arXiv subjects

Vincent Conitzer

Publications and source records attributed to Vincent Conitzer.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2026

Decision Making under Imperfect Recall: Algorithms and Benchmarks

In game theory, imperfect-recall decision problems model situations in which an agent forgets information it held before. They encompass games such as the ``absentminded driver'' and team games with limited communication. In this paper, we introduce the first benchmark suite for imperfect-recall decision problems. Our benchmarks capture a variety of problem types, including ones concerning privacy in AI systems that elicit sensitive information, and AI safety via testing of agents in simulation. Across 61 problem instances generated using this suite, we evaluate the performance of different algorithms for finding first-order optimal strategies in such problems. In particular, we introduce the family of regret matching (RM) algorithms for nonlinear constrained optimization. This class of parameter-free algorithms has enjoyed tremendous success in solving large two-player zero-sum games, but, surprisingly, they were hitherto relatively unexplored beyond that setting. Our key finding is that RM algorithms consistently outperform commonly employed first-order optimizers such as projected gradient descent, often by orders of magnitude. This establishes, for the first time, the RM family as a formidable approach to large-scale constrained optimization problems.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

On the Edge of Core (Non-)Emptiness: An Automated Reasoning Approach to Approval-Based Multi-Winner Voting

Core stability is a natural and well-studied notion for group fairness in multi-winner voting, where the task is to select a committee from a pool of candidates. We study the setting where voters either approve or disapprove of each candidate; here, it remains a major open problem whether a core-stable committee always exists. In this work, we develop an approach based on mixed-integer linear programming for deciding whether and when core-stable committees are guaranteed to exist. In contrast to SAT-based approaches popular in computational social choice, our method can produce proofs for a specific number of candidates independent of the number of voters. In addition to these computational gains, our program lends itself to a novel duality-based reformulation of the core stability problem, from which we obtain new existence results in special cases. Further, we use our framework to reveal previously unknown relationships between core stability and other desirable properties, such as notions of priceability.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Learning and Computation of $Φ$-Equilibria at the Frontier of Tractability

$Φ$-equilibria -- and the associated notion of $Φ$-regret -- are a powerful and flexible framework at the heart of online learning and game theory, whereby enriching the set of deviations $Φ$ begets stronger notions of rationality. Recently, Daskalakis, Farina, Fishelson, Pipis, and Schneider (STOC '24) -- abbreviated as DFFPS -- settled the existence of efficient algorithms when $Φ$ contains only linear maps under a general, $d$-dimensional convex constraint set $\mathcal{X}$. In this paper, we significantly extend their work by resolving the case where $Φ$ is $k$-dimensional; degree-$\ell$ polynomials constitute a canonical such example with $k = d^{O(\ell)}$. In particular, positing only oracle access to $\mathcal{X}$, we obtain two main positive results: i) a $\text{poly}(n, d, k, \text{log}(1/ε))$-time algorithm for computing $ε$-approximate $Φ$-equilibria in $n$-player multilinear games, and ii) an efficient online algorithm that incurs average $Φ$-regret at most $ε$ using $\text{poly}(d, k)/ε^2$ rounds. We also show nearly matching lower bounds in the online learning setting, thereby obtaining for the first time a family of deviations that captures the learnability of $Φ$-regret. From a technical standpoint, we extend the framework of DFFPS from linear maps to the more challenging case of maps with polynomial dimension. At the heart of our approach is a polynomial-time algorithm for computing an expected fixed point of any $ϕ: \mathcal{X} \to \mathcal{X}$ based on the ellipsoid against hope (EAH) algorithm of Papadimitriou and Roughgarden (JACM '08). In particular, our algorithm for computing $Φ$-equilibria is based on executing EAH in a nested fashion -- each step of EAH itself being implemented by invoking a separate call to EAH.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2025

