SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2110.13532

Playing Coopetitive Polymatrix Games with Small Manipulation Cost

Abstract

Iterated coopetitive games capture the situation when one must efficiently balance between cooperation and competition with the other agents over time in order to win the game (e.g., to become the player with highest total utility). Achieving this balance is typically very challenging or even impossible when explicit communication is not feasible (e.g., negotiation or bargaining are not allowed). In this paper we investigate how an agent can achieve this balance to win in iterated coopetitive polymatrix games, without explicit communication. In particular, we consider a 3-player repeated game setting in which our agent is allowed to (slightly) manipulate the underlying game matrices of the other agents for which she pays a manipulation cost, while the other agents satisfy weak behavioural assumptions. We first propose a payoff matrix manipulation scheme and sequence of strategies for our agent that provably guarantees that the utility of any opponent would converge to a value we desire. We then use this scheme to design winning policies for our agent. We also prove that these winning policies can be found in polynomial running time. We then turn to demonstrate the efficiency of our framework in several concrete coopetitive polymatrix games, and prove that the manipulation costs needed to win are bounded above by small budgets. For instance, in the social distancing game, a polymatrix version of the lemonade stand coopetitive game, we showcase a policy with an infinitesimally small manipulation cost per round, along with a provable guarantee that, using this policy leads our agent to win in the long-run. Note that our findings can be trivially extended to $n$-player game settings as well (with $n > 3$).

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Shivakumar Mahesh, Nicholas Bishop, Le Cong Dinh, Long Tran-Thanh. 2021-10-26. Playing Coopetitive Polymatrix Games with Small Manipulation Cost. https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.13532

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

MMS Allocation for Chores with Online Agent Arrivals

We study the fair allocation of $m$ indivisible chores to $n$ agents with subadditive cost functions arriving online in an arbitrary order. Upon an agent's arrival, we are informed of her cost function and must irrevocably assign her a set of chores. We focus on the Maximin Share (MMS) fairness notion and aim to compute an allocation in which all items are assigned, and no agent incurs a cost more than $\alpha$ times her MMS. Without any prior information about the instance (other than $n$ and $m$), we design an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{n, k\log^{1+\epsilon}k, \log m\})$ for any constant $\epsilon > 0$, where $k$ denotes the number of cost function types. Our bound matches the best known offline approximation guarantees for MMS under subadditive costs and is nearly optimal with respect to all three parameters: we show that even for binary additive cost functions, no online algorithm can achieve a competitive ratio of $o(\min\{n, k\log k, \log m\})$. We then consider the setting in which the $k$ cost function types are known in advance (though the realized types of arriving agents are not). For additive cost functions, we provide an algorithm with a competitive ratio of $O(\min\{\log k, \log(kn)/\log\log(kn)\})$, and show that constant-competitive algorithms do not exist for general $k$, even for the binary additive setting. For binary additive functions when $k \le n$, we propose a $3$-competitive algorithm and establish a lower bound of $2$.

cs.GT

Truncated Noisy Best-Response Algorithms: Toward Game Theoretic Learning with Safety Guarantees

We consider a game theoretic approach to solve multi-agent coordination problems with submodular maximization objectives. It is known for such problems that the Nash equilibria for the corresponding game are always within 50% of the optimal, but that the equilibria which achieve this worst-case bound are not stable. To exploit this instability, we propose a family of algorithms which we call Truncated Noisy Best-Response (TNBR) Algorithms. These algorithms are flexibly characterized by agents asynchronously and stochastically selecting actions from a neighbourhood of their best response payoffs. We compute bounds on the recurrent classes of TNBR algorithms' associated Markov chains. Our bounds fall into two categories: first, "Performance" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms always have a high-value recurrent state; second, "Safety" bounds ensure that TNBR algorithms never have arbitrarily-bad recurrent states. Furthermore, these two types of bounds are linked by a waterbed-like effect: every game with a poor Safety guarantee necessarily has a favorable Performance guarantee.

cs.GT

Existence of the Core in Approval-Based Committee Elections

We settle the main open question in the theory of approval-based multi-winner elections: we show that there always exists a committee in the core. The core is a stability and group fairness concept. The proof introduces a new voting rule that optimizes an entropy-like objective function over committees and payment systems. All local optima of this objective function lie in the core, which implies that a core committee can be found in polynomial time.

cs.GT