Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2018 Aug 1;78(1):331–371. doi: 10.1007/s00285-018-1276-0

On the distribution of the number of internal equilibria in random evolutionary games

Manh Hong Duong 1,, Hoang Minh Tran 2, The Anh Han 3
PMCID: PMC6437138  PMID: 30069646

Abstract

The analysis of equilibrium points is of great importance in evolutionary game theory with numerous practical ramifications in ecology, population genetics, social sciences, economics and computer science. In contrast to previous analytical approaches which primarily focus on computing the expected number of internal equilibria, in this paper we study the distribution of the number of internal equilibria in a multi-player two-strategy random evolutionary game. We derive for the first time a closed formula for the probability that the game has a certain number of internal equilibria, for both normal and uniform distributions of the game payoff entries. In addition, using Descartes’ rule of signs and combinatorial methods, we provide several universal upper and lower bound estimates for this probability, which are independent of the underlying payoff distribution. We also compare our analytical results with those obtained from extensive numerical simulations. Many results of this paper are applicable to a wider class of random polynomials that are not necessarily from evolutionary games.

Keywords: Evolutionary game theory, Multi-player games, Replicator dynamics, Random polynomials, Distributions of equilibria, Random games

Introduction

Motivation

Evolutionary Game Theory (EGT) (Maynard Smith and Price 1973) has become one of the most diverse and far reaching theories in biology finding its applications in a plethora of disciplines such as ecology, population genetics, social sciences, economics and computer science (Maynard Smith 1982; Axelrod 1984; Hofbauer and Sigmund 1998; Nowak 2006; Broom and Rychtář 2013; Perc and Szolnoki 2010; Sandholm 2010; Han et al. 2017), see also recent reviews (Wang et al. 2016; Perc et al. 2017). For example, in economics, EGT has been employed to make predictions in situations where traditional assumptions about agents’ rationality and knowledge may not be justified (Friedman 1998; Sandholm 2010). In computer science, EGT has been used extensively to model dynamics and emergent behaviour in multiagent systems (Helbing et al. 2015; Tuyls and Parsons 2007; Han 2013). Furthermore, EGT has provided explanations for the emergence and stability of cooperative behaviours which is one of the most well-studied and challenging interdisciplinary problems in science (Pennisi 2005; Hofbauer and Sigmund 1998; Nowak 2006). A particularly important subclass in EGT is random evolutionary games in which the payoff entries are random variables. They are useful to model social and biological systems in which very limited information is available, or where the environment changes so rapidly and frequently that one cannot describe the payoffs of their inhabitants’ interactions (May 2001; Fudenberg and Harris 1992; Han et al. 2012; Gross et al. 2009; Galla and Farmer 2013).

Similar to the foundational concept of Nash equilibrium in classical game theory (Nash 1950), the analysis of equilibrium points is of great importance in EGT. It provides essential understanding of complexity in a dynamical system, such as its behavioural, cultural or biological diversity (Haigh 1988, 1990; Broom et al. 1997; Broom 2003; Gokhale and Traulsen 2010, 2014; Han et al. 2012; Duong and Han 2015, 2016; Broom and Rychtář 2016). A large body of literature has analysed the number of equilibria, their stability and attainability in concrete strategic scenarios such as the public goods game and its variants, see for example Broom et al. (1997), Broom (2000), Pacheco et al. (2009), Souza et al. (2009), Peña (2012), Peña et al. (2014) and Sasaki et al. (2015). However, despite their importance, equilibrium properties in random games are far less understood with, to the best of our knowledge, only a few recent efforts (Gokhale and Traulsen 2010, 2014; Han et al. 2012; Galla and Farmer 2013; Duong and Han 2015, 2016; Broom and Rychtář 2016). One of the most challenging problems in the study of equilibrium properties in random games is to characterise the distribution of the number of equilibria (Gokhale and Traulsen 2010; Han et al. 2012):

What is the distribution of the number of (internal) equilibria in a d-player random evolutionary game and how can we compute it?

This question has been studied in the literature to some extent. For example, in Gokhale and Traulsen (2010, 2014) and Han et al. (2012), the authors studied this question with a small number of players (d4) and only focused on the probability of attaining the maximal number of equilibrium points, i.e. pd-1, where pm (0md-1) is the probability that a d-player game with two strategies has exactly m internal equilibria. These works use a direct approach by analytically solving a polynomial equation, expressing the positivity of its zeros as domains of conditions for the coefficients and then integrating over these domains to obtain the corresponding probabilities. However, it is impossible to extend this approach to games with a large or arbitrary number of players as in general, a polynomial of degree five or higher is not analytically solvable (Abel 1824). In more recent works (Duong and Han 2015, 2016; Duong et al. 2017), we have established the links between random evolutionary games, random polynomial theory (Edelman and Kostlan 1995) and classical polynomial theory (particularly Legendre polynomials), employing techniques from the latter to study the expected number of internal equilibria, E. More specifically, we provided closed form formulas for E, characterised its asymptotic limits as the number of players in the game tends to infinity and investigated the effect of correlation in the case of correlated payoff entries. On the one hand, E offers useful information regarding the macroscopic, average behaviour of the number of internal equilibria a dynamical system might have. On the other hand, E cannot provide the level of complexity or the number of different states of biodiversity that will occur in the system. In these situations, details about how the number of internal equilibrium points distributed is required. Furthermore, as E can actually be derived from pm using the formula E=m=0d-1mpm, a closed form formula for pm would make it possible to compute E for any d, hence filling in the gap in the literature on computing E for large d (d5). Therefore, it is necessary to estimate pm.

Summary of main results

In this paper, we address the above question by providing a closed-form formula for the probability pm (0md-1). Our approach is based on the links between random polynomial theory and random evolutionary game theory established in our previous work (Duong and Han 2015, 2016). That is, an internal equilibrium in a d-player game with two strategies can be found by solving the following polynomial equation (detailed derivation in Sect. 2),

k=0d-1βkd-1kyk=0, 1

where βk=Ak-Bk, with Ak and Bk being random variables representing the entries of the game payoff matrix. We now summarise the main results of this paper. Detailed derivations and proofs will be given in subsequent sections. The first main result is an explicit formula for the probability distribution of the number of internal equilibria.

Theorem 1

(The distribution of the number of internal equilibria in a d-player two-strategy random evolutionary game) Suppose that the coefficients {βk} in (1) are either normally distributed, uniformly distributed or the difference of uniformly distributed random variables. The probability that a d-player two-strategy random evolutionary game has m, 0md-1, internal equilibria, is given by

pm=k=0d-1-m2pm,2k,d-1-m-2k, 2

where pm,2k,d-1-m-2k are given in (13), (14) and (15), respectively.

This theorem, which is stated in detail in Theorem 4 in Sect. 3, is derived from a more general theorem, Theorem 3, where we provide explicit formulas for the probability pm,2k,n-m-2k that a random polynomial of degree n has m (0mn) positive, 2k (0kn-m2) complex and n-2m-2k negative roots. Note that results from Theorem 3 are applicable to a wider class of general random polynomials, i.e. beyond those derived from evolutionary random games considered in this work.

Theorem 1 is theoretically interesting and can be used to compute pm, 0md-1 for small d. We use it to compute all the probabilities pm, 0md-1, for d up to 5, and compare the results with those obtained through extensive numerical simulations (for validation). However, when d is larger it becomes computationally expensive to compute these probabilities using formula (2) because one needs to calculate all the probabilities pm,2k,d-1-2k, 0kn-m2, which are complex multiple integrals. To overcome this issue, in Sect. 5, we develop our second main result, Theorem 2 below, which offers simpler explicit estimates of pm in terms of d and m. The main idea in developing this result is employing the symmetry of the coefficients βk. Specifically, we consider two cases

Case 1:P(βk>0)=P(βk<0)=12,Case 2:P(βk>0)=αandP(βk<0)=1-α,

for all k=0,,d-1 and for some 0α1. Note here that Case 1 is an instance of Case 2 when α=12 and can be satisfied when ak and βk are exchangeable (see Lemma 1 below). Interestingly, the symmetry of βk allows us to obtain a much simpler treatment. The general case allows us to move beyond the exchangeability condition capturing the fact that different strategies might have different payoff properties.

Theorem 2

We have the following upper-bound estimate for pm

pmkmk-mevenpk,d-1, 3

where pk,d-1=12d-1d-1k if α=12, in this case the sum on the right hand side of  (3) can be computed explicitly in terms of m and d. For the general case, it can be computed explicitly according to Theorem 7. The estimate (3) has several useful implications, leading to explicit bounds for pd-2 and pd-1 as well as the following assertions:

  1. For d=2: p0=α2+(1-α)2 and p1=2α(1-α);

  2. For d=3: p1=2α(1-α).

This theorem is a summary of Theorems 67 and 8 in Sect. 4 that are derived using Descartes’ rule of signs and combinatorial methods. We note that results of the aforementioned theorems are applicable to a wider class of random polynomials that are not necessarily from random games.

Organisation of the paper

The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In Sect. 2, we recall and summarise the replicator dynamics for multi-player two-strategy games. The main contributions of this paper and the detailed analysis of the main results described above will be presented in subsequent sections. Section 3 is devoted to the proof of Theorem 1 on the probability distribution. The proof of Theorem 2 will be given in Sect. 4. In Sect. 5 we show some numerical simulations to demonstrate analytical results. In Sect. 6, further discussions are given. Finally, Appendix 1 contains proofs of technical results from previous sections.

Replicator dynamics

A fundamental model of evolutionary game theory is replicator dynamics (Taylor and Jonker 1978; Zeeman 1980; Hofbauer and Sigmund 1998; Schuster and Sigmund 1983; Nowak 2006), describing that whenever a strategy has a fitness larger than the average fitness of the population, it is expected to spread. For the sake of completeness, below we derive the replicator dynamics for multi-player two-strategy games.

Consider an infinitely large population with two strategies, A and B. Let x, 0x1, be the frequency of strategy A. The frequency of strategy B is thus (1-x). The interaction of the individuals in the population is in randomly selected groups of d participants, that is, they play and obtain their fitness from d-player games. The game is defined through a (d-1)-dimensional payoff matrix (Gokhale and Traulsen 2010), as follows. Let Ak (respectively, Bk) be the payoff that an A-strategist (respectively, a B-strategist) obtained when playing with a group of d-1 players that consists of k A-strategists. In this paper, we consider symmetric games where the payoffs do not depend on the ordering of the players. Asymmetric games will be studied in a forthcoming paper. In the symmetric case, the probability that an A strategist interacts with k other A strategists in a group of size d-1 is

d-1kxk(1-x)d-1-k. 4

Thus, the average payoffs of A and B are, respectively

πA=k=0d-1Akd-1kxk(1-x)d-1-k,πB=k=0d-1Bkd-1kxk(1-x)d-1-k.

The replicator equation of a d-player two-strategy game is given by (Hofbauer and Sigmund 1998; Sigmund 2010; Gokhale and Traulsen 2010)

x˙=x(1-x)(πA-πB).

Since x=0 and x=1 are two trivial equilibrium points, we focus only on internal ones, i.e. 0<x<1. They satisfy the condition that the fitnesses of both strategies are the same, i.e. πA=πB, which gives rise to

k=0d-1βkd-1kxk(1-x)d-1-k=0,

where βk=Ak-Bk. Using the transformation y=x1-x, with 0<y<+, dividing the left hand side of the above equation by (1-x)d-1 we obtain the following polynomial equation for y

P(y):=k=0d-1βkd-1kyk=0. 5

Note that this equation can also be derived from the definition of an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS), an important concept in EGT (Maynard Smith 1982), see e.g., Broom et al. (1997). Note however that, when moving to random evolutionary games with more than two strategies, the conditions for ESS are not the same as for those of stable equilibrium points of replicator dynamics. As in Gokhale and Traulsen (2010), Duong and Han (2015, 2016), we are interested in random games where Ak and Bk (thus βk), for 0kd-1, are random variables.

In Sect. 3 where we provide estimates for the number of internal equilibria in a d-player two-strategy game, we will use the information on the symmetry of βk. The following lemma gives a necessary condition to determine when the difference of two random variables is symmetrically distributed.

Lemma 1

(Duong et al. 2017, Lemma 3.5) Let X and Y be two exchangeable random variables, i.e. their joint probability distribution fX,Y(x,y) is symmetric, fX,Y(x,y)=fX,Y(y,x). Then Z=X-Y is symmetrically distributed about 0, i.e., its probability distribution satisfies fZ(z)=fZ(-z). In addition, if X and Y are i.i.d then they are exchangeable.

For the sake of completeness, the proof of this Lemma is provided in Sect. 1.

The distribution of the number of positive zeros of random polynomials and applications to EGT

This section focuses on deriving the distribution of the number of internal equilibria of a d-player two-strategy random evolutionary game. We recall that an internal equilibria is a real and positive zero of the polynomial P(y) in (5). We denote by κ the number of positive zeros of this polynomial. For a given m, 0md-1, we need to compute the probability pm that κ=m. To this end, we first adapt a method introduced in Zaporozhets (2006) (see also Butez and Zeitouni 2017; Götze et al. 2017 for its applications to other problems) to establish a formula to compute the probability that a general random polynomial has a given number of real and positive zeros. Then we apply the general theory to the polynomial P.

The distribution of the number of positive zeros of a random polynomial

Consider a general random polynomial

P(t)=ξ0tn+ξ1tn-1++ξn-1t+ξn. 6

We use the following notations for the elementary symmetric polynomials

σ0(y1,,yn)=1,σ1(y1,,yn)=y1++yn,σ2(y1,,yn)=y1y2++yn-1yn,σn-1(y1,,yn)=y1y2yn-1++y2y3yn,σn(y1,,yn)=y1yn, 7

and denote by

Δ(y1,,yn)=1i<jn|yi-yj| 8

the Vandermonde determinant.

Theorem 3

Assume that the random variables ξ0,ξ1,,ξn have a joint density p(a0,,an). Let 0md-1 and 0kn-m2. The probability pm,2k,n-m-2k that P has m positive, 2k complex and n-m-2k negative zeros is given by

pm,2k,n-m-2k=2km!k!(n-m-2k)!R+mR-n-m-2kR+k[0,π]kRr1rkp(aσ0,,aσn)|anΔ|dadα1dαkdr1drkdx1dxn-2k, 9

where

σj=σjx1,,xn-2k,r1eiα1,r1e-iα1,,rkeiαk,rke-iαk, 10
Δ=Δx1,,xn-2k,r1eiα1,r1e-iα1,,rkeiαk,rke-iαk. 11

As consequences,

  1. The probability that P has m positive zeros is
    pm=k=0n-m2pm,2k,n-m-2k.
  2. In particular, the probability that P has the maximal number of positive zeros is
    pn=2kk!(n-2k)!R+nRp(aσ0,,aσn)|anΔ|dadx1dxn,
    where
    σj=σj(x1,,xn),Δ=Δ(x1,,xn).

Proof

The reference (Zaporozhets 2006, Theorem 1) provides a formula to compute the probability that the polynomial P has n-2k real and 2k complex roots. In the present paper, we need to distinguish between positive and negative real zeros. We now sketch and adapt the proof of Theorem 1 of Zaporozhets (2006) to obtain the formula (9) for the probability that the polynomial P has m positive, 2k complex and n-m-2k negative roots. Consider a (n+1)-dimensional vector space V of polynomials of the form

Q(t)=a0tn+a1tn-1++an-1t+an,

and a measure μ on this space defined as the integral of the differential form

dQ=p(a0,,an)da0dan. 12

Our goal is to find μ(Vm,2k) where Vm,2k is the set of polynomials having m positive, 2k complex and n-m-2k negative roots. Let QVm,2k. Denote all zeros of Q as

z1=x1,,zn-2k=xn-2k,zn-2k+1=r1eiα1,zn-2k+2=r1e-iα1,,zn-1=rkeiαk,zn=rke-iαk,

where

0<x1,,xm<;-<xm+1,,xn-2k<0;0<r1,,rk<;0<α1,,αk<π.

To find μ(Vm,2k) we need to integrate the differential form (12) over the set Vm,2k. The key idea in the proof of Theorem 1 of Zaporozhets (2006) is to make a change of coordinates (a0,,an)(a,x1,,xn-2k,r1,,rk,α1,,αk), with a=a0, and find dQ in the new coordinates. The derivation of the following formula is carried out in detail in Zaporozhets (2006):

dQ=2kr1rkpa,aσ1x1,,xn-2k,r1eiα1,r1e-iα1,,rkeiαk,rke-iαk,aσnx1,,xn-2k,r1eiα1,r1e-iα1,,rkeiαk,rke-iαk×anΔx1,,xn-2k,r1eiα1,r1e-iα1,,rkeiαk,rke-iαk×dx1dxn-2kdr1drkdα1dαkda.

Now we integrate this equation over all polynomials Q that have m positive zeros, n-m-2k negative zeros and k complex zeros in the upper half-plane. Since there are m! permutations of the positive zeros, (n-m-2k)! permutations of the negative zeros, and k! permutations of the complex zeros, after integrating each polynomial in the left-hand side will occur m!k!(n-m-2k)! times. Hence the integral of the left-hand side is equal to m!k!(n-m-2k)!pm,2k,n-m-2k. The integral on the right-hand side equals

2kR+mR-n-m-2kR+k[0,π]kRr1rkp(aσ0,,aσn)|anΔ|dadα1dαkdr1drkdx1dxn-2k,

hence the assertion (9) follows.

The distribution of the number of internal equilibria

Next we apply Theorem 3 to compute the probability that a random evolutionary game has m, 0md-1, internal equilibria. We derive formulas for the three most common cases (Han et al. 2012):

  1. {βj,0jd-1} are i.i.d. standard normally distributed,

  2. {βj} are i.i.d. uniformly distributed with the common distribution fj(x)=121[-1,1](x),

  3. {Ak} and {Bk} are i.i.d. uniformly distributed with the common distribution fj(x)=121[-1,1](x).

The main result of this section is the following theorem (cf. Theorem 2).

Theorem 4

The probability that a d-player two-strategy random evolutionary game has m (0md-1) internal equilibria is

pm=k=0d-1-m2pm,2k,d-1-m-2k,

where pm,2k,d-1-m-2k is given below for each of the cases above:

– For the case (C1)

pm,2k,d-1-m-2k=2km!k!(d-1-m-2k)!Γ(d2)(π)d2i=0d-1δiR+mR-d-1-2k-mR+k[0,π]kr1rki=0d-1σi2δi2-d2Δdα1dαkdr1drkdx1dxd-1-2k, 13

where σi, for i=0,,d-1, and Δ are given in (10)–(11) and δi=d-1i.

