Skip to main content

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

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Algorithmic Game Theory (SAGT 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 11801))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 870 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The celebrated PPAD-completeness results [3, 5] indicate that finding a NE in a fixed game is intractable. Our setting is very different from the setting that is considered in these PPAD-hardness results. For more details see the discussion of related work in the end of this section.

  2. 2.

    The games used to model protocols such as Bitcoin are actually extensive-form games, which are played over time. Our impossibility results show that there are computational Bayesian games where there is no NE when we restrict to polynomial-time players. Since Bayesian games are a special case of extensive-form games, our non-existence results carry over to extensive-form games.

  3. 3.

    It is also possible to allow k to depend on n, but we focus on the case where k is a constant for concreteness.

  4. 4.

    We restrict our attention to utilities and probabilities that are rational numbers.

  5. 5.

    One question is how to deal with players who use Turing machines that fail to halt or return an action that does not belong to the action space. We deal with this issue by assigning to each player i a special action \(a_0^i\) that we take to be the action played if i’s TM does not halt or if i’s output is not an action in the action space. Any profile that includes \(a_0^i\) gives utility \(-\infty \) to all players, thus discouraging players from using TMs that fail to halt or return inappropriate actions.

  6. 6.

    Our results also hold in a more general setting where the absolute value of a (nonzero) utility is at most polynomial and at least inversely polynomial in n.

References

  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. Brassard, G., Chaum, D., Crépeau, C.: Minimum disclosure proofs of knowledge. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 37, 156–189 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen, X., Deng, X., Teng, S.H.: Settling the complexity of two-player Nash equilibrium. J. ACM 53(3) (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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. Fortnow, L., Impagliazzo, R., Kabanets, V., Umans, C.: On the complexity of succinct zero-sum games. Comput. Complex. 17(3), 353–376 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.2014.04.007

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Halpern, J.Y., Pass, R., Reichman, D.: On the nonexistence of equilibrium in computational games (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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_45

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Maschler, M., Solan, E., Zamir, S.: Game Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2013)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system (2008). http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

  18. Nash, J.: Non-cooperative games. Ann. Math. 54, 286–295 (1951)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Neyman, A.: Bounded complexity justifies cooperation in finitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma. Econ. Lett. 19, 227–229 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Neyman, A.: The positive value of information. Games Econ. Behav. 3, 350–355 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Neyman, A.: Finitely repeated games with finite automata. Math. Oper. Res. 23, 513–552 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Rubinstein, A.: Finite automata play the repeated prisoner’s dilemma. J. Econ. Theory 39, 83–96 (1986)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Schoenebeck, G., Vadhan, S.: The computational complexity of nash equilibria in concisely represented games. Theory Comput. 4, 270–279 (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Simon, H.A.: A behavioral model of rational choice. Quart. J. Econ. 49, 99–118 (1955). https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Reichman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Halpern, J.Y., Pass, R., Reichman, D. (2019). On the Existence of Nash Equilibrium in Games with Resource-Bounded Players. In: Fotakis, D., Markakis, E. (eds) Algorithmic Game Theory. SAGT 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11801. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30473-7_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30473-7_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30472-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-30473-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics