IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1706.09763.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Dynamical selection of Nash equilibria using Experience Weighted Attraction Learning: emergence of heterogeneous mixed equilibria

Author

Listed:
  • Robin Nicole
  • Peter Sollich

Abstract

We study the distribution of strategies in a large game that models how agents choose among different double auction markets. We classify the possible mean field Nash equilibria, which include potentially segregated states where an agent population can split into subpopulations adopting different strategies. As the game is aggregative, the actual equilibrium strategy distributions remain undetermined, however. We therefore compare with the results of Experience-Weighted Attraction (EWA) learning, which at long times leads to Nash equilibria in the appropriate limits of large intensity of choice, low noise (long agent memory) and perfect imputation of missing scores (fictitious play). The learning dynamics breaks the indeterminacy of the Nash equilibria. Non-trivially, depending on how the relevant limits are taken, more than one type of equilibrium can be selected. These include the standard homogeneous mixed and heterogeneous pure states, but also \emph{heterogeneous mixed} states where different agents play different strategies that are not all pure. The analysis of the EWA learning involves Fokker-Planck modeling combined with large deviation methods. The theoretical results are confirmed by multi-agent simulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Robin Nicole & Peter Sollich, 2017. "Dynamical selection of Nash equilibria using Experience Weighted Attraction Learning: emergence of heterogeneous mixed equilibria," Papers 1706.09763, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1706.09763
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.09763
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guilherme Carmona, 2004. "Nash equilibria of games with a continuum of players," Nova SBE Working Paper Series wp466, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Nova School of Business and Economics.
    2. Fudenberg, Drew & Levine, David, 1998. "Learning in games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 631-639, May.
    3. A. Chakraborti & I. Muni-Toke & M. Patriarca & F. Abergel, 2011. "Econophysics Review : II. Agent-based models," Post-Print hal-03332946, HAL.
    4. Eric Friedman & Scott Shenker, 1998. "Learning and Implementation on the Internet," Departmental Working Papers 199821, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
    5. Glenn Ellison & Drew Fudenberg, 2003. "Knife-Edge or Plateau: When Do Market Models Tip?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(4), pages 1249-1278.
    6. Anirban Chakraborti & Ioane Muni Toke & Marco Patriarca & Frederic Abergel, 2011. "Econophysics review: II. Agent-based models," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(7), pages 1013-1041.
    7. Gode, Dhananjay K & Sunder, Shyam, 1993. "Allocative Efficiency of Markets with Zero-Intelligence Traders: Market as a Partial Substitute for Individual Rationality," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 119-137, February.
    8. Rath, Kali P, 1992. "A Direct Proof of the Existence of Pure Strategy Equilibria in Games with a Continuum of Players," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 2(3), pages 427-433, July.
    9. Carl Chiarella & Giulia Iori, 2002. "A simulation analysis of the microstructure of double auction markets," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(5), pages 346-353.
    10. Anirban Chakraborti & Ioane Muni Toke & Marco Patriarca & Frédéric Abergel, 2011. "Econophysics review: II. Agent-based models," Post-Print hal-00621059, HAL.
    11. Colin Camerer & Teck-Hua Ho, 1999. "Experience-weighted Attraction Learning in Normal Form Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(4), pages 827-874, July.
    12. Cabral, Luis M. B., 1988. "Asymmetric equilibria in symmetric games with many players," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 205-208.
    13. Aleksandra Alorić & Peter Sollich & Peter McBurney & Tobias Galla, 2016. "Emergence of Cooperative Long-Term Market Loyalty in Double Auction Markets," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-26, April.
    14. Guilherme Carmona, 2003. "Nash and Limit Equilibria of Games with a Continuum of Players," Game Theory and Information 0311004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine, 1998. "The Theory of Learning in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262061945, April.
    16. SCHMEIDLER, David, 1973. "Equilibrium points of nonatomic games," LIDAM Reprints CORE 146, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    17. E. Samanidou & E. Zschischang & D. Stauffer & T. Lux, 2007. "Agent-based Models of Financial Markets," Papers physics/0701140, arXiv.org.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Robin Nicole & Peter Sollich, 2018. "Dynamical selection of Nash equilibria using reinforcement learning: Emergence of heterogeneous mixed equilibria," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-37, July.
    2. Misha Perepelitsa, 2021. "Psychological dimension of adaptive trading in cryptocurrency markets," Papers 2109.12166, arXiv.org.
    3. Chen, Shu-Heng, 2012. "Varieties of agents in agent-based computational economics: A historical and an interdisciplinary perspective," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-25.
    4. Misha Perepelitsa & Ilya Timofeyev, 2022. "Self-sustained price bubbles driven by digital currency innovations and adaptive market behavior," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 1-15, March.
    5. A. O. Glekin & A. Lykov & K. L. Vaninsky, 2014. "On Simulation of Various Effects in Consolidated Order Book," Papers 1402.4150, arXiv.org.
    6. Ralph-C. Bayer & Elke Renner & Rupert Sausgruber, 2013. "Confusion and learning in the voluntary contributions game," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(4), pages 478-496, December.
    7. Torsten Trimborn & Philipp Otte & Simon Cramer & Maximilian Beikirch & Emma Pabich & Martin Frank, 2020. "SABCEMM: A Simulator for Agent-Based Computational Economic Market Models," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 55(2), pages 707-744, February.
    8. Adão, Luiz F.S. & Silveira, Douglas & Ely, Regis A. & Cajueiro, Daniel O., 2022. "The impacts of interest rates on banks’ loan portfolio risk-taking," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    9. Inoua, Sabiou M. & Smith, Vernon L., 2023. "A classical model of speculative asset price dynamics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    10. Pietro DeLellis & Anna DiMeglio & Franco Garofalo & Francesco Lo Iudice, 2017. "The evolving cobweb of relations among partially rational investors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, February.
    11. Troy Tassier, 2013. "Handbook of Research on Complexity, by J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. and Edward Elgar," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 39(1), pages 132-133.
    12. Duffy, John, 2006. "Agent-Based Models and Human Subject Experiments," Handbook of Computational Economics, in: Leigh Tesfatsion & Kenneth L. Judd (ed.), Handbook of Computational Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 949-1011, Elsevier.
    13. Gao-Feng Gu & Xiong Xiong & Hai-Chuan Xu & Wei Zhang & Yongjie Zhang & Wei Chen & Wei-Xing Zhou, 2021. "An empirical behavioral order-driven model with price limit rules," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 7(1), pages 1-24, December.
    14. Iori, G. & Porter, J., 2012. "Agent-Based Modelling for Financial Markets," Working Papers 12/08, Department of Economics, City University London.
    15. Timothy Cason & Daniel Friedman, 1999. "Learning in a Laboratory Market with Random Supply and Demand," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(1), pages 77-98, August.
    16. Buda, Andrzej & Kwapień, Jarosław, 2022. "Agent-based modelling of the global phonographic market," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 598(C).
    17. Alexander Lykov & Stepan Muzychka & Kirill Vaninsky, 2016. "Investor'S Sentiment In Multi-Agent Model Of The Continuous Double Auction," International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance (IJTAF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(06), pages 1-29, September.
    18. Andrew W. Macpherson, 2023. "Adversarial blockchain queues and trading on a CFMM," Papers 2302.01663, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2023.
    19. Takanobu Mizuta & Isao Yagi, 2023. "Comparing effects of price limit and circuit breaker in stock exchanges by an agent-based model," Papers 2309.10220, arXiv.org.
    20. Martin Šmíd, 2016. "Estimation of zero-intelligence models by L1 data," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(9), pages 1423-1444, September.

    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:arx:papers:1706.09763. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.