When do Mixed-Integer Games Admit Rational Equilibria?

We start by making two observations.

• 1. Observation Note that y^* solves (?) if and only if y_i^* is an optimal solution to

  \begin{aligned} \min_{y_i} \quad \pi_i(y_i,y_{-i},z^*) \quad \text{s.t.} \quad A_{ii}^\mathrm{con}y_i \geq b_i -A_{ii}^\mathrm{int}z^*_i \end{aligned}

  for each i\in N. This is true as the LCP in (?) for a fixed i\in N contains the KKT conditions for the above problem. These KKT conditions are necessary and sufficient optimality conditions as the above problem is an LP. Moreover, we note that in case that y^* solves (?), then

  \pi_i(x^*) = \phi_i(y^*_{-i};z^*) \quad \text{for all } i\in N.

• 2. Observation In the situation of (Proof), y^* solves (?) if and only if for all i\in N, we have

  \pi_i(x^*)\leq \pi_i(y_i,z_i,y_{-i}^*,z_{-i}^*) \quad \text{for all } (y_i,z_i) \text{ with } A_{ii}(y_i,z_i)\geq b_i,

  which is exactly the equilibrium condition for x^*.

We now prove both directions of the lemma separately.

• “\Rightarrow” Let x^* be an NE. Then, every player is optimal w.r.t. unilateral deviations in her continuous variables, i.e., y_i^* solves (Proof) for each player i\in N. Hence, by our first observation, y^* solves (?). The second observation then shows that y^* solves (?) since x^* is an NE.

• “\Leftarrow” Let x^* solve (?) and (?). The first observation implies (Proof). The second observation then shows that x^* is an NE by y^* solving (?).

We first show two claims stating that (?) and (?) both have solution sets that are union of rational polyhedra, i.e., polyhedra with rational vertices.

Hence, the solution set of the system given by (?) and (?) is the intersection of unions of rational polyhedra, i.e.,

Using the second representation of the solution set, we can deduce that if there exists a solution to (?) and (?), then there need to exist at least one l_1 \in L_1 and l_2\in L_2 with \mathrm{P}_{l_1}^{\mathrm{LCP}} \cap \mathrm{P}_{l_2}^{\Phi} not being empty. Since both of these polyhedra are rational, the intersection is again a rational polyhedron. Moreover, we just argued that this polyhedron is non-empty. Hence, it admits a rational vertex, which solves (?) and (?).

Let x^*=(y^*,z^*) be an NE of G. By Lemma 3.1, y^* solves (?) and (?). Hence, Lemma 3.2 implies that there exist a rational y' solving (?) and (?). Applying Lemma 3.1 shows that (y',z^*) is an NE as well.

ssume for the sake of a contradiction that z_3^*=1. Then, optimality of player 3 implies z_1^*-z_2^*\leq\nicefrac{1}{2} and, hence, either z_1^* = z_2^* = 1 or z^*_1 = 0. Let us consider the first case. If z_1^* = z_2^* = 1, then player 2 does not play optimally. Indeed, her costs for z_2=0=y_2 are 0 whereas for z_2^* = 1, we can bound her costs from below by

for any y_2, where we used y_2\in[-5,5] and y_3\in[-5,4].

Now consider the case z^*_1 = 0. Player 1’s constraint then implies y_1^*=0 and, hence, \pi_1(x^*) = 0. This is not optimal for player 1 as for y_1 = 0 and z_1=1, we have \pi_1(x_1,x^*_{-1}) = y_3 -(8-1) \leq -3<0 by y_3\leq 4.

ssume for the sake of a contraction that x^*_2\neq 0. By the constraint of player 2, this implies that z_2^*=1. Considering the factor multiplied with z_3 in the objective of player 3, (z_1^*-z_2^*-0.5)\leq -0.5 gives that z_1^* \leq 1 and hence the optimality of player 3 implies z_3^* = 1 contradicting Claim 4.1.

ssume for the sake of a contraction that x_1^* =0 holds. By Claim 4.2, we have x_2^*=0 as well. But this implies by optimality of player 3 that z_3^* = 1 in contradiction to Claim 4.1.

bserve that it is enough to show that the best response mapping of player 1 is of the claimed form as player 2 solves the exact same problem as player 1 for z_3 =0. Let us consider player 1 in the following. For z_1, player 1 has two options: If he plays z_1=0, then y_1=0 and he gets costs of 0. Let us calculate in the following the optimal y_1 for z_1 = 1 and the corresponding objective value. For z_1=1, the optimal y_1 solves

The objective is an upward opening parabola and its minimal point is at y_1 = \nicefrac{y_3}{2} which is contained in [-5,5] by y_3 \in [-5,4]. The corresponding objective value is given by

Hence, player 1 plays z_1=1 and y_1 = \nicefrac{y_3}{2} in a best-response if and only if the above value is smaller or equal to 0, which are the costs when playing z_1=0. Now \pi_1(\nicefrac{y_3}{2},1,x_2,y_3,0) is a downwards opening parabola and thus is exactly 0 at the roots and below zero in case that y_3 is outside of the interval between the roots of the parabola. The roots are

which results in the claimed best-response sets.

ssume for the sake of a contradiction that z_3^*=1 holds. By the optimality of player 3, this implies that z_1^*+z_2^* \leq 1/2. This in turn implies that z_1^*=z_2^*=0 and by the constraints of player 1 and 2, we also have y_1^* = y_2^* = 0. Hence, we get \pi_1(x^*) =0. This, however, contradicts the optimality condition for player 1 as (y_1,z_1)=(0,1) yields costs of \pi_1(0,1;x^*_{-1}) = -1<0, where we used that x^*_2 = 0 and z_3^*=1.

e start by arguing that z_2^*=1 holds. Assume for the sake of a contradiction that z_2^*=0 holds. By the constraint of player 2, we have y_2^*=0. By Example 5.1, we also have z_3^*=0. Hence, the objective of player 1 in this case is \pi_1(x^*) = z_1^*. By optimality of player 1, we thus get that x_1^*=0. However, this now contradicts the optimality of player 3 as \pi_3^*(z_3;0)=-\nicefrac{z_3}{2} and hence z_3^* = 0 is not optimal.

The proof for z_1^*=1 works analogously. Assume for the sake of a contradiction that z_1^*=0 holds. By the constraint of player 1, we have y_1^*=0. By Example 5.1, we also have z_3^*=0. Hence, the objective of player 2 in this case is \pi_2(x^*) = z_2^*. By optimality of player 1, we hence get that x_2^*=0. However, this now contradicts the optimality of player 3 as before.

or z_1, player 1 has two options: If she plays z_1=0, then y_1=0 and she gets a cost of 0. Let us calculate in the following the optimal y_1 for z_1 = 1 and the corresponding objective value. For z_1=1, the optimal y_1 solves

Since y_2 \geq 0, the term -(2y_2+4) is negative and, thus, the optimal y_1 is as large as possible, i.e., y_1=1-y_2. The corresponding objective value is given by

Hence, z_1=1 and y_1 = 1-y_2 is a best-response if and only if the above value is smaller or equal to 0, which are the costs when playing z_1=0. The above value is an upwards opening parabola in y_2 with roots

Subsequently, for y_2 \in[0,1], the cost \pi_1(1-y_2,1;y_2,1,0) is smaller or equal to zero if and only if

leading to the claimed best-response mapping.

or z_2, player 2 has two options: If she plays z_2=0, then y_2=0 follows and the cost is 0. Let us now calculate the optimal y_2 for z_2 = 1 and the corresponding objective value. For z_2=1, the optimal y_2 solves

Since y_1 \leq 1, the term (2y_1-4) is negative and thus the optimal y_2 is as large as possible, i.e., y_2=1-y_1. The corresponding objective value is given by

Hence, z_1=1 and y_1 = 1-y_2 is a best-response if and only if the above value is smaller or equal to 0, which are the costs when playing z_1=0. The above is a downwards opening parabola in y_1 with roots

Hence, for y_1\in[0,1], the cost is smaller or equal to zero if and only if

leading to the claimed best-response mapping.

The set of solutions of f(x) \leq 0 is the union over i\in\{1,\ldots,k\} of P_i intersected with \{x\in \mathbb{R}^n\colon c_i^\top x + d_i\leq 0\}. The latter intersection is again a rational polyhedron as it is the intersection of two rational polyhedra. Hence, the lemma is proven.

By Lemma A.2, we know that for any i\in \{1,\ldots,k\}, the set of solutions of f_i(x)\leq 0 is the union of rational polyhedra. Let us denote these polyhedra via P_l^i with l\in \{1,\ldots,L_i\} and L_i\in \mathbb{N}. Hence, the set of solutions of the entire system is given by

and since \bigcap_{i=1}^kP^i_{l_i} is a rational polyhedron (as it is the intersection of rational polyhedra), the proof is complete.

For any c \in \mathbb{R}^n, a solution to the linear problem \{c^\top x\defsepA x \leq b\} is attained at one of the finite vertices of the polyhedron given by A x \leq b. Let us denote these vertices with x^1, \dotsc, x^s. These vertices are all rational vectors as A and b are rational. Hence, the value function can be written as

In particular, for any i\in \{1,\ldots,s\}, we have \varphi(c) = c^\top x^i if c^\top x^i\leq c^\top x^j for all j \in \{1,\ldots,s\}. The latter condition is equivalent to c\in P_i where P_i is the rational polyhedron given by P_i \coloneq \{c\in \mathbb{R}^n\defsepD_i c \leq 0\} with

Hence, \varphi(c) is of the form as in Definition A.1 and, thus, the proof is finished.