Designing Rules for Choosing a Winner in a Debate

We consider settings where an uninformed principal must hear arguments from two better-informed agents, corresponding to two possible courses of action that they argue for. The arguments are verifiable in the sense that the true state of the world restricts the arguments that can be made by the agents. Each agent simply wants to be chosen as the winner and does so strategically based on the rule set by the principal. How should the principal design the rule to choose the better action? We provide a formal framework for answering this question, exhibit some basic properties of it, study the computational problems of evaluating and optimizing the principal's policy, and provide key error bounds.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Choosing What Game to Play without Selecting Equilibria: Inferring Safe (Pareto) Improvements in Binary Constraint Structures

We consider a setting in which a principal gets to choose which game from some given set is played by a group of agents. The principal would like to choose a game that favors one of the players, the social preferences of the players, or the principal's own preferences. Unfortunately, given the potential multiplicity of equilibria, it is conceptually unclear how to tell which of even any two games is better. Oesterheld et al. (2022) propose that we use assumptions about outcome correspondence -- i.e., about how the outcomes of different games relate -- to allow comparisons in some cases. For example, it seems reasonable to assume that isomorphic games are played isomorphically. From such assumptions we can sometimes deduce that the outcome of one game G' is guaranteed to be better than the outcome of another game G, even if we do not have beliefs about how each of G and G' will be played individually. Following Oesterheld et al., we then call G' a safe improvement on G. In this paper, we study how to derive safe improvement relations. We first show that if we are given a set of games and arbitrary assumptions about outcome correspondence between these games, deriving safe improvement relations is co-NP-complete. We then study the (in)completeness of a natural set of inference rules for outcome correspondence. We show that in general the inference rules are incomplete. However, we also show that under natural, generally applicable assumptions about outcome correspondence the rules are complete.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Convergence of Regret Matching in Potential Games and Constrained Optimization

Regret matching (RM) -- and its modern variants -- is a foundational online algorithm that has been at the heart of many AI breakthrough results in solving benchmark zero-sum games, such as poker. Yet, surprisingly little is known so far in theory about its convergence beyond two-player zero-sum games. For example, whether regret matching converges to Nash equilibria in potential games has been an open problem for two decades. Even beyond games, one could try to use RM variants for general constrained optimization problems. Recent empirical evidence suggests that they -- particularly regret matching$^+$ (RM$^+$) -- attain strong performance on benchmark constrained optimization problems, outperforming traditional gradient descent-type algorithms. We show that RM$^+$ converges to an $ε$-KKT point after $O_ε(1/ε^4)$ iterations, establishing for the first time that it is a sound and fast first-order optimizer. Our argument relates the KKT gap to the accumulated regret, two quantities that are entirely disparate in general but interact in an intriguing way in our setting, so much so that when regrets are bounded, our complexity bound improves all the way to $O_ε(1/ε^2)$. From a technical standpoint, while RM$^+$ does not have the usual one-step improvement property in general, we show that it does in a certain region that the algorithm will quickly reach and remain in thereafter. In sharp contrast, our second main result establishes a lower bound: RM, with or without alternation, can take an exponential number of iterations to reach a crude approximate solution even in two-player potential games. This represents the first worst-case separation between RM and RM$^+$. Our lower bound shows that convergence to coarse correlated equilibria in potential games is exponentially faster than convergence to Nash equilibria.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Moral Change or Noise? On Problems of Aligning AI With Temporally Unstable Human Feedback

