Wisdom of Crowds Through Myopic Self-Confidence Adaptation

See Appendix ?. \blacksquare

It follows from Lemma 1 that

It follows from assumption (?) and the fact that H(z) is a row-stochastic matrix that

where \zeta=H(z)\xi. Thanks to assumption (?), we get that the entries of \zeta_i are zero-mean, thus proving equation (1), and have variance

thus proving equation (1).\blacksquare

See Appendix ?.(An alternative proof earlier appeared in [Peluffo:2019].)

We first notice that when stubborn agent are present, i.e., when \mathcal S(z)\ne\emptyset, the matrix H(z) cannot be of the type \mathbf{1}(\mu^*)', as in this case H(z) has zero entries by equation (?) of Lemma 1. Instead, if we consider the expression of H(z) in (?) for the case when there are no stubborn agents (i.e., when z<\mathbf{1}), we see that

Because of the way \mu^* is defined (see (2)), the right hand side equality above holds true if and only if the vector z satisfies the relations

for every i in \mathcal V, for some constant \alpha. Notice that (Proof) has a solution in [0,1)^n if and only if 0<\alpha\leq\alpha_*. Hence, H(z)=\mathbf{1}(\mu^*)' if and only if z\in\mathcal Z^* (in particular, the set of such self-confidence profiles z is nonempty). As has been already noted, this entails that \mathcal P=\mathcal Z^*. On the other hand, it directly follows from the definition of \mathcal Z^* in (2) that for every z in \mathcal Z^*, any unilateral modification of the self-confidence by one agent would lead to a vector \bar z\not\in \mathcal Z^*. Hence z is a strict Nash equilibrium.\blacksquare

Observe that the assumption \mathcal S(z_{-i})=\emptyset is equivalent to that 0\le z_{-i}<\mathbf{1}. We first analyze \upsilon_i(z_i,z_{-i}) when z_i<1. In this case, \upsilon_i(z_i,z_{-i})=V(z), where V(z) is the common cost function defined in (?) that we analyze through the change of variables (?). Consider the expression for the derivative of \overline V in (?). For a given y_{-i}, the function y_i\mapsto\overline V(y_i,y_{-i}) is strictly decreasing when 1\leq y\le y_i^* and strictly increasing when y\ge y_i^*, where

Hence, y_i^* is the strict minimizer of \bar\upsilon_i(y_i,y_{-i}) on the interval [1,+\infty). This minimizer corresponds to

Now, observe that, for every fixed 0\le z_{-i}<\mathbf{1}, Lemma 1(i) implies that

so that, by (?), the function z_i\mapsto\upsilon_i(z_i,z_{-i}) is continuous on [0,1]. This implies that z_i^* is in fact the unique minimizer of z_i\mapsto\upsilon(z_i,z_{-i}) over closed interval [0,1].\blacksquare

We consider the general expression (?) for the utility of agent i, v_i(z_i, z_{-i}). As the entries of the matrix H depend on z only through the set \mathcal S(z) (see Remark 2), and since \mathcal S(z) is constant for z_i varying in [0,1), item (i) is proven. Item (ii) is immediate from (i).

In order to prove the remaining points, we consider the following estimation that holds true for every z_i in [0,1) and if \sigma_i^2\ge\sigma_j^2 for every j in \mathcal S(z_{-i}).

We notice that the first equality follows from equation (?) and the fact that H_{ij}(z)=0 for every agent j\not\in\mathcal S(z), the first inequality follows from the fact that H_{ij}(z)\in [0,1] for every i,j, and the second inequality from the assumption made on variances and the fact that H(z) is a stochastic matrix.

Inequality (?) implies that any z_i in [0, 1) is necessarily a best response and thus yields item (iii). We further notice that for the second inequality in expression (?) to be an equality, it must be that \sigma_j^2=\sigma_i^2 for every j\in \mathcal S(z_{-i}) such that H_{ij}(z)>0. Recalling that H(z) is stochastic, such an index j surely exists and this implies that under the assumption in item (iv), the second inequality in expression (?) is strict. This proves (iv). \blacksquare

We prove (i) \Rightarrow (ii) \Rightarrow (iii) \Rightarrow (i)

(i) \Rightarrow (ii) follows from (iii) of Proposition 4.

(ii) \Rightarrow (iii): under assumption (ii) we must have all equalities in expression (?). This implies that H_{ij}(z)\in\{0,1\} for every j\in \mathcal S(z_{-i}) and that \sigma_i^2=\sigma_j^2 for every j for which H_{ij}(z)=1. Since H(z) is a stochastic matrix, this implies that there exists just one j such that H_{ij}(z)=1 and for such j it holds \sigma_i^2=\sigma_j^2. Considering the probabilistic interpretation of H_{ij}(z) as the absorbing probability in the state j of a Markov chain with matrix W(z) initialized in i, it follows that H_{ij}(z)>0 yields the existence of a path in \mathcal G_{W(z)} from i to j.

(iii) \Rightarrow (i): using the same probabilistic interpretation, we deduce from (iii) that H_{ij}(z)=1. This fact and the assumptions on the variances imply that all inequalities in expression (?) turn into equalities. This yields (i). \blacksquare

Notice first that the inclusion \mathcal N^*\cap [0,1)^{n}\supseteq \mathcal Z^* follows from Proposition 2. To complete the proof, it remains to show that there are no Nash equilibria in the set [0,1)^{n}\setminus\mathcal Z^*.

We first show that if z=\mathbf{0} is a Nash equilibrium, then \mathbf{0}\in\mathcal Z^*. By the definition of a Nash equilibrium, 0\in\mathcal B_i(\mathbf{0}) for all i, meaning that z_i=0 minimizes V(z_i,\mathbf{0}) and y_i=1 minimizes \bar V(y_i,\mathbf{1}). In view of (?), one has

One notices, however, that the numerators of the latter fractions, for y=\mathbf{1}, satisfy the following property:

Hence all fractions must vanish at y=\mathbf{1}, entailing that

which implies that \pi_i=\sigma_i^{-2}/\sum_{j\in\mathcal V}\sigma_j^{-2}, that is, \pi=\mu^*. By (2), we have \mathbf{0}\in\mathcal Z^* (this vector corresponds to \alpha=\alpha^* in (2)).

Consider now a general Nash equilibrium \bar z in [0,1)^n. We observe that \bar z also constitutes a Nash equilibrium in the game with the more restricted strategy set \mathcal Z_{\bar z}=\prod_{i=1}^n[\bar z_i,1). For every vector z in \mathcal Z_{\bar z}, the matrix of the French-DeGroot model (?) can be rewritten as follows

Hence, \mathbf{0} is a Nash equilibrium in the game, defined by the matrix \bar P=W(\bar z) with the corresponding left eigenvector \overline\pi=\gamma(\overline z)^{-1}(I-[\overline z])^{-1}\pi, which, as has been shown, means that \overline\pi=\mu^*. In the proof of Proposition 2 we have seen that this holds true if and only \overline z\in\mathcal Z^*. \blacksquare

If \mathcal S(z)=\{i\}, Proposition 3 implies that 1\notin\mathcal B_i(z_{-i}) and therefore z is not a Nash. This shows that |\mathcal S(z)|\ne 1 and proves the necessity of condition (i).

Denote

If \mathcal S^*(z)\neq \mathcal S(z), consider the shortest path \gamma in \mathcal G_P, starting at some vertex from \mathcal S^*(z) and leading to another vertex from \mathcal S(z)\setminus\mathcal S^*(z) (such a path exists since the graph is strongly connected). Denoting the starting and final vertices i and j respectively, the other vertices visited by the path \gamma are, by construction, out of \mathcal{S}(z). Consequently, for every configuration z' such that z'_{-i}=z_{-i} and z'_i<1, \gamma remains a path in the graph \mathcal G_{W(z')}. Since \sigma_i^2>\sigma_j^2, this implies that condition (iii) in Proposition 5 does not hold. This yields 1\not\in\mathcal B_i(z_{-i}) contradicting the fact that z is a Nash equilibrium. Hence, condition (ii) is necessary: \sigma_j^2=\sigma_*^2 for every j in \mathcal S(z).

The proof that (iii) is necessary relies on similar arguments. Recall first the definition of the restricted graph \mathcal G_P[\mathcal S(z)]=(\mathcal S(z),\mathcal E[\mathcal S(z)]) and notice that, since \mathcal G_P is strongly connected, so is \mathcal G_P[\mathcal S(z)].

In particular, each node has at least one out-neighbor. On the other hand, the existence of an edge (i,j) in \mathcal G_P[\mathcal S(z)] implies the existence of a path from i to j in \mathcal G_P that does not visit other nodes from \mathcal S(z). As this remains a path in \mathcal G_{W(z')} for every configuration z' such that z'_{-i}=z_{-i} and z'_i<1, by virtue of (iii) in Proposition 5, we conclude that such node j must be unique. In other terms, i has just one out-neighbor. This implies condition (iii).

Finally, the fact that z is not strict (as a Nash equilibrium) follows again from condition (ii) of Proposition 5 applied to a stubborn agent i.

\blacksquare

By Theorem 2, all strict Nash equilibria are inside [0,1)^n, in view of Theorem 1, which proves the first statement. For mutually distinct \sigma_i^2, there are no other Nash equilibria due to statement (ii) in Theorem 2. \blacksquare

Condition (iii) in Theorem 2 is never satisfied if \mathcal G_P is undirected and |\mathcal S(z)|\ge3.\blacksquare

It follows from (iii) of Proposition 4 that \mathcal B_i(z_{-i})\supseteq[0,1)\ni z_i for every i in \mathcal V\setminus\mathcal S(z). On the other hand, for every i in \mathcal S(z), it follows that condition (iii) in Proposition 5 holds true. This entails that \mathcal B_i(z_{-i})=[0,1] and thus surely z_i\in \mathcal B_i(z_{-i}). Thus, z is a (non-strict) Nash equilibrium. \blacksquare

Consider the stochastic process Q(t) on the finite state space \mathcal Q=\{0,1\}^{\mathcal V}, defined by

i.e., Q_i(t)=1 if agent i is stubborn at time t and Q_i(t)=0 otherwise. Hence,

Recall from Proposition 3

that the best response of every agent i in \mathcal V such that Q_{-i}(t)=\0, i.e., such that \mathcal S(Z_{-i}(t))=\emptyset, satisfies \mathcal B_i(Z_{-i}(t))\subseteq [0,1).

This implies that, if the agent i that gets randomly activated at time t is such that Q_{-i}(t)=\0, then necessarily Q_i(t+1)=0.

On the other hand, for every every agent i in \mathcal V such that Q_{-i}(t){\neq \0}, i.e., such that \mathcal S(Z_{-i}(t)){\neq}\emptyset, Proposition 4(ii) ensures that

Observe, that in this case, Equation (?), Lemma 1(ii), and Remark 2 imply that

depends on Z_{-i}(t) only through \mathcal S(Z_{-i}(t)), i.e., through Q_{-i}(t), hence so does \mathcal B_i(Z_{-i}(t)). This implies that there exists a function p_i:\{0,1\}^{\mathcal V\setminus\{i\}}\to[0,1], such that, if the agent i that gets randomly activated at time t is such that Q_{-i}(t)\ne\0, then with conditional probability p(Q_{-i}(t)) we get

and hence Z_i(t+1)=0, while with conditional probability 1-p(Q_{-i}(t)) we get

hence Z_i(t+1)=1. In fact, Proposition 4(iii) implies that, if

then p(Q_{-i}(t))=1.

The arguments above imply that Q(t) is itself a Markov chain on \mathcal Q such that

and that for every q in \mathcal Q\setminus\{\0\}, there exists q^- such that

and

It then follows from (?), (?), and (?) that \0 is absorbing state for the Markov chain Q(t) on the finite state space \mathcal Q=\{0,1\}^{\mathcal V}. Standard results on finite Markov chains [norris1998markov, Chapter 1] imply that there exists a nonnegative random absorption time T such that \mathbb{P}(T<+\infty)=1, and Z(t)=\0 for every t\ge T, so that (3) holds true.\blacksquare

We fix an initial condition z(0) and we take T as in Lemma 3, so that Z(t)\in [0,1)^n for every t\geq T.

We first show that every limit point of the sequence Z(t) belongs to [0,1)^n. To this aim, we define

and then we show that M(t) is monotonically non-increasing for t\geq T. For a given time t, we pick

and we notice that for any other player k in \mathcal V\setminus\{m\}, the form of the best response in (3) implies that

Notice now that

This yields

As also

we have thus proven that

This yields the monotonicity of M(t) for t\ge T. Consequently,

so that we have the a-priori bound

We now consider the sequence V(Z(t)). By construction, it is non-increasing for t\geq T and converges to some value \bar V in \mathbb{R}_+. Consider now any limit point of the sequence Z(t) and without loss of generality assume that Z(t)\to \bar z (avoiding to formally pass to a subsequence). We know from previous considerations that \bar z\in [0,1)^n and we want to show that \bar z is a Nash equilibrium. Suppose not and let i\in\mathcal \mathcal V be an agent that is not at equilibrium in configuration \bar z. Let f_i: [0,1)^n\to [0,1)^n be the function defined by f_i(z)=(\mathcal B_i(z_{-i}), z_{-i}). We have V(f_i(\bar z))=V(\bar z)-\epsilon for some \epsilon >0. Since f_i is continuous, there exists \delta>0 such that |z^1-z^2|<\delta yields

Consider now \bar t\geq T such that |Z(t)-\bar z|<\delta and |V(Z(t))- V(\bar z)|<\epsilon/4 for every t\geq \bar t and pick any time t\geq \bar t at which agent i becomes active (with probability 1 there are infinite such times). From expression (?), using the fact that |Z(t)-\bar z|<\delta we deduce that V(f_i(Z(t)))-V(Z(t))<-\epsilon/2. Coupling now with |V(Z(t))- V(\bar z)|<\epsilon/4, we get that V(f_i(Z(t)))-V(\bar z)<-\epsilon/4 and this contradicts the fact that V(Z(t)) monotonically converges to \bar z. This proves that \bar z is a Nash equilibrium. \blacksquare