– For the case (C2)

pm,2k,d-1-m-2k=2k+1-ddm!k!(d-1-m-2k)!i=0d-1δiR+mR-d-1-2k-mR+k[0,π]kr1rk(min{|δi/σi|})dΔdα1dαkdr1drkdx1dxd-1-2k. 14

– For the case (C3)

pm,2k,d-1-m-2k=2k+1(-1)dm!k!(d-1-m-2k)!j=0d-1δj2R+mR-d-1-2k-mR+k[0,π]kr1rkj=0d-1|σj|i=0d(-1)iKi2d-i(min{|δi/σi|})2d-iΔdα1dαkdr1drkdx1dxd-1-2k. 15

In particular, the probability that a d-player two-strategy random evolutionary game has the maximal number of internal equilibria is:

  1. for the case (C1)
    pd-1=1(d-1)!Γ(d2)(π)d2i=0d-1δiR+d-1q(σ0,,σd-1)dx1dxd-1; 16
  2. for the case (C2)
    pd-1=21-dd!i=0d-1δiR+d-1(min{|δi/σi|})dΔdx1dxd-1; 17
  3. for the case (C3)
    pd-1=2(-1)d(d-1)!j=0d-1δj2R+d-1j=0d-1|σj|i=0d(-1)iKi2d-i(min{|δi/σi|})2d-iΔdx1dxd-1. 18

Note that in formulas (16)–(18) above

σj=σj(x1,,xd-1),Δ=Δ(x1,,xd-1).

Proof

(1) Since {βj,0jd-1} are i.i.d. standard normally distributed, the joint distribution p(y0,,yd-1) of d-1jβj,0jd-1 is given by

p(y0,,yd-1)=1(2π)d2i=0d-1d-1iexp-12i=0d-1yi2d-1i2=1(2π)d2|C|12exp-12yTC-1y,

where y=[y0y1yd-1]T and C is the covariance matrix

Cij=d-1id-1jδij.

Therefore,

p(aσ0,,aσd-1)=1(2π)d2|C|12exp(-a22σTC-1σ), 19

where σ=[σ0σ1σd-1]T. Using the following formula for moments of a normal distribution,

R|x|nexp(-αx2)dx=Γ(n+12)αn+12,

we compute

R|a|d-1exp(-a22σTC-1σ)da=Γ(d2)(σTC-1σ2)d2=2d2Γ(d2)(σTC-1σ)d2.

Applying Theorem 3 to the polynomial P given in (5) and using the above identity we obtain

pm,2k,d-1-m-2k=2km!k!(d-1-m-2k)!R+mR-d-1-2k-mR+k[0,π]kRr1rkp(aσ0,,aσd-1)|a|d-1Δdadα1dαkdr1drkdx1dxd-1-2k=2km!k!(d-1-m-2k)!1(2π)d2|C|122d2Γ(d2)R+mR-d-1-2k-mR+k[0,π]kr1rk(σTC-1σ)-d2Δdα1dαkdr1drkdx1dxd-1-2k=2km!k!(d-1-m-2k)!Γ(d2)(π)d2|C|12R+mR-d-1-2k-mR+k[0,π]kr1rk(σTC-1σ)-d2Δdα1dαkdr1drkdx1dxd-1-2k,

which is the desired equality (13) by definition of C and σ.

(2) Now since {βj} are i.i.d. uniformly distributed with the common distribution fj(x)=121[-1,1](x), the joint distribution p(y0,,yd-1) of

d-1jβj,0jd-1

is given by

p(y0,,yd-1)=12di=0d-1δi1×i=0d-1[-δi,δi](y0,,yd-1)whereδi=d-1i.

Therefore,

p(aσ0,,aσd-1)=12di=0d-1δi1×i=0d-1[-δi,δi](aσ0,,aσd-1).

Since 1×i=0d-1[-δi,δi](aσ0,,aσd-1)=1 if and only if aσi[-δi,δi] for all i=0,,d-1, i.e., if and only if

ai=0d-1[-|δi/σi|,|δi/σi|]=-mini{0,,d-1}{|δi/σi|},mini{0,,d-1}{|δi/σi|},

we have (for simplicity of notation, in the subsequent computations we shorten mini{0,,d-1} by min)

p(aσ0,,aσd-1)=12di=0d-1δi,ifa[-min{|δi/σi|},min{|δi/σi|}],0,otherwise.

Therefore,

R|a|d-1p(aσ0,,aσd-1)da=12di=0d-1δi-min{|δi/σi|}min{|δi/σi|}|a|d-1da=1d2d-1i=0d-1δi(min{|δi/σi|})d.

Similarly as in the normal case, using this identity and applying Theorem 3 we obtain

pm,2k,d-1-m-2k=2km!k!(d-1-m-2k)!R+mR-d-1-2k-mR+k[0,π]kRr1rkp(aσ0,,aσd-1)|a|d-1Δdadα1dαkdr1drkdx1dxd-1-2k=2k+1-ddm!k!(d-1-m-2k)!i=0d-1δiR+mR-d-1-2k-mR+k[0,π]kr1rk(min{|δi/σi|})dΔdadα1dαkdr1drkdx1dxd-1-2k.

(3) Now we assume that Aj and Bj are i.i.d. uniformly distributed with the common distribution γ(x)=121[-1,1](x). Since βj=Aj-Bj, its probability density is given by

γβ(x)=-+f(y)f(x+y)dy=(1-|x|)1[-1,1](x).

The probability density of δjβj is

γj(x)=1δj1-|x|δj1[-1,1](x/δj)=δj-|x|δj21[-δj,δj](x),

and the joint distribution p(y0,,yd-1) of δjβj,0jd-1 is given by

p(y0,,yd-1)=j=0d-1δj-|yj|δj21×i=0d-1[-δi,δi](y0,,yd-1).

Therefore

p(aσ0,,aσd-1)=j=0d-1δj-|aσj|δj21×i=0d-1[-δi,δi](aσ0,,aσd-1).

We compute

R|a|d-1p(aσ0,,aσd-1)da=1j=0d-1δj2-min{|δi/σi|}min{|δi/σi|}|a|d-1j=0d-1(δj-|aσj|)da=2j=0d-1δj20min{|δi/σi|}ad-1j=0d-1(δj-a|σj|)da=2(-1)dj=0d-1|σj|δj20min{|δi/σi|}ad-1j=0d-1a-δj|σj|da=2(-1)dj=0d-1|σj|δj2i=0d(-1)iKi0min{|δi/σi|}a2d-1-ida=2(-1)dj=0d-1|σj|δj2i=0d(-1)iKi2d-i(min{|δi/σi|})2d-i,

where Ki=σi(δ0/|σ0|,,δd-1/|σd-1|) for i=0,,d.

Therefore,

pm,2k,d-1-m-2k=2km!k!(d-1-m-2k)!R+mR-d-1-2k-mR+k[0,π]kRr1rkp(aσ0,,aσd-1)|a|d-1Δdadα1dαkdr1drkdx1dxd-1-2k=2k+1(-1)dm!k!(d-1-m-2k)!j=0d-1δj2R+mR-d-1-2k-mR+k[0,π]kr1rkj=0d-1|σj|i=0d(-1)iKi2d-i(min{|δi/σi|})2d-iΔdα1dαkdr1drkdx1dxd-1-2k.

Corollary 1

The expected numbers of internal equilibria and stable internal equilibria, E(d) and SE(d), respectively, of a d-player two-strategy game, are given by

E(d)=m=0d-1mpm,SE(d)=12m=0d-1mpm.

Note that this formula for E(d) is applicable for non-normal distributions, which is in contrast to the method used in previous works (Duong and Han 2015, 2016) that can only be used for normal distributions. The second part, i.e. the formula for the expected number of stable equilibrium points, was obtained based on the following property of stable equilibria in multi-player two-strategy evolutionary games, as shown in Han et al. (2012, Theorem 3): SE(d)=12E(d).

Remark 1

In Theorem 4 for the case (C1), the assumption that βk’s are standard normal distributions, i.e. having variance 1, is just for simplicity. Suppose that βk’s are normal distributions with mean 0 and variance η2. We show that the probability pm, for 0md-1, does not depend on η. In this case, the formula for p is given by (19) but with C being replaced by η2C. To indicate its dependence on η, we write pη. We use a change of variable a=ηa~. Then

ad-1pη(aσ0,,aσd-1)da=ηd-1a~d-11(2πη)dj=0d-1d-1jexp-a~22j=0d-1σj2d-1j2ηda~=a~d-11(2π)dj=0d-1d-1jexp-a~22j=0d-1σj2d-1j2da~=a~d-1p1(a~σ0,,a~σd-1),

from which we deduce that pm does not depend on η. Similarly for the other cases, the uniform interval can be 12α[-α,α] for some α>0.

For illustration of the application of Theorem 4, the following examples show explicit calculations for d=3 and 4 for the case of normal distributions, i.e. (C1). Further numerical results for d=5 and also for other distributions, i.e. (C2) and (C3), are provided in Fig. 1. The integrals in these examples were computed using Mathematica.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Numerical versus simulation calculations of the probability of having a concrete number (m) of internal equilibria, pm, for different values of d. The payoff entries ak and bk were drawn from a normal distribution with variance 1 and mean 0 (GD) and from a standard uniform distribution (UD2). We also study the case where βk=ak-bk itself is drawn from a standard uniform distribution (UD1). Results are obtained from analytical formulas (Theorem 2) (a) and are based on sampling 106 payoff matrices (b) where payoff entries are drawn from the corresponding distributions. Analytical and simulations results are in accordance with each other. All results are obtained using Mathematica

Examples for d=3,4

Example 1

(Three-player two-strategy games: d=3) (1) One internal equilibria: p1=p1,0,1. We have

m=1,k=0,σ0=1,σ1=x1+x2,σ2=x1x2,Δ=|x2-x1|,q(σ0,σ1,σ2)=11+x12x22+14x1+x223/2|x2-x1|.

