Strategic Decompositions of Normal Form Games: Zero-sum Games and Potential Games
Sung‐Ha Hwang, Luc Rey-Bellet
Abstract
Open-access reader
Sung‐Ha Hwang, Luc Rey-Bellet
Abstract
Open-access reader
We study new classes of games, called zero-sum equivalent games and zero-sum equivalent potential games, and prove decomposition theorems involving these classes of games. We say that two games are "strategically equivalent" if, for every player, the payoff differences between two strategies (holding other players' strategies fixed) are identical. A zero-sum equivalent game is a game that is strategically equivalent to a zero-sum game; a zero-sum equivalent potential game is a zero-sum equivalent game that is strategically equivalent to a common interest game. We also call a game "normalized" if the sum of one player's payoffs, given the other players' strategies, is always zero. We show that any normal form game can be uniquely decomposed into either (i) a zero-sum equivalent game and a normalized common interest game, or (ii) a zero-sum equivalent potential game, a normalized zero-sum game, and a normalized common interest game, each with distinctive equilibrium properties. For example, we show that two-player zero-sum equivalent games with finite strategy sets generically have a unique Nash equilibrium and that two-player zero-sum equivalent potential games with finite strategy sets generically have a strictly dominant Nash equilibrium.
OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
We study new classes of games, called zero-sum equivalent games and zero-sum equivalent potential games, and prove decomposition theorems involving these classes of games. We say that two games are "strategically equivalent" if, for every player, the payoff differences between two strategies (holding other players' strategies fixed) are identical. A zero-sum equivalent game is a game that is strategically equivalent to a zero-sum game; a zero-sum equivalent potential game is a zero-sum equivalent game that is strategically equivalent to a common interest game. We also call a game "normalized" if the sum of one player's payoffs, given the other players' strategies, is always zero. We show that any normal form game can be uniquely decomposed into either (i) a zero-sum equivalent game and a normalized common interest game, or (ii) a zero-sum equivalent potential game, a normalized zero-sum game, and a normalized common interest game, each with distinctive equilibrium properties. For example, we show that two-player zero-sum equivalent games with finite strategy sets generically have a unique Nash equilibrium and that two-player zero-sum equivalent potential games with finite strategy sets generically have a strictly dominant Nash equilibrium.
Key concepts: Zero-sum game, Zero (linguistics), Symmetric game, Mathematics, Repeated game, Combinatorial game theory, Nash equilibrium, Example of a game without a value