Using chemical reaction network theory to show stability of distributional dynamics in game theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article shows how to apply results of chemical reaction network theory (CRNT) to prove uniqueness and stability of a positive equilibrium for pairs/groups distributional dynamics that arise in game theoretic models. Evolutionary game theory assumes that individuals accrue their fitness through interactions with other individuals. When there are two or more different strategies in the population, this theory assumes that pairs (groups) are formed instantaneously and randomly so that the corresponding pairs (groups) distribution is described by the Hardy-Weinberg (binomial) distribution. If interactions times are phenotype dependent the Hardy-Weinberg distribution does not apply. Even if it becomes impossible to calculate the pairs/groups distribution analytically we show that CRNT is a general tool that is very useful to prove not only existence of the equilibrium, but also its stability. In this article, we apply CRNT to pair formation model that arises in two player games (e.g., Hawk-Dove, Prisoner's Dilemma game), to group formation that arises, e.g., in Public Goods Game, and to distribution of a single population in patchy environments. We also show by generalizing the Battle of the Sexes game that the methodology does not always apply.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".