Game Theory

[Xittenn]

I've glanced at the Game Theory Wiki a few times and I've thought to look into the more prominent features of its application, but I have never actually done so. The Wiki suggests that it is not uncommon to apply the theories within biology. I can see how this might be applied in the field, and for my own purposes it would be interesting to see how this might be applied in terms of microbiology; cells, protists, viruses etc. Just curious if anyone has had any exposure to this?

[questionposter]

I've glanced at the Game Theory Wiki a few times and I've thought to look into the more prominent features of its application, but I have never actually done so. The Wiki suggests that it is not uncommon to apply the theories within biology. I can see how this might be applied in the field, and for my own purposes it would be interesting to see how this might be applied in terms of microbiology; cells, protists, viruses etc. Just curious if anyone has had any exposure to this?

 

I've only seen it applied to foreign affairs, and it works a decent amount of the time, but it's still just a model considering only limited factors.

[Xittenn]

For sure, just another tool in the toolbox. I wonder if microbiology sees extractable rent.

[Schrödinger's hat]

For sure, just another tool in the toolbox. I wonder if microbiology sees extractable rent.

 

Microbiology would have an additional constraint in many cases where an entirely new strategy and the current strategy must be joined by incremental changes that don't lose catastrophically.

So presumably you'd see cases where an organism has a winning strategy available that it is unable to change to.

[ajb]

John Maynard Smith was one of the first people to apply game theory to biology. He wrote a book in 1982, Evolution and the Theory of Games.

 

I found this an the arXiv, Jacek Miekisz, Evolutionary game theory and population dynamics, arXiv:q-bio/0703062v1 [q-bio.PE]. Maybe it is of interest toy you.

[Xittenn]

Microbiology would have an additional constraint in many cases where an entirely new strategy and the current strategy must be joined by incremental changes that don't lose catastrophically.

So presumably you'd see cases where an organism has a winning strategy available that it is unable to change to.

 

 

Yeah, I was playing with a few ideas with symbiosis, but I am trying to figure out how a ceiling would form such that the Qs and Qd are below equilibrium.

 

 

John Maynard Smith was one of the first people to apply game theory to biology. He wrote a book in 1982, Evolution and the Theory of Games.

 

I found this an the arXiv, Jacek Miekisz, Evolutionary game theory and population dynamics, arXiv:q-bio/0703062v1 [q-bio.PE]. Maybe it is of interest toy you.

 

Well I have a new book, thanks ajb.

[questionposter]

John Maynard Smith was one of the first people to apply game theory to biology. He wrote a book in 1982, Evolution and the Theory of Games.

 

I found this an the arXiv, Jacek Miekisz, Evolutionary game theory and population dynamics, arXiv:q-bio/0703062v1 [q-bio.PE]. Maybe it is of interest toy you.

 

I understand how game theory could apply to biologoy, but how is it really that useful? It seems like you could figure all that out just by thinking about it yourself. I suppose maybe if you used a computer model that had a global evolution through time that might be hard to think about, but you could still do it. It's not much different than playing chess.

[Xittenn]

I understand how game theory could apply to biologoy, but how is it really that useful? It seems like you could figure all that out just by thinking about it yourself. I suppose maybe if you used a computer model that had a global evolution through time that might be hard to think about, but you could still do it. It's not much different than playing chess.

 

 

Computer models that could apply these concepts alongside some higher mathematical principles could create some complex models. It could also give you a formal method of discussing the issues.

[ajb]

I understand how game theory could apply to biologoy, but how is it really that useful?

 

I have no idea, this is far from my area of expertise. That said, Xittenn is probably right, game theory will give you a framework in which to formulate and answer questions. This kind of mathematical framework is generally missing from biology, as far as I can tell.

[CharonY]

There are a couple of areas in biology, in which mathematical framewors (as opposed to, e.g. statistical inference) are used. Normally these are either simple systems, or, more commonly, simplified theoretical frameworks against which actual data can be modeled. Good examples can be found in the areas of evolution, for instance. Evolutionary game theory, as mentioned, is but one example.

 

It seems like you could figure all that out just by thinking about it yourself.

 

Without a mathematical framework or at least statistical inference these kinds of inductions are usually useless in the long run. The reason is that biological data is so complex and high-dimensional that you could figure out almost everything you want to, using it. Without a theoretical framework to model it against, you are just making assumptions.

 

Of course, biology has a history of developing clever experimental setups solely based on conceptional (non-mathematical) frameworks, or qualitative models, if you will. But these often have limitations in terms of predictive power. Regarding the OP, game theory is, to my knowledge, mostly applied to evolutionary biology, and somewhat in ecological questions. And yes, they are useful.

[Xittenn]

I wonder if biological growth could be considered a form of 'evolution', or more concisely, I wonder how I might apply the theories to the time evolution of an individual organism within an environment. It would make for interesting pretreatments of lab experimentation--morphological responses to stimuli for example.

 

I think I have a lot of studying to do!

[ewmon]

I'm thinking we'd see game theory in the evolution of microbes and survival strategies, and quorum sensing came to mind when I read this thread. Sure enough, when I googled "quorum sensing" "game theory", I found a variety of information.

Edited February 28, 2012 by ewmon

[CharonY]

Quorum sensing as well as other cooperative behavior are often analyzed within the frame work of game theory. Inclusive fitness theory is often tested within game theory parameters, for example.

 

I wonder if biological growth could be considered a form of 'evolution'

I do not know how that would fit in. But as mentioned, cooperative behavior such as altruism would fall under these examples. And quantitative studies exist for a number of organisms, including bacteria.

[Xittenn]

I do not know how that would fit in.

 

I just meant like a time derived process, not in the more precise meaning associated with evolution in the biological sense. More so, I was thinking about comments made in other threads that related to growing limbs with stem cells. I'm not suggesting growing limbs with stems cells, but I was thinking on ways of modeling artificial generative growth of tissue systems by induced signaling, which would be a pretty cool thing to do IMO.

 

**growth and structuring

[questionposter]

There are a couple of areas in biology, in which mathematical framewors (as opposed to, e.g. statistical inference) are used. Normally these are either simple systems, or, more commonly, simplified theoretical frameworks against which actual data can be modeled. Good examples can be found in the areas of evolution, for instance. Evolutionary game theory, as mentioned, is but one example.

 

 

 

Without a mathematical framework or at least statistical inference these kinds of inductions are usually useless in the long run. The reason is that biological data is so complex and high-dimensional that you could figure out almost everything you want to, using it. Without a theoretical framework to model it against, you are just making assumptions.

 

Of course, biology has a history of developing clever experimental setups solely based on conceptional (non-mathematical) frameworks, or qualitative models, if you will. But these often have limitations in terms of predictive power. Regarding the OP, game theory is, to my knowledge, mostly applied to evolutionary biology, and somewhat in ecological questions. And yes, they are useful.

 

I suppose game theory can give you accurate predictions, but I mean you could easily see how something like evolution on a world scale plays out just by using your imagination. Are the numbers generated actually supposed to be used for anything useful? What about fractal symmetry? Aren't biologists still preoccupied with that math?

Edited February 29, 2012 by questionposter

[CharonY]

Are the numbers generated actually supposed to be used for anything useful?

Yes, definitely. You can see things, but if what you derive from it has no predictive power, you will not know whether you are right or just made stuff up that happen to fit with what you see. Overfitting is a good example. Just using your imagination is neither useful nor science.

I have no idea what you mean with regards to fractal symmetry.

Edited February 29, 2012 by CharonY

[immortal]

Game theory can be applied to evolutionary biology in various ways. John Maynard Smith came up with what he calls an evolutionary stable strategy. A evolutionary stable strategy is one which is adopted by the whole population such that it can't be altered by alternative strategies. If a better strategy arises compared to the existing strategy then the new strategy will replace the original strategy. This is the prisoners dilemma problem applied to the evolutionary system of predator and prey relationships.

 

 

 

The best strategy is to make a choice such that you won't end up in the worst possible outcome in the game. When an iterative prisoners dilemma is played then the prisoners take a tit for tat strategy by remembering what strategies his opponent followed in previous games.

 

This same problem can be applied to populations of organisms competing with other populations or within the populations for resources and for viable mates. In this way we can explain why a population has taken a particular strategy and why such a population behaves in such a altruistic or selfish way. It explains the behaviors of helper bees, emperor penguins, praying mantis etc. So game theory is mainly useful in evolutionary psychology and explains why animals are hard-wired in such a way and what makes them the way they are. It is these per-programmed genes which makes what we are as humans, a highly advanced cultural mammal.

 

The game of life by John Horton Conway of the Cambridge university applies game theory in cellular automaton and explains how by starting with a few cells such highly complex patterns could be formed in his computational models.

 

Kauffman applies mathematical models for co-evolution and explains the role of attractors, a mathematical term and his simulations shows that evolution works by period of statis followed by sudden rapid changes which sweeps through the entire eco-system and gives support to the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

 

These books would be worth reading to know more about the applications of game theory to biology.

 

'Games of Life: Explorations in Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour' by Karl Sigmund has some interesting discussions of games and strategies.

 

John Maynard Smith's book 'Did Darwin get It right?' Essays on games, sex and evolution is also well worth reading.

 

'The Raptor and the Lamb' by Christopher McGowan.

 

'The Red Hourglass: Lives of the Predators' by Gordon Grice.