Competitive Safety Analysis: Robust Decision-Making in Multi-Agent Systems

Much work in AI deals with the selection of proper actions in a given (known or unknown) environment. However, the way to select a proper action when facing other agents is quite unclear. Most work in AI adopts classical game-theoretic equilibrium analysis to predict agent behavior in such settings. This approach however does not provide us with any guarantee for the agent. In this paper we introduce competitive safety analysis. This approach bridges the gap between the desired normative AI approach, where a strategy should be selected in order to guarantee a desired payoff, and equilibrium analysis. We show that a safety level strategy is able to guarantee the value obtained in a Nash equilibrium, in several classical computer science settings. Then, we discuss the concept of competitive safety strategies, and illustrate its use in a decentralized load balancing setting, typical to network problems. In particular, we show that when we have many agents, it is possible to guarantee an expected payoff which is a factor of 8/9 of the payoff obtained in a Nash equilibrium. Our discussion of competitive safety analysis for decentralized load balancing is further developed to deal with many communication links and arbitrary speeds. Finally, we discuss the extension of the above concepts to Bayesian games, and illustrate their use in a basic auctions setup.

[1]  R. Rosenthal A class of games possessing pure-strategy Nash equilibria , 1973 .

[2]  A. Roth Values for Games without Sidepayments: Some Difficulties with Current Concepts , 1980 .

[3]  R. Aumann On the Non-transferable Utility Value: A Comment on the Roth-Shafer Examples [Values for Games without Side Payments: Some Difficulties with Current Concepts] [On the Existence and Interpretation of Value Allocations] , 1985 .

[4]  Jeffrey S. Rosenschein and Gilad Zlotkin Rules of Encounter , 1994 .

[5]  L. Shapley,et al.  Potential Games , 1994 .

[6]  Peter Norvig,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach , 1995 .

[7]  Victor R. Lesser,et al.  Equilibrium Analysis of the Possibilities of Unenforced Exchange in Multiagent Systems , 1995, IJCAI.

[8]  A. Mas-Colell,et al.  Microeconomic Theory , 1995 .

[9]  Ilya Segal,et al.  Solutions manual for Microeconomic theory : Mas-Colell, Whinston and Green , 1997 .

[10]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Negotiation and Cooperation in Multi-Agent Environments , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Allan Borodin,et al.  Online computation and competitive analysis , 1998 .

[12]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Algorithmic mechanism design (extended abstract) , 1999, STOC '99.

[13]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  How bad is selfish routing? , 2000, Proceedings 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[14]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Rational Competitive Analysis , 2001, IJCAI.

[15]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  The price of anarchy is independent of the network topology , 2002, STOC '02.

[16]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  How bad is selfish routing? , 2002, JACM.