Substituting these values into (13) we obtain the probability that a three-player two-strategy evolutionary game has 1 internal equilibria

p1=14πR+R-11+x12x22+14x1+x223/2|x2-x1|dx1dx2=0.5.

(2) Two internal equilibria: p2=p2,0,0. We have

m=2,k=0,σ0=1,σ1=x1+x2,σ2=x1x2,Δ=|x2-x1|,q(σ0,σ1,σ2)=11+x12x22+14x1+x223/2|x2-x1|.

The probability that a three-player two-strategy evolutionary game has 2 internal equilibria is

p2=18πR+211+x12x22+14x1+x223/2|x2-x1|dx1dx20.134148. 20

(3) No internal equilibria: the probability that a three-player two-strategy evolutionary game has no internal equilibria is p0=1-p1-p21-0.5-0.134148=0.365852.

Example 2

(Four-player two-strategy games: d=4)

(1) One internal equilibria: p1=p1,0,2+p1,2,0.

We first compute p1,0,2. In this case,

m=1,k=0,σ0=1,σ1=x1+x2+x3,σ2=x1x2+x1x3+x2x3,Δ=|x2-x1||x3-x1||x3-x2|.

Substituting these into (13) we get

p1,0,2=118π2R-R-R+1+(x1+x2+x3)29+(x1x2+x1x3+x2x3)29+(x1x2x3)2-2×|x2-x1||x3-x1||x3-x2|dx1dx2dx30.223128.

Next we compute p1,2,0. In this case,

m=1,k=1,σ0=1,σ1=σ1x1,r1eiα1,r1e-iα1=x1+r1eiα1+r1e-iα1=x1+2r1cosα1,σ2=σ2x1,r1eiα1,r1e-iα1=x1r1eiα1+r1e-iα1+r12=2x1r1cosα1+r12,σ3=σ3x1,r1eiα1,r1e-iα1=x1r12,Δ=Δx1,r1eiα1,r1e-iα1=r1eiα1-x1r1e-iα1-x1r1eiα1-r1e-iα1=r12-2x1r1cosα1+x122r1sinα1.

Substituting these into (13) yields

p1,2,0=29π2R+[0,π]R+r11+(x1+2r1cos(α1))29+(2x1r1cos(α1)+r12)29+(x1r12)2-2×|r12-2x1r1cos(α1)+x12||2r1sin(α1)|dx1dr1dα1da0.260348.

Therefore, we obtain that

p1=p1,0,2+p1,2,00.223128+0.260348=0.483476.

(2) Two internal equilibria: p2=p2,0,1

m=2,k=0,σ0=1,σ1=x1+x2+x3,σ2=x1x2+x1x3+x2x3,σ3=x1x2x3,Δ=|x2-x1||x3-x1||x3-x2|.

The probability that a four-player two-strategy evolutionary game has 2 internal equilibria is

p2=118π2R+R+R-1+(x1+x2+x3)29+(x1x2+x1x3+x2x3)29+(x1x2x3)2-2×|x2-x1||x3-x1||x3-x2|dx1dx2dx30.223128. 21

(3) Three internal equilibria: p3=p3,0,0

m=3,k=0,σ0=1,σ1=x1+x2+x3,σ2=x1x2+x1x3+x2x3,σ3=x1x2x3,Δ=|x2-x1||x3-x1||x3-x2|.

The probability that a four-player two-strategy evolutionary game has 3 internal equilibria is

p3=154π2R+31+(x1+x2+x3)29+(x1x2+x1x3+x2x3)29+(x1x2x3)2-2×|x2-x1||x3-x1||x3-x2|dx1dx2dx30.0165236.

(4) No internal equilibria: the probability that a four-player two-strategy evolutionary game has no internal equilibria is: p0=1-p1-p2-p31-0.483476-0.223128-0.0165236=0.276872.

Universal estimates for pm

In Sect. 3, we have derived closed-form formulas for the probability distributions pm(0md-1) of the number of internal equilibria. However, it is computationally expensive to compute these probabilities since it involves complex multiple-dimensional integrals. In this section, using Descartes’ rule of signs and combinatorial techniques, we provide universal estimates for pm. Descartes’ rule of signs is a technique for determining an upper bound on the number of positive real roots of a polynomial in terms of the number of sign changes in the sequence formed by its coefficients. This rule has been applied to random polynomials before in the literature (Bloch and Pólya 1932); however this paper only obtained estimates for the expected number of zeros of a random polynomial.

Theorem 5

(Descartes’ rule of signs, see e.g., Curtiss 1918) Consider a polynomial of degree n, p(x)=anxn++a0 with an0. Let v be the number of variations in the sign of the coefficients an,an-1,,a0 and np be the number of real positive zeros. Then (v-np) is an even non-negative integer.

We recall that an internal equilibrium of a d-player two-strategy game is a positive root of the polynomial P given in (5). We will apply Descartes’ rule of signs to find an upper bound for the probability that a random polynomial has a certain number of positive roots. This is a problem that is of interest in its own right and may have applications elsewhere; therefore we will first study this problem for a general random polynomial of the form

p(y):=k=0nakyk, 22

and then apply it to the polynomial P. It turns out that the symmetry of {ak} will be the key: the asymmetric case requires completely different treatment from the symmetric one.

Estimates of pm: symmetric case

We first consider the case where the coefficients {ak} in (22) are symmetrically distributed. The main result of this section will be Theorem 6 that provides several upper and lower bounds for the probability that a d-player two strategy game has m internal equilibria. Before stating Theorem 6, we need the following auxiliary lemmas.

Proposition 1

Suppose that the coefficients ak,0kn in the polynomial (22) are i.i.d. and symmetrically distributed. Let pk,n,0kn, be the probability that the sequence of coefficients (a0,,an) has k changes of signs. Then

pk,n=12nnk. 23

Proof

See Appendix 2.

The next two lemmas on the sum of binomial coefficients will be used later on.

Lemma 2

Let 0kn be positive integers. Then it holds that

j=kj:evennnj=12j=0n-knj+(-1)kn-1k-1,j=kj:oddnnj=12j=0n-knj-(-1)kn-1k-1,

where it is understood that nj=0 if j<0. In particular, for k=0, we get

j=0j:evennnj=j=0j:oddnnj=2n-1. 24

Proof

See Appendix 3.

The following lemma provides estimates on the sum of the first k binomial coefficients.

Lemma 3

Let n and 0kn be positive integers. We have the following estimates (MacWilliams and Sloane 1977, Lemma 8 and Corollary 9, Chapter 10; Gottlieb et al. 2012)

2nH(kn)8k(1-kn)j=0knjδ2nH(kn)if0k<n2,and 25
2n-δ2nH(kn)j=0knj2n-2nH(kn)8k(1-kn)ifn2kn, 26

where δ=0.98 and H is the binary entropy function

H(x)=-xlog2(x)-(1-x)log2(1-x), 27

where 0log20 is taken to be 0. In addition, if n=2n is even and 0kn, we also have the following estimate (Lovász et al. 2003, Lemma 3.8.2)

j=0k-12nj22n-12nk/2nn. 28

We now apply Proposition 1 and Lemmas 2 and 3 to derive estimates for the probability that a d-player two-strategy evolutionary game has a certain number of internal equilibria. The main theorem of this section is the following.

Theorem 6

Suppose that the coefficients {βk} in (5) are symmetrically distributed. Let pm,0md-1, be the probability that the d-player two-strategy random game has m internal equilibria. Then the following assertions hold

  1. Upper-bound for pm, for all 0md-1,
    pm12d-1j:jmj-mevend-1j=12dj=0d-1-md-1j+d-2m-1 29
    12dδ2(d-1)H(md-1)+d-2m-1ifd-12<md-1,12d[2d-1-2(d-1)H(md-1)8m(1-md-1)+d-2m-1]if0md-12. 30
    As consequences, 0pm12 for all 0md-1, pd-112d-1, pd-2d-12d-1 and limdpd-1=limdpd-2=0. In addition, if d-1=2d is even and 0md then
    pm12d2d-2d-1m-1/d-1d+d-2m-1. 31
  2. Lower-bound for p0 and p1:
    p012d-1andp1d-12d-1. 32
  3. For d=2: p0=p1=12.

  4. For d=3: p1=12.

Proof

(a) This part is a combination of Decartes’ rule of signs, Proposition 1 and Lemmas 2 and 3. In fact, as a consequence of this rule and by Proposition 1, we have

pmj:jmj-m:evenpj,d-1=12d-1j:jmj-m:evend-1j,

which is the inequality part in (29). Next, applying Lemma 2 for k=m and n=d-1 and then Lemma 3, we obtain

12d-1k:kmk-m:evend-1k=12d[j=0d-1-md-1j+(-1)md-2m-1]ifmis even12d[j=0d-1-md-1j-(-1)md-2m-1]ifmis odd=12d[j=0d-1-md-1j+d-2m-1]12d[δ2(d-1)H(md-1)+d-2m-1]ifd-12<md-1,12d[2d-1-2(d-1)H(md-1)8m(1-md-1)+d-2m-1]if0md-12.

This proves the equality part in (29) and (30). As a result, the estimate pm12 for all 0md-1 is followed from (29) and (24); the estimates pd-112d-1 and pd-2d-12d-1 are special cases of (29) for m=d-1 and m=d-2, respectively.

Finally, the estimate (31) is a consequence of (29) and (28).

(b) It follows from Decartes’ rule of signs and Proposition 1 that

p0p0,d-1=12d-1andp1p1,d-1=d-12d-1.

(c) For d=2: from parts (a) and (b) we have

12p0,p112,

which implies that p0=p1=12 as claimed.

(d) Finally, for d=3: also from parts (a) and (b) we get

12p112,

so p1=12. This finishes the proof of Theorem 6.

Remark 2

Note that in Theorem 6 we only assume that βk are symmetrically distributed but do not require that they are normal distributions. When {βk} are normal distributions, we have derived (Duong and Han 2015, 2016) a closed formula for the expected number E(d) of internal equilibria, which can be computed efficiently for large d. Since E(d)=m=0d-1mpm, we have pmE(d)/m for all 1md-1. Therefore, when {βk} are normal, we obtain an upper bound for pm as the minimum between E(d) / m and the bound obtained in Theorem 6. The comparison of the new bounds with E(d) / m in Fig. 2 shows that the new ones do better for m closer to 0 or d-1 but worse for intermediate m (i.e. closer to (d-1)/2).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Comparison of the new upper bounds of pm derived in Theorem 6 with that of E(d) / m: a for the bound in (36) and b for the bound in (37). Black areas indicate when the former ones are better and the grey areas otherwise. Clearly the bound in (a) is stricter/better than that of (b). For small d, the new bounds are better. When d is sufficiently large, we observe that for any d, the new bounds are worse than E(d) / m when m is intermediate while better otherwise. Overall, this comparison indicates which formulas should be used to obtain a stricter upper bound of pm

Estimates of pm: general case

In the proof of Proposition 1 the assumption that {ak} are symmetrically distributed is crucial. In that case, all the 2n binary sequences constructed are equally distributed, resulting in a compact formula for pk,n. However, when {ak} are not symmetrically distributed, those binary sequences are no longer equally distributed. Thus computing pk,n becomes much more intricate. We now consider the general case where

P(ai>0)=α,P(ai<0)=1-αfor alli=0,,n.

Note that the general case allows us to move beyond the usual assumption in the analysis of random evolutionary games that all payoff entries ak’s and bk’s have the same probability distribution resulting in α=1/2 (see Lemma 1). In the general case it only requires that all ak’s have the same distribution and all bk’s have the same distribution, capturing the fact that different strategies, i.e. A and B in Sect. 2, might have different payoff properties (e.g., defectors always have a larger payoff than cooperators in a public goods game).

The main results of this section will be Theorem 7 and Theorem 8. The former provides explicit formulas for pk,n while the latter consists of several upper and lower bounds for pm. We will need several technically auxiliary lemmas whose proofs will be given in Appendix 1. We start with the following proposition that provides explicit formulas for pk,n for k{0,1,n-1,n}.

Proposition 2

The following formulas hold:

p0,n=αn+1+(1-α)n+1,p1,n=n2nifα=12,2α(1-α)(1-α)n-αn1-2αifα12;pn-1,n=nαn2(1-α)n2ifneven,αn+12(1-α)n+12[n+12(α1-α+1-αα)+(n-1)]ifnodd;pn,n=αn2(1-α)n2ifnis even,2αn+12(1-α)n+12ifnis odd.

In particular, if α=12, then p0,n=p1,n=12nandp1,n=pn-1,n=n2n.

Proof

See Appendix 4.

The computations of pk,n for other k are more involved. We will employ combinatorial techniques and derive recursive formulas for pk,n. We define

uk,n=P(there arekvariations of signs in{a0,,an}|an>0),vk,n=P(there arekvariations of signs in{a0,,an}|an<0).

We have the following lemma.

Lemma 4

The following recursive relations hold:

uk,n=αuk,n-1+(1-α)vk-1,n-1andvk,n=αuk-1,n-1+(1-α)vk,n-1. 33

Proof

See Appendix 5.

We can decouple the recursive relations in Lemma 4 to obtain recursive relations for {uk,n} and vk,n separately as follows:

Lemma 5

The following recursive relations hold

uk,n=α(1-α)(uk-2,n-2-uk,n-2)+uk,n-1,vk,n=α(1-α)(vk-2,n-2-vk,n-2)+vk,n-1.

Proof

See Appendix 6.

Using the recursive equations for uk,n and vk,n we can also derive a recursive relation for pk,n.

Proposition 3

{pk,n} satisfies the following recursive relation.

pk,n=α(1-α)(pk-2,n-2-pk,n-2)+pk,n-1. 34

Proof

See Appendix 7.

Remark 3

Proposition 3 provides a second-order recursive relation for the probabilities {pk,n}. This relation resembles the well-known Chu–Vandermonde identity for binomial coefficients, {bk,n:=nk}, which is that, for 0<m<n,

bk,n=j=0kmjbk-j,n-m.

Particularly for m=2 we obtain

bk,n=bk,n-2+2bk-1,n-2+bk-2,n-2=bk-2,n-2-bk,n-2+2(bk,n-2+bk-1,n-2)=bk-2,n-2-bk,n-2+2bk,n-1,

where the last identity is Pascal’ rule for binomial coefficients.

On the other hand, the recursive formula pk,n for α=12 becomes

pk,n=14(pk-2,n-2-pk,n-2)+pk,n-1.

Using the transformation ak,n:=12npk,n as in the proof of Theorem 7, then

ak,n=ak-2,n-2-ak,n-2+2ak,n-1,

which is exactly the Chu–Vandermonde identity for m=2 above. Then it is no surprise that in Theorem 7 we obtain that ak,n is exactly the same as the binomial coefficient ak,n=nk.

In the next main theorem we will find explicit formulas for {pk,n} from the recursive formula in the previous lemma using the method of generating functions. The case α=12 will be a special one.

Theorem 7

pk,n is given explicitly by: for α=12,

pk,n=12nnk.

For α12:

(i) if k is even, k=2k, then

pk,n=m=n2nn-k+12m-n+1mk,n-k-m,2m-n(-1)n-k-m(α(1-α))n-mifneven,m=n2nn-k+12m-n+1mk,n-k-m,2m-n(-1)n-k-m(α(1-α))n-m+2n-12k(-1)n-12-k+1(α(1-α))n+12ifnodd;

(ii) if k is odd, k=2k+1, then

pk,n=2m=n-12nmk,n-k-m-1,2m-n+1(-1)n-k-m-1(α(1-α))n-m.

Proof

See Appendix 8.

Example 3

Below we provide explicit formulas for {pk,n} for 0kn4:

n=1:p0,1=α2+(1-α)2;p1,1=2α(1-α);n=2:p0,2=α3+(1-α)3,p1,2=2α(1-α),p2,2=α(1-α);n=3:p0,3=α4+(1-α)4,p1,3=2α(1-α)(α2-α+1),p2,3=2α(1-α)(α2-α+1),p3,3=2α2(1-α)2;n=4:p0,4=α5+(1-α)5,p1,4=2α(1-α)(2α2-2α+1),p2,4=3α(1-α)(2α2-2α+1),p3,4=4α2(1-α)2,p4,4=α2(1-α)2.

Direct computations verify the recursive formula for k=2,n=4

p2,4=α(1-α)(p0,2-p2,2)+p2,3.

We now apply Theorem 7 to the polynomial P in (5) to obtain estimates for pm,0md-1, which is the probability that a d-player two-strategy random evolutionary game has m internal equilibria. This theorem extends Theorem 6 for α=1/2 to the general case although we do not achieve an explicit upper bound in terms of d as in Theorem 6.

Theorem 8

The following assertions hold

  • (i)
    Upper-bound for pm
    pmkmk-mevenpk,d-1,
    where pk,d-1 can be computed explicitly according to Theorem 7 with n replaced by d-1.
  • (ii)

    Lower-bound for p0: p0αd+(1-α)d12d-1.

  • (iii)

    Lower-bound for p1: p1d-12d-1ifα=12,2α(1-α)(1-α)d-1-αd-11-2αifα12.

  • (iv)
    Upper-bound for pd-2:
    pd-2(d-1)αd-12(1-α)d-12ifdodd,αd2(1-α)d2[d2(α1-α+1-αα)+(d-2)]ifdeven,d-12d-1whend3.
  • (v)
    Upper-bound for pd-1:
    qd-1αd-12(1-α)d-12ifdis odd,2αd2(1-α)d2ifdis even,12d-1.