Alignment methods in moral domains seek to elicit moral preferences of human stakeholders and incorporate them into AI. This presupposes moral preferences as static targets, but such preferences often evolve over time. Proper alignment of AI to dynamic human preferences should ideally account for "legitimate" changes to moral reasoning, while ignoring changes related to attention deficits, cognitive biases, or other arbitrary factors. However, common AI alignment approaches largely neglect temporal changes in preferences, posing serious challenges to proper alignment, especially in high-stakes applications of AI, e.g., in healthcare domains, where misalignment can jeopardize the trustworthiness of the system and yield serious individual and societal harms. This work investigates the extent to which people's moral preferences change over time, and the impact of such changes on AI alignment. Our study is grounded in the kidney allocation domain, where we elicit responses to pairwise comparisons of hypothetical kidney transplant patients from over 400 participants across 3-5 sessions. We find that, on average, participants change their response to the same scenario presented at different times around 6-20% of the time (exhibiting "response instability"). Additionally, we observe significant shifts in several participants' retrofitted decision-making models over time (capturing "model instability"). The predictive performance of simple AI models decreases as a function of both response and model instability. Moreover, predictive performance diminishes over time, highlighting the importance of accounting for temporal changes in preferences during training. These findings raise fundamental normative and technical challenges relevant to AI alignment, highlighting the need to better understand the object of alignment (what to align to) when user preferences change significantly over time.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Designing Rules to Pick a Rule: Aggregation by Consistency

Given a set of items and a set of evaluators who all individually rank them, how do we aggregate these evaluations into a single societal ranking? Work in social choice and statistics has produced many aggregation methods for this problem, each with its desirable properties, but also with its limitations. Further, existing impossibility results rule out designing a single method that achieves every property of interest. Faced with this trade-off between incompatible desiderata, how do we decide which aggregation rule to use, i.e., what is a good rule picking rule? In this paper, we formally address this question by introducing a novel framework for rule picking rules (RPRs). We then design a data-driven RPR that identifies the best aggregation method for each specific setting, without assuming any generative model. The principle behind our RPR is to pick the rule which maximizes the consistency of the output ranking if the data collection process were repeated. We introduce several consistency-related axioms for RPRs and show that our method satisfies them, including those failed by a wide class of natural RPRs. While we prove that the algorithmic problem of maximizing consistency is computationally hard, we provide a sampling-based implementation of our RPR that is efficient in practice. We run this implementation on known statistical models and find that, when possible, our method selects the maximum likelihood estimator of the data. Finally, we show that our RPR can be used in many real-world settings to gain insights about how the rule currently being used can be modified or replaced to substantially improve the consistency of the process. Taken together, our work bridges an important gap between the axiomatic and statistical approaches to rank aggregation, laying a robust theoretical and computational foundation for principled rule picking.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

AI Testing Should Account for Sophisticated Strategic Behaviour

This position paper argues for two claims regarding AI testing and evaluation. First, to remain informative about deployment behaviour, evaluations need account for the possibility that AI systems understand their circumstances and reason strategically. Second, game-theoretic analysis can inform evaluation design by formalising and scrutinising the reasoning in evaluation-based safety cases. Drawing on examples from existing AI systems, a review of relevant research, and formal strategic analysis of a stylised evaluation scenario, we present evidence for these claims and motivate several research directions.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Maximizing Social Welfare with Side Payments

We examine normal-form games in which players may \emph{pre-commit} to outcome-contingent transfers before choosing their actions. In the one-shot version of this model, Jackson and Wilkie showed that side contracting can backfire: even a game with a Pareto-optimal Nash equilibrium can devolve into inefficient equilibria once unbounded, simultaneous commitments are allowed. The root cause is a prisoner's dilemma effect, where each player can exploit her commitment power to reshape the equilibrium in her favor, harming overall welfare. To circumvent this problem we introduce a \emph{staged-commitment} protocol. Players may pledge transfers only in small, capped increments over multiple rounds, and the phase continues only with unanimous consent. We prove that, starting from any finite game $Γ$ with a non-degenerate Nash equilibrium $\vecσ$, this protocol implements every welfare-maximizing payoff profile that \emph{strictly} Pareto-improves $\vecσ$. Thus, gradual and bounded commitments restore the full efficiency potential of side payments while avoiding the inefficiencies identified by Jackson and Wilkie.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Observation Interference in Partially Observable Assistance Games

