Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:57:07.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three characterizations of population strategy stability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2016

W. G. S. Hines
W. G. S. Hines*
Affiliation:
University of Guelph
*
∗Postal address: Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont., Canada N1G 2W1.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In addition to the concept of the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS), developed specifically for considering intraspecific conflicts, concepts such as the Nash equilibrium from game theory and the attractor or sink from dynamical systems theory appear relevant to the problem of characterizing populations of stable composition. The three concepts mentioned are discussed for one simple standard population model. It is found that evolutionarily stable strategies of one type are necessarily Nash equilibrium strategies, although the converse is not true. The dynamical systems characterization is found to provide a model for populations susceptible to invasion by ‘co-operative' strategies, but capable of evolving back in average to the original equilibrium.

Keywords

ATTRACTORS IN GAME THEORYCO-OPERATIVE STRATEGIESEVOLUTION OF BEHAVIOUREVOLUTIONARILY STABLE STRATEGYINTRASPECIFIC CONFLICT MODELSN-PERSON GAMESNASH EQUILIBRIUM
Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Applied Probability , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 1980 , pp. 333 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © Applied Probability Trust 1980 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Research supported by NRC Operating Grant A6187.

References

Auslander, D. J., Guckenheimer, J. M. and Oster, G. (1978) Random evolutionary stable strategies. Theoret. Population Biol. 13, 276–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casti, J. L. (1977) Dynamical Systems and their Applications. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Friedman, A. (1971) Differential Games. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Haigh, J. (1975) Game theory and evolution (abstract). Adv. Appl. Prob. 7, 8–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hines, W. G. S. (1978) Mutations and stable strategies. J. Theoret. Biol. 72, 413–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hines, W. G. S. (1980) Strategy stability in complex populations. J. Appl. Prob. 17(3).Google Scholar
Hirsch, M. and Smale, S. (1974) Differential Equations, Dynamical Systems and Linear Algebra. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hirschleifer, J. and Riley, J. G. (1978) Elements of the theory of auctions and contests. UCLA Economics Department Working Paper No. 118.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1974) The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts. J. Theoret. Biol. 47, 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirmirani, M. and Oster, G. (1978) Competition, kin selection and evolution. Theoret. Population Biol. 13, 304–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, J. G. (1978) Evolutionary equilibrium strategies. J. Theoret. Biol. 76, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P. D. and Jonker, L. B. (1978) Evolutionarily stable strategies and game dynamics. Math. Biosci. 40, 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar