Abstract
Evolutionary game theory (EGT) was born from economic game theory through a series of analogies. Given this heuristic genealogy, a number of central objects of the theory (like strategies, players, and games) have not been carefully defined or interpreted. A specific interpretation of these terms becomes important as EGT sees more applications to understanding experiments in microscopic systems typical of oncology and microbiology. In this essay, I provide two interpretations of the central objects of games theory: one that leads to reductive games and the other to effective games. These interpretation are based on the difference between views of fitness as a property of individuals versus fitness as a summary statistic of (sub)populations. Reductive games are typical of theoretical work like agent-based models. But effective games usually correspond more closely to experimental work. However, confusing reductive games for effective games or vice-versa can lead to divergent results, especially in spatially structured populations. As such, I propose that we treat this distinction carefully in future work at the interface of EGT and experiment.