As consequences:

  1. For d=2: p0=α2+(1-α)2 and p1=2α(1-α).

  2. For d=3, p1=2α(1-α).

Proof

We will apply Decartes’ rule of signs, Proposition 2 and Theorem 7 for the random polynomial (5). It follows from Decartes’ rule of signs that

pmkmk-mevenpk,d-1,

where pk,d-1 is given explicitly in Theorem 7 with n replaced by d-1. This proves the first statement. In addition, we can also deduce from Decartes’ rule of signs and Proposition 2 the following estimates for special cases m{0,1,d-2,d-1}:

p0p0,d-1=αd+(1-α)dmin0α1[αd+(1-α)d]=12d-1;p1p1,d-1=d-12d-1ifα=12,2α(1-α)(1-α)d-1-αd-11-2αifα12;pd-2pd-2,d-1=(d-1)αd-12(1-α)d-12ifdodd,αd2(1-α)d2[d2(α1-α+1-αα)+(d-2)]ifdeven,=(d-1)(α(1-α))d-12ifdodd,d2(α(1-α))d/2-1-2(α(1-α))d/2ifdeven,(d-1)(1/4)d-12=d-12d-1ifdodd,max0β14f(β)=d-12d-1ifd3even;where,β:=α(1-α),f(β):=d2βd/2-1-2βd/2,and to obtain the last inequalitywe have used the fact that0β=α(1-α)14andf(β)=dβd/2-2(d4-12-β)0when0β14andd3.pd-1pd-1,d-1=αd-12(1-α)d-12ifdis odd,2αd2(1-α)d2ifdis even,(1/4)d-12=12d-1ifdis odd,2(1/4)d2=12d-1ifdis even.

These computations establish the estimates (ii)–(v) of the theorem. For the consequences: for d=2, in this case the above estimates (ii)–(v) respectively become:

p0α2+(1-α)2,p112ifα=12,2α(1-α)ifα12=2α(1-α),andp0α(1-α)[α1-α+1-αα]=α2+(1-α)2,q12α(1-α),

which imply that p0=α2+(1-α)2,p1=2α(1-α).

Similarly for d=3, estimates (ii) and (iii) respectively become

p112ifα=12,2α(1-α)ifα12=2α(1-α),andp12α(1-α),

from which we deduce that p1=2α(1-α).

Numerical simulations

In this section, we perform several numerical (sampling) simulations and calculations to illustrate the analytical results obtained in previous sections. Figure 1 shows the values of {pm} for d{3,4,5}, for the three cases studied in Theorem 4, i.e., when βk are i.i.d. standard normally distributed (GD), uniformly distributed (UD1) and when βk=ak-bk with ak and βk being uniformly distributed (UD2). We compare results obtained from analytical formulas in Theorem 4 and from samplings. The figure shows that they are in accordance with each other agreeing to at least 2 digits after the decimal points. Figure 2 compares the new upper bound obtained in Theorem 6 with that of E(d) / m. The comparison indicates which formulas should be used to obtain a stricter upper bound of pm.

Further discussions and future research

In this paper, we have provided closed-form formulas and universal estimates for the probability distribution of the number of internal equilibria in a d-player two-strategy random evolutionary game. We have explored further connections between evolutionary game theory and random polynomial theory as discovered in our previous works (Duong and Han 2015, 2016; Duong et al. 2017). We believe that the results reported in the present work open up a new exciting avenue of research in the study of equilibrium properties of random evolutionary games. We now provide further discussions on these issues and possible directions for future research.

Computations of probabilities{pm}. Although we have found analytical formulas for pm it is computationally challenging to deal with them because of their complexity. Obtaining an effective computational method for {pm} would be an interesting problem for future investigation.

Quantification of errors in the mean-field approximation theory (Schehr and Majumdar 2008). Consider a general polynomial P as given in (6) with dependent coefficients, and let Pm([a,b],n) be the probability that P has m real roots in the interval [ab] (recall that n is the degree of the polynomial, which is equal to d-1 in Equation (1)). The mean-field theory (Schehr and Majumdar 2008) neglects the correlations between the real roots and simply considers that these roots are randomly and independently distributed on the real axis with some local density f(t) at point t, with f(t) being the density that can be computed from the Edelman–Kostlan theorem (Edelman and Kostlan 1995). Within this approximation in the large n limit, the probability Pm([a,b],n) is given by a non-homogeneous Poisson distribution, see Schehr and Majumdar (2008, Section 3.2.2 and Equation (70)). By applying the mean-field theory one can approximate the probability pm that a random d-player two-strategy evolutionary game has m internal equilibria by a simpler and computationally feasible formula. However, it is unclear to us how to quantify the errors of approximation. We leave this topic for future research.

Extensions to multi-strategy games. We have focused in this paper on random games with two strategies (with an arbitrary number of players). The analysis of games with more than two strategies is much more intricate since in this case one needs to deal with systems of multi-variate random polynomials. We have provided (Duong and Han 2015, 2016) a closed formula for the expected number of internal equilibria for a multi-player multi-strategy games for the case of normal payoff entries. We aim to extend the present work to the general case in future publications. In particular, Decartes’ rule of signs for multi-variate polynomials (Itenberg and Roy 1996) might be used to obtain universal estimates, regardless of the underlying payoff distribution.

Acknowledgements

This paper was written partly when M. H. Duong was at the Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick and was supported by ERC Starting Grant 335120. M. H. Duong and T. A. Han acknowledge Research in Pairs Grant (No. 41606) by the London Mathematical Society to support their collaborative research. We would like to thank Dr. Dmitry Zaporozhets for his useful discussions on Zaporozhets (2006) and Götze et al. (2017).

Appendix

In this appendix, we present proofs of technical results in previous sections.

Proof of Lemma 1

The probability distribution, fZ, of Z=X-Y can be found via the joint probability distribution fX,Y as

fZ(z)=-fX,Y(x,x-z)dx=-fX,Y(y+z,y)dy.

Therefore, using the symmetry of fX,Y we get

fZ(-z)=-fX,Y(x,x+z)dx=-fX,Y(x+z,x)dx=fZ(z).

If X and Y are i.i.d with the common probability distribution f then

fX,Y(x,y)=f(x)f(y),

which is symmetric with respect to x and y, i.e., X and Y are exchangeable.

Proof of Proposition 1

We take the sequence of coefficients (a0,,an) and move from the left starting from a0 to the right ending at an. When there is a change of sign, we write a 1 and write a 0 when there is not. Then the changes of signs form a binary sequence of length n. There are 2n of them in total. Thereby pk,n is the probability that there are exactly k number 1s in the binary sequence. There are nk such sequences. Since {βk} are independent and symmetrically distributed, each sequence has a probability 12n of occurring. From this we deduce (23).

Proof of Lemma 2

Since j=0nnj(-1)j=(1+(-1))n=0, we have

j=knnj(-1)j=-j=0k-1nj(-1)j.

According to Duong and Tran (2018, Lemma 5.4)

j=0k-1nj(-1)j=(-1)k-1n-1k-1.

Therefore,

j=knnj(-1)j=(-1)kn-1k-1,

or equivalently:

j=kj:evennnj-j=kj:oddnnj=(-1)kn-1k-1.

Define S¯k,n:=j=knnj and Sk,n:=j=0knj. Then using the property that nj=nn-j we get S¯k,n=Sn-k,n and

j=kj:evennnj=12S¯k,n+(-1)kn-1k-1=12Sn-k,n+(-1)kn-1k-1,j=kj:oddnnj=12S¯k,n-(-1)kn-1k-1=12Sn-k,n-(-1)kn-1k-1.

This finishes the proof of this lemma.

Proof of Proposition 2

The four extreme cases k{0,1,n-1,n} are special because we can characterise explicitly the events that the sequence {a0,,an} has k changes of signs. We have

p0,n=P{a0>0,,an>0}+P{a0<0,,an<0)}=αn+1+(1-α)n+1.p1,n=P{k=0n-1{a0>0,ak>0,ak+1<0,,an<0}{a0<0,ak<0,ak+1>0,,an>0}}=k=0n-1αk+1(1-α)n-k+(1-α)k+1αn-k=α(1-α)nk=0n-1α1-αk+αn(1-α)k=0n-11-ααk=n2nifα=12,α(1-α)n1-(α1-α)n1-α1-α+αn(1-α)1-(1-αα)n1-1-ααifα12=n2nifα=12,2α(1-α)(1-α)n-αn1-2αifα12.pn,n=P{{a0>0,a1<0,,(-1)nan>0}{a0<0,a1>0,,(-1)nan<0}}=αn+22(1-α)n2+(1-α)n+22αn2ifnis even,2αn+12(1-α)n+12ifnis odd=αn2(1-α)n2ifnis even,2αn+12(1-α)n+12ifnis odd.

It remains to compute pn-1,n.

pn-1,n=k=0n-1P{akandak+1have the same signsand there aren-1changes of signs in(a0,,ak,ak+1,,an)}=:k=0n-1γk.

We now compute γk. This depends on the parity of n and k. If both n and k are even, then

γk=P(a0>0,a1<0,,ak>0,ak+1>0,an<0)+P(a0<0,a1>0,,ak<0,ak+1<0,an>0)=(1-α)n2αn+22+(1-α)n+22αn2.

If n is even and k is odd, then

γk=P(a0>0,a1<0,,ak<0,ak+1<0,an<0)+P(a0<0,a1>0,,ak>0,ak+1>0,an>0)=αn+22(1-α)n2+(1-α)n+22αn2.

Therefore, in both cases, i.e., if n is even we get

γk=αn2(1-α)n2.

From this we deduce pn-1,n=nαn2(1-α)n2. Similarly if n is odd and k is even

γk=P(a0>0,a1<0,,ak>0,ak+1>0,an>0)+P(a0<0,a1>0,,ak<0,ak+1<0,an<0)=(1-α)n+32αn-12+(1-α)n-12αn+32.