We study partially observable assistance games (POAGs), a model of the human-AI value alignment problem which allows the human and the AI assistant to have partial observations. Motivated by concerns of AI deception, we study a qualitatively new phenomenon made possible by partial observability: would an AI assistant ever have an incentive to interfere with the human's observations? First, we prove that sometimes an optimal assistant must take observation-interfering actions, even when the human is playing optimally, and even when there are otherwise-equivalent actions available that do not interfere with observations. Though this result seems to contradict the classic theorem from single-agent decision making that the value of information is nonnegative, we resolve this seeming contradiction by developing a notion of interference defined on entire policies. This can be viewed as an extension of the classic result that the value of information is nonnegative into the cooperative multiagent setting. Second, we prove that if the human is simply making decisions based on their immediate outcomes, the assistant might need to interfere with observations as a way to query the human's preferences. We show that this incentive for interference goes away if the human is playing optimally, or if we introduce a communication channel for the human to communicate their preferences to the assistant. Third, we show that if the human acts according to the Boltzmann model of irrationality, this can create an incentive for the assistant to interfere with observations. Finally, we use an experimental model to analyze tradeoffs faced by the AI assistant in practice when considering whether or not to take observation-interfering actions.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Can AI Model the Complexities of Human Moral Decision-Making? A Qualitative Study of Kidney Allocation Decisions

A growing body of work in Ethical AI attempts to capture human moral judgments through simple computational models. The key question we address in this work is whether such simple AI models capture {the critical} nuances of moral decision-making by focusing on the use case of kidney allocation. We conducted twenty interviews where participants explained their rationale for their judgments about who should receive a kidney. We observe participants: (a) value patients' morally-relevant attributes to different degrees; (b) use diverse decision-making processes, citing heuristics to reduce decision complexity; (c) can change their opinions; (d) sometimes lack confidence in their decisions (e.g., due to incomplete information); and (e) express enthusiasm and concern regarding AI assisting humans in kidney allocation decisions. Based on these findings, we discuss challenges of computationally modeling moral judgments {as a stand-in for human input}, highlight drawbacks of current approaches, and suggest future directions to address these issues.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Expected Variational Inequalities

Variational inequalities (VIs) encompass many fundamental problems in diverse areas ranging from engineering to economics and machine learning. However, their considerable expressivity comes at the cost of computational intractability. In this paper, we introduce and analyze a natural relaxation -- which we refer to as expected variational inequalities (EVIs) -- where the goal is to find a distribution that satisfies the VI constraint in expectation. By adapting recent techniques from game theory, we show that, unlike VIs, EVIs can be solved in polynomial time under general (nonmonotone) operators. EVIs capture the seminal notion of correlated equilibria, but enjoy a greater reach beyond games. We also employ our framework to capture and generalize several existing disparate results, including from settings such as smooth games, and games with coupled constraints or nonconcave utilities.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Computing Game Symmetries and Equilibria That Respect Them

Strategic interactions can be represented more concisely, and analyzed and solved more efficiently, if we are aware of the symmetries within the multiagent system. Symmetries also have conceptual implications, for example for equilibrium selection. We study the computational complexity of identifying and using symmetries. Using the classical framework of normal-form games, we consider game symmetries that can be across some or all players and/or actions. We find a strong connection between game symmetries and graph automorphisms, yielding graph automorphism and graph isomorphism completeness results for characterizing the symmetries present in a game. On the other hand, we also show that the problem becomes polynomial-time solvable when we restrict the consideration of actions in one of two ways. Next, we investigate when exactly game symmetries can be successfully leveraged for Nash equilibrium computation. We show that finding a Nash equilibrium that respects a given set of symmetries is PPAD- and CLS-complete in general-sum and team games respectively -- that is, exactly as hard as Brouwer fixed point and gradient descent problems. Finally, we present polynomial-time methods for the special cases where we are aware of a vast number of symmetries, or where the game is two-player zero-sum and we do not even know the symmetries.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

From Independence of Clones to Composition Consistency: A Hierarchy of Barriers to Strategic Nomination

