no information about their opponent's strategy. A famous and elegant example of a nonzero-sum/noncooperative competition is the so-called prisoner's dilemma (PD). A very interesting variate of the single-round PD game is the iterated PD (IPD) game, in which two players repeatedly play a PD. Under these conditions, the optimal strategy for a player depends on the policy of the opponent, as is often the case in real-life negotiations (e.g., oligopolistic price setting in the economic field or the nuclear arms race in the political arena). The analysis of IPDs using GAs has proved to be a very appealing technique to many. In previous studies, however, only strictly generational selection schemes are considered: after each generation, all parent strategies are replaced by offspring strategies. As is well known, the particular choice of GA selection scheme strongly affects the evolution of the population and the quality of the evolved strategies. Hence, in this study, we systematically assess the strong influence of various alternative selection schemes on the evolution of IPD strategies. The performance of an elitist selection scheme (only accepting offspring superior to parents) is evaluated. We also apply schemes intermediate to strictly generational and elitist schemes in which parents have a finite maximum life span. Simulations show the strong impact of the various evolutionary selection schemes on the dynamics of the population. This indicates the possible sensitivity of the level of cooperation in economic markets to the actual selection of the individual agents. Further work, especially using more detailed economic models, is hence strongly recommended.

Suggested Citation

  • David van Bragt & Cees van Kemenade & Han La Poutre, 1999. "The Influence of Evolutionary Selection Schemes on the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma," Computing in Economics and Finance 1999 344, Society for Computational Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:sce:scecf9:344
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ken Binmore & Nir Vulkan, 1999. "Applying game theory to automated negotiation," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 1-9, October.
    2. Thomas Riechmann, 1999. "Learning and behavioral stability An economic interpretation of genetic algorithms," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 225-242.
    3. Ken Binmore & Nir Vulkan, "undated". "Applying Game Theory to Automated Negotiation," ELSE working papers 004, ESRC Centre on Economics Learning and Social Evolution.
    4. Miller, John H., 1996. "The coevolution of automata in the repeated Prisoner's Dilemma," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 87-112, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alan G. Isaac, 2008. "Simulating Evolutionary Games: A Python-Based Introduction," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 11(3), pages 1-8.
    2. Ludo Waltman & Nees Eck & Rommert Dekker & Uzay Kaymak, 2011. "Economic modeling using evolutionary algorithms: the effect of a binary encoding of strategies," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 737-756, December.
    3. D.D.B. Bragt, van & J. A. La Poutr & E. H. Gerding, 2000. "Equilibrium Selection In Evolutionary Bargaining Models," Computing in Economics and Finance 2000 323, Society for Computational Economics.
    4. D.D.B. van Bragt & J.A. La Poutré, 2003. "Why Agents for Automated Negotiations Should Be Adaptive," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 101-118, November.
    5. Waltman, L. & van Eck, N.J.P., 2009. "A Mathematical Analysis of the Long-run Behavior of Genetic Algorithms for Social Modeling," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2009-011-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    6. E. J. Anderson & T. D. H. Cau, 2009. "Modeling Implicit Collusion Using Coevolution," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(2), pages 439-455, April.

    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. Enrico Gerding & David van Bragt & Han La Poutré, 2003. "Multi-Issue Negotiation Processes by Evolutionary Simulation, Validation and Social Extensions," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 22(1), pages 39-63, August.
    2. David van Bragt & Han La Poutré, 2001. "Evolving Automata Play the Alternating-Offers Game," CeNDEF Workshop Papers, January 2001 2B.3, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Center for Nonlinear Dynamics in Economics and Finance.
    3. Tomas Klos, 1999. "Governance and Matching," Computing in Economics and Finance 1999 341, Society for Computational Economics.
    4. Ivan Marsa-Maestre & Miguel A. Lopez-Carmona & Juan A. Carral & Guillermo Ibanez, 2013. "A Recursive Protocol for Negotiating Contracts Under Non-monotonic Preference Structures," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 1-43, January.
    5. D.D.B. Bragt, van & J. A. La Poutr & E. H. Gerding, 2000. "Equilibrium Selection In Evolutionary Bargaining Models," Computing in Economics and Finance 2000 323, Society for Computational Economics.
    6. V. Kumar & Ashutosh Dixit & Rajshekar (Raj) G. Javalgi & Mayukh Dass, 2016. "Research framework, strategies, and applications of intelligent agent technologies (IATs) in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 24-45, January.
    7. Fabian Lang & Andreas Fink, 2015. "Learning from the Metaheuristics: Protocols for Automated Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 299-332, March.
    8. Stan van Hoesel & Rudolf Müller, 2001. "Optimization in electronic markets: examples in combinatorial auctions," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 23-33, June.
    9. Usha Kiruthika & Thamarai Selvi Somasundaram & S. Kanaga Suba Raja, 2020. "Lifecycle Model of a Negotiation Agent: A Survey of Automated Negotiation Techniques," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1239-1262, December.
    10. repec:dgr:rugsom:99b41 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Maria Minniti & William Bygrave, 2001. "A Dynamic Model of Entrepreneurial Learning," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 25(3), pages 5-16, April.
    12. Evans, Alecia & Sesmero, Juan, 2022. "Cooperation in Social Dilemmas with Correlated Noisy Payoffs: Theory and Experimental Evidence," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 322804, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Rudolf Vetschera, 2003. "Experimentation and Learning in Repeated Cooperation," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 37-60, May.
    14. Beenstock, Michael & Szpiro, George, 2002. "Specification search in nonlinear time-series models using the genetic algorithm," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 811-835, May.
    15. Olivier Compte & Andrew Postlewaite, 2007. "Effecting Cooperation," PIER Working Paper Archive 09-019, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 29 May 2009.
    16. Barr, Jason & Saraceno, Francesco, 2009. "Organization, learning and cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 39-53, May.
    17. Marco Casari, 2002. "Can genetic algorithms explain experimental anomalies? An application to common property resources," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 542.02, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    18. Safarzynska, Karolina & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2011. "Beyond replicator dynamics: Innovation-selection dynamics and optimal diversity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 229-245, May.
    19. repec:zbw:iamodp:109915 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Casari, Marco, 2008. "Markets in equilibrium with firms out of equilibrium: A simulation study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 261-276, February.
    21. Thomas Riechman, 2000. "A Model Of Boundedly Rational Consumer Choice," Computing in Economics and Finance 2000 321, Society for Computational Economics.
    22. Großklags, Jens & Schmidt, Carsten & Siegel, Jonathan, 2000. "Dumb software agents on an experimental asset market," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2000,96, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:sce:scecf9:344. 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: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sceeeea.html .

    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.