If both n and k are odd

γk=P(a0>0,a1<0,,ak<0,ak+1<0,an>0)+P(a0<0,a1>0,,ak>0,ak+1>0,an<0)=αn+12(1-α)n+12+(1-α)n+12αn+12.

Then when n is odd, we obtain

pn-1,n=n+12[(1-α)n+32αn-12+(1-α)n-12αn+32]+(n-1)αn+12(1-α)n+12=αn+12(1-α)n+12n+12α1-α+1-αα+(n-1).

In conclusion,

pn-1,n=nαn2(1-α)n2ifneven,αn+12(1-α)n+12[n+12(α1-α+1-αα)+(n-1)]ifnodd.

Proof of Lemma 4

Applying the law of total probability

P(A|B)=P(A|B,C)P(C|B)+P(A|B,C¯)P(C¯|B),

we have:

P(ksign switches in{a0,,an}|an>0)=P(ksign switches in{a0,,an}|an>0,an-1>0)P(an-1>0|an>0)+P(ksign switches in{a0,,an}|an>0,an-1<0)P(an-1<0|an>0).

Since an-1 and an are independent, we have P(an-1>0|an>0)=P(an-1>0) and P(an-1<0|an>0)=P(an-1<0). Therefore,

P(ksign switches in{a0,,an}|an>0)=P(ksign switches in{a0,,an}|an>0,an-1>0)P(an-1>0)+P(ksign switches in{a0,,an}|an>0,an-1<0)P(an-1<0)=P(ksign switches in{a0,,an-1}|an-1>0)P(an-1>0)+P(k-1sign switches in{a0,,an-1}|an-1<0)P(an-1<0).

Therefore we obtain the first relationship in (33). The second one is proved similarly.

Proof of Lemma 5

From (33), it follows that

vk-1,n-1=uk,n-αuk,n-11-α,vk,n-1=uk+1,n-αuk+1,n-11-α. 35

Substituting (35) into (33) we obtain

uk+1,n+1-αuk+1,n1-α=αuk-1,n-1+(1-α)uk+1,n-αuk+1,n-11-α,

which implies that

uk+1,n+1=(1-α)αuk-1,n-1+(1-α)(uk+1,n-αuk+1,n-1)+αuk+1,n=(1-α)αuk-1,n-1-α(1-α)uk+1,n-1+uk+1,n.

Re-indexing we get uk,n=(1-α)α(uk-2,n-2-uk,n-2)+uk,n-1. Similarly we obtain the recursive formula for vk,n.

Proof of Proposition 3

From Lemmas 4 and 5 we have

pk,n=αuk,n+(1-α)vk,n=α[α(1-α)(uk-2,n-2-uk,n-2)+uk,n-1]+(1-α)[α(1-α)(vk-2,n-2-vk,n-2)+vk,n-1]=α(1-α)[α(uk-2,n-2-uk,n-2)+(1-α)(vk-2,n-2-vk,n-2)]+αuk,n-1+(1-α)vk,n-1=α(1-α)(pk-2,n-2-pk,n-2)+pk,n-1.

This finishes the proof.

Proof of Theorem 7

Set 1/A2:=α(1-α). By the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality α(1-α)(α+1-α)24=14, it follows that A24. Define ak,n:=Anpk,n. Substituting this relation into (34) we get the following recursive formula for ak,n

ak,n=ak-2,n-2-ak,n-2+Aak,n-1.

According to Proposition 2

a0,n=Anp0,n=An(αn+1+(1-α)n+1)=αα1-αn2+(1-α)1-ααn2, 36
a1,n=Anp1,n=nifα=12,2α(1-α)1-2α[(1-αα)n2-(α1-α)n2]. 37

Also ak,n=0 for k>n. Let F(xy) be the generating function of ak,n, that is

F(x,y):=k=0n=0ak,nxkyn.

Define

g(x,y)=n=0a0,nyn+n=0a1,nxyn.

From (36) and (37) we have: for α=12

g(x,y)=n=0yn+xyn=0nyn-1=11-y+xyddy11-y=1-y+xy(1-y)2,

and for α12

g(x,y)=n=0αα1-αn2+(1-α)1-ααn2yn+2α(1-α)x1-2αn=11-ααn2-α1-αn2yn=α-2α(1-α)x1-2αn=0α1-αn2yn+1-α+2α(1-α)x1-2αn=01-ααn2yn=α-2α(1-α)x1-2αn=0(αA)nyn+1-α+2α(1-α)x1-2αn=0((1-α)A)nyn=α-2α(1-α)x1-2α11-αAy+1-α+2α(1-α)x1-2α11-(1-α)Ay=α(1-2α)-2α(1-α)x1-(1-α)Ay+(1-α)(1-2α)+2α(1-α)x1-αAy(1-2α)(1-αy)(1-(1-α)Ay)=1-2yA+2xyA1-Ay+y2.

Note that in the above computations we have the following identities

1A2=α(1-α),α1-α=(αA)2,1-αα=(1-α)2A2,(1-αAy)(1-(1-α)Ay)=1-Ay+y2.

Now we have

F(x,y)=k=0n=0ak,nxkyn=g(x,y)+k=2n=2(ak-2,n-2-ak,n-2+Aak,n-1)xkyn=g(x,y)+k=2n=2ak-2,n-2xkyn-k=2n=2ak,n-2xkyn+Ak=2n=2ak,n-1xkyn 38
=g(x,y)+(I)+(II)+(III). 39

We rewrite the sums (I), (II) and (III) as follow. For the first sum

(I)=k=2n=2ak-2,n-2xkyn=x2y2k=0n=0ak,nxkyn=x2y2F(x,y).

For the second sum

(II)=k=2n=2ak,n-2xkyn=k=0n=2ak,n-2xkyn-n=2a0,n-2yn-n=2a1,n-2xyn=y2k=0n=0ak,nxkyn-y2n=0a0,nyn-y2n=1a1,nxyn=y2(F(x,y)-g(x,y)).

And finally for the last sum

(III)=k=2n=2ak,n-1xkyn=y(F(x,y)-g(x,y)).

Substituting these sums back into (39) we get

F(x,y)=g(x,y)+x2y2F(x,y)-y2(F(x,y)-g(x,y))+Ay(F(x,y)-g(x,y)),

which implies that

F(x,y)=g(x,y)(1-Ay+y2)(1-Ay+y2-x2y2).

For α=12, we get

F(x,y)=1-y+xy(1-y)2(1-y)2(1-y)2-x2y2=11-y-xy=n=0(1+x)nyn=n=0k=0nnkxkyn,

which implies that αk,n=nk. Hence for the case α=12, we obtain pk,n=12nnk.

For the case α12 we obtain

F(x,y)=1-2yA+2xyA1-Ay+y21-Ay+y21-Ay+y2-x2y2=1-2yA+2xyA1-Ay+y2-x2y2.

Finding the series expansion for this case is much more involved than the previous one. Using the multinomial theorem we have

11-Ay+y2-x2y2=m=0(x2y2-y2+Ay)m=m=00i,j,lmi+j+l=mmi,j,l(x2y2)i(-y2)j(Ay)l=m=00i,j,lmi+j+l=mmi,j,l(-1)jAlx2iy2i+2j+l=m=00i,lmi+lmmi,m-i-l,l(-1)m-i-lAlx2iy2m-l.

Therefore

F(x,y)=1A(A-2y+2xy)m=00i,lmi+lmmi,m-i-l,l(-1)m-i-lAlx2iy2m-l=m=00i,lmi+lmmi,m-i-l,l(-1)m-i-lAl-1(Ax2iy2m-l-2x2iy2m-l+1+2x2i+1y2m-l+1). 40

From this we deduce that:

If k is even, k=2k, then to obtain the coefficient of xkyn on the right-hand side of (40), we select (iml) such that

(i=k&2m-l=n&0i,lm)or(i=k&2m-l+1=n&0i,lm).

Then we obtain

ak,n=m=n2nmk,m-k-(2m-n),2m-n(-1)m-k-(2m-n)A2m-n+2m=n-12nmk,m-k-(2m-n+1),2m-n+1(-1)m-k-(2m-n+1)+1A2m-n=m=n2nmk,n-k-m,2m-n(-1)n-k-mA2m-n+2m=n-12nmk,n-k-m-1,2m-n+1(-1)n-k-mA2m-n=m=n2nmk,n-k-m,2m-n+2mk,n-k-m-1,2m-n+1×(-1)n-k-mA2m-nifneven,m=n2nmk,n-k-m,2m-n+2mk,n-k-m-1,2m-n+1×(-1)n-k-mA2m-n+2n-12k(-1)n-12-k+1A-1ifnodd=m=n2nn-k+12m-n+1mk,n-k-m,2m-n(-1)n-k-mA2m-nifneven,m=n2nn-k+12m-n+1mk,n-k-m,2m-n(-1)n-k-mA2m-n+2n-12k(-1)n-12-k+1A-1ifnodd.

Similarly, if k is odd, k=2k+1, then to obtain the coefficient of xkyn on the right-hand side of (40), we select (iml) such that

(i=k&2m-l+1=n&0i,lm),

and obtain

ak,n=2m=n-12nmk,n-k-m-1,2m-n+1(-1)n-k-m-1A2m-n.

From ak,n we compute pk,n using the relations pk,n=ak,nAn and A2=1α(1-α) and obtain the claimed formulas. This finishes the proof of this theorem.