We study two axioms for social choice functions that capture the impact of similar candidates: independence of clones (IoC) and composition consistency (CC). We clarify the relationship between these axioms by observing that CC is strictly more demanding than IoC, and investigate whether common voting rules that are known to be independent of clones (such as STV, Ranked Pairs, Schulze, and Split Cycle) are composition-consistent. While for most of these rules the answer is negative, we identify a variant of Ranked Pairs that satisfies CC. Further, we show how to efficiently modify any (neutral) social choice function so that it satisfies CC, while maintaining its other desirable properties. Our transformation relies on the hierarchical representation of clone structures via PQ-trees. We extend our analysis to social preference functions. Finally, we interpret IoC and CC as measures of robustness against strategic manipulation by candidates, with IoC corresponding to strategy-proofness and CC corresponding to obvious strategy-proofness.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI

The rapid development of advanced AI agents and the imminent deployment of many instances of these agents will give rise to multi-agent systems of unprecedented complexity. These systems pose novel and under-explored risks. In this report, we provide a structured taxonomy of these risks by identifying three key failure modes (miscoordination, conflict, and collusion) based on agents' incentives, as well as seven key risk factors (information asymmetries, network effects, selection pressures, destabilising dynamics, commitment problems, emergent agency, and multi-agent security) that can underpin them. We highlight several important instances of each risk, as well as promising directions to help mitigate them. By anchoring our analysis in a range of real-world examples and experimental evidence, we illustrate the distinct challenges posed by multi-agent systems and their implications for the safety, governance, and ethics of advanced AI.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2025

An Interpretable Automated Mechanism Design Framework with Large Language Models

Mechanism design has long been a cornerstone of economic theory, with traditional approaches relying on mathematical derivations. Recently, automated approaches, including differentiable economics with neural networks, have emerged for designing payments and allocations. While both analytical and automated methods have advanced the field, they each face significant weaknesses: mathematical derivations are not automated and often struggle to scale to complex problems, while automated and especially neural-network-based approaches suffer from limited interpretability. To address these challenges, we introduce a novel framework that reformulates mechanism design as a code generation task. Using large language models (LLMs), we generate heuristic mechanisms described in code and evolve them to optimize over some evaluation metrics while ensuring key design criteria (e.g., strategy-proofness) through a problem-specific fixing process. This fixing process ensures any mechanism violating the design criteria is adjusted to satisfy them, albeit with some trade-offs in performance metrics. These trade-offs are factored in during the LLM-based evolution process. The code generation capabilities of LLMs enable the discovery of novel and interpretable solutions, bridging the symbolic logic of mechanism design and the generative power of modern AI. Through rigorous experimentation, we demonstrate that LLM-generated mechanisms achieve competitive performance while offering greater interpretability compared to previous approaches. Notably, our framework can rediscover existing manually designed mechanisms and provide insights into neural-network based solutions through Programming-by-Example. These results highlight the potential of LLMs to not only automate but also enhance the transparency and scalability of mechanism design, ensuring safe deployment of the mechanisms in society.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Game Theory with Simulation in the Presence of Unpredictable Randomisation

AI agents will be predictable in certain ways that traditional agents are not. Where and how can we leverage this predictability in order to improve social welfare? We study this question in a game-theoretic setting where one agent can pay a fixed cost to simulate the other in order to learn its mixed strategy. As a negative result, we prove that, in contrast to prior work on pure-strategy simulation, enabling mixed-strategy simulation may no longer lead to improved outcomes for both players in all so-called "generalised trust games". In fact, mixed-strategy simulation does not help in any game where the simulatee's action can depend on that of the simulator. We also show that, in general, deciding whether simulation introduces Pareto-improving Nash equilibria in a given game is NP-hard. As positive results, we establish that mixed-strategy simulation can improve social welfare if the simulator has the option to scale their level of trust, if the players face challenges with both trust and coordination, or if maintaining some level of privacy is essential for enabling cooperation.

cs.GT↗