Remark 4

We can find ak,n by establishing a recursive relation. We have

1F(x,y)=1-Ay+y2-x2y21-2yA+2xyA=-Axy2-Ay2+A24+1-A2/41-2yA+2xyA=-Axy2-Ay2+A24+(1-A2/4)n=02yA(1-x)n=-Axy2-Ay2+A24+(1-A2/4)n=02An(1-x)nyn=-Axy2-Ay2+A24+(1-A2/4)n=0k=0n(-1)kCk,n2Anxkyn=1+2A-Ay-2Axy+(1-A2/4)n=2k=0n(-1)kCk,n2Anxkyn=:n=0k=0nbk,nxkyn:=B(x,y).

where

b0,0=1,b0,1=2A-A,b1,1=-2Aandbk,n=(1-A2/4)(-1)kCk,n(2A)nfor0kn,n2.

Using the relation that

F(x,y)B(x,y)=n=0k=0ak,nxkynn=0k=0bknxkyn=1,

we get the following recursive formula to determine aK,N

a0,0=1b0,0=1,a0,N=-n=0N-1a0,nb0,N-n,aK,N=-k=0K-1n=0N-1ak,nbK-k,N-n.

It is not trivial to obtain an explicit formula from this recursive formula. However, it is easily implemented using a computational software such as Mathematica or Mathlab.

Contributor Information

Manh Hong Duong, Email: h.duong@bham.ac.uk.

Hoang Minh Tran, Email: hoangtm.fami@gmail.com.

The Anh Han, Email: T.Han@tees.ac.uk.

References

  1. Abel NH. Mémoire sur les équations algébriques, où l’on démontre l’impossibilité de la résolution de l’équation générale du cinquiéme degré. Abel Ouvres. 1824;1:28–33. [Google Scholar]
  2. Axelrod R. The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books; 1984. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bloch A, Pólya G. On the roots of certain algebraic equations. Proc Lond Math Soc. 1932;S2–33(1):102. [Google Scholar]
  4. Broom M. Bounds on the number of ESSs of a matrix game. Math Biosci. 2000;167(2):163–175. doi: 10.1016/s0025-5564(00)00036-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Broom M. The use of multiplayer game theory in the modeling of biological populations. Comments Theor Biol. 2003;8:103–123. [Google Scholar]
  6. Broom M, Rychtář J. Game-theoretical models in biology. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  7. Broom M, Rychtář J. Nonlinear and multiplayer evolutionary games. Cham: Springer; 2016. pp. 95–115. [Google Scholar]
  8. Broom M, Cannings C, Vickers G. Multi-player matrix games. Bull Math Biol. 1997;59(5):931–952. doi: 10.1007/BF02460000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Butez R, Zeitouni O (2017) Universal large deviations for Kac polynomials. Electron Commun Probab 22, paper no. 6
  10. Curtiss DR. Recent extentions of descartes’ rule of signs. Ann Math. 1918;19(4):251–278. [Google Scholar]
  11. Duong MH, Han TA (2015) On the expected number of equilibria in a multi-player multi-strategy evolutionary game. Dyn Games Appl 6(3):324–346
  12. Duong MH, Han TA. Analysis of the expected density of internal equilibria in random evolutionary multi-player multi-strategy games. J Math Biol. 2016;73(6):1727–1760. doi: 10.1007/s00285-016-1010-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Duong MH, Tran HM. On the fundamental solution and a variational formulation for a degenerate diffusion of Kolmogorov type. Discrete Continuous Dyn Syst A. 2018;38:3407–3438. [Google Scholar]
  14. Duong M.H, Tran HM, Han TA (2017) On the expected number of internal equilibria in random evolutionary games with correlated payoff matrix. arXiv:1708.01672 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  15. Edelman A, Kostlan E. How many zeros of a random polynomial are real? Bull Am Math Soc (NS) 1995;32(1):1–37. [Google Scholar]
  16. Friedman D. On economic applications of evolutionary game theory. J Evol Econ. 1998;8(1):15–43. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fudenberg D, Harris C. Evolutionary dynamics with aggregate shocks. J Econ Theory. 1992;57(2):420–441. [Google Scholar]
  18. Galla T, Farmer JD. Complex dynamics in learning complicated games. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110(4):1232–1236. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1109672110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gokhale CS, Traulsen A. Evolutionary games in the multiverse. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107(12):5500–5504. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912214107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gokhale CS, Traulsen A. Evolutionary multiplayer games. Dyn Games Appl. 2014;4(4):468–488. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gottlieb L-A, Kontorovich A, Mossel E. VC bounds on the cardinality of nearly orthogonal function classes. Discrete Math. 2012;312(10):1766–1775. [Google Scholar]
  22. Götze F, Koleda D, Zaporozhets D (2017) Joint distribution of conjugate algebraic numbers: a random polynomial approach. arXiv:1703.02289
  23. Gross T, Rudolf L, Levin SA, Dieckmann U. Generalized models reveal stabilizing factors in food webs. Science. 2009;325(5941):747–750. doi: 10.1126/science.1173536. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Haigh J. The distribution of evolutionarily stable strategies. J Appl Probab. 1988;25(2):233–246. [Google Scholar]
  25. Haigh J. Random polymorphisms and random evolutionarily stable strategies: a comparison. J Appl Probab. 1990;27(4):737755. [Google Scholar]
  26. Han TA. Intention recognition, commitments and their roles in the evolution of cooperation: from artificial intelligence techniques to evolutionary game theory models. Springer SAPERE series. Berlin: Springer; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  27. Han TA, Traulsen A, Gokhale CS. On equilibrium properties of evolutionary multi-player games with random payoff matrices. Theor Popul Biol. 2012;81(4):264–272. doi: 10.1016/j.tpb.2012.02.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Han T, Pereira LM, Lenaerts T. Evolution of commitment and level of participation in public goods games. Auton Agent Multi Agent Syst. 2017;31(3):561–583. [Google Scholar]
  29. Helbing D, Brockmann D, Chadefaux T, Donnay K, Blanke U, Woolley-Meza O, Moussaid M, Johansson A, Krause J, Schutte S, et al. Saving human lives: what complexity science and information systems can contribute. J Stat Phys. 2015;158(3):735–781. doi: 10.1007/s10955-014-1024-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hofbauer J, Sigmund K. Evolutionary games and population dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  31. Itenberg I, Roy M-F. Multivariate descartes’ rule. Beitr Algebra Geom. 1996;37(2):337–346. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lovász L, Pelikán J, Vesztergombi K. Discrete mathematics: elementary and beyond. Undergraduate texts in mathematics. New York: Springer; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  33. MacWilliams F, Sloane N. The theory of error-correcting codes, North-Holland Mathematical Library. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1977. [Google Scholar]
  34. May RM. Stability and complexity in model ecosystems. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  35. Maynard Smith J. Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982. [Google Scholar]
  36. Maynard Smith J, Price GR. The logic of animal conflict. Nature. 1973;246:15–18. [Google Scholar]
  37. Nash JF. Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1950;36:48–49. doi: 10.1073/pnas.36.1.48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Nowak MA. Evolutionary dynamics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  39. Pacheco JM, Santos FC, Souza MO, Skyrms B. Evolutionary dynamics of collective action in n-person stag hunt dilemmas. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009;276(1655):315–321. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Peña J. Group-size diversity in public goods games. Evolution. 2012;66(3):623–636. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01504.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Peña J, Lehmann L, Nöldeke G. Gains from switching and evolutionary stability in multi-player matrix games. J Theor Biol. 2014;346:23–33. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2013.12.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Pennisi E. How did cooperative behavior evolve? Science. 2005;309(5731):93–93. doi: 10.1126/science.309.5731.93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Perc M, Jordan JJ, Rand DG, Wang Z, Boccaletti S, Szolnoki A. Statistical physics of human cooperation. Phys Rep. 2017;687:1–51. [Google Scholar]
  44. Perc M, Szolnoki A. Coevolutionary games—a mini review. Biosystems. 2010;99(2):109–125. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2009.10.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Sandholm WH. Population games and evolutionary dynamics. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sasaki T, Chen X, Perc M. Evolution of public cooperation in a monitored society with implicated punishment and within-group enforcement. Sci Rep. 2015;5:112. doi: 10.1038/srep17050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Schehr G, Majumdar S. Real roots of random polynomials and zero crossing properties of diffusion equation. J Stat Phys. 2008;132(2):235–273. [Google Scholar]
  48. Schuster P, Sigmund K. Replicator dynamics. J Theor Biol. 1983;100:533–538. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sigmund K. The calculus of selfishness. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  50. Souza MO, Pacheco JM, Santos FC. Evolution of cooperation under n-person snowdrift games. J Theor Biol. 2009;260(4):581–588. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.07.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Taylor PD, Jonker L. Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics. Math Biosci. 1978;40:145–156. [Google Scholar]
  52. Tuyls K, Parsons S. What evolutionary game theory tells us about multiagent learning. Artif Intell. 2007;171(7):406–416. [Google Scholar]
  53. Wang Z, Bauch CT, Bhattacharyya S, d’Onofrio A, Manfredi P, Perc M, Perra N, Salathé M, Zhao D. Statistical physics of vaccination. Phys Rep. 2016;664:1–113. [Google Scholar]
  54. Zaporozhets DN. On the distribution of the number of real zeros of a random polynomial. J Math Sci. 2006;137(1):4525–4530. [Google Scholar]
  55. Zeeman EC (1980) Population dynamics from game theory. In: Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol 819, pp 471–497

Articles from Journal of Mathematical Biology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES