Bilevel programming methods for computing single-leader-multi-follower equilibria in normal-form and polymatrix games

The concept of leader-follower (or Stackelberg) equilibrium plays a central role in a number of real-world applications bordering on mathematical optimization and game theory. While the single-follower case has been investigated since the inception of bilevel programming with the seminal work of von Stackelberg, results for the case with multiple followers are only sporadic and not many computationally affordable methods are available. In this work, we consider Stackelberg games with two or more followers who play a (pure or mixed) Nash equilibrium once the leader has committed to a (pure or mixed) strategy, focusing on normal-form and polymatrix games. As customary in bilevel programming, we address the two extreme cases where, if the leader’s commitment originates more Nash equilibria in the followers’ game, one which either maximizes (optimistic case) or minimizes (pessimistic case) the leader’s utility is selected. First, we show that, in both cases and when assuming mixed strategies, the optimization problem associated with the search problem of finding a Stackelberg equilibrium is $$\mathcal {NP}$$ NP -hard and not in Poly- $$\mathcal {APX}$$ APX unless $$\mathcal {P} = \mathcal {NP}$$ P = NP . We then consider different situations based on whether the leader or the followers can play mixed strategies or are restricted to pure strategies only, proposing exact nonconvex mathematical programming formulations for the optimistic case for normal-form and polymatrix games. For the pessimistic problem, which cannot be tackled with a (single-level) mathematical programming formulation, we propose a heuristic black-box algorithm. All the methods and formulations that we propose are thoroughly evaluated computationally.

[1]  Sven Leyffer,et al.  Solving multi-leader–common-follower games , 2010, Optim. Methods Softw..

[2]  Martine Labbé,et al.  Bilevel programming and price setting problems , 2016, Ann. Oper. Res..

[3]  Xiaotie Deng,et al.  Settling the Complexity of Two-Player Nash Equilibrium , 2006, 2006 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS'06).

[4]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Commitment to Correlated Strategies , 2011, AAAI.

[5]  Bo An,et al.  GUARDS and PROTECT: next generation applications of security games , 2011, SECO.

[6]  Edoardo Amaldi,et al.  Improving Cutting Plane Generation with 0-1 Inequalities by Bi-criteria Separation , 2010, SEA.

[7]  Gerhard J. Woeginger,et al.  Bilevel Knapsack with Interdiction Constraints , 2016, INFORMS J. Comput..

[8]  Stefano Coniglio,et al.  Methods for Finding Leader-Follower Equilibria with Multiple Followers: (Extended Abstract) , 2016, AAMAS.

[9]  Alberto Costa,et al.  Black-Box Optimization of Lighting Simulation in Architectural Design , 2014, CSDM Asia.

[10]  Stefano Coniglio,et al.  Pessimistic Leader-Follower Equilibria with Multiple Followers , 2017, IJCAI.

[11]  Edoardo Amaldi,et al.  Coordinated cutting plane generation via multi-objective separation , 2014, Math. Program..

[12]  Bernhard von Stengel,et al.  Leadership games with convex strategy sets , 2010, Games Econ. Behav..

[13]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Mixed-Integer Programming Methods for Finding Nash Equilibria , 2005, AAAI.

[14]  John F. Nash,et al.  EQUILIBRIUM POINTS IN 𝑛-PERSON GAMES , 2020 .

[15]  Stefano Coniglio,et al.  Computing a Pessimistic Leader-Follower Equilibrium with Multiple Followers: the Mixed-Pure Case , 2018, ArXiv.

[16]  Stefano Coniglio,et al.  Leadership in Singleton Congestion Games: What is Hard and What is Easy , 2018, Artif. Intell..

[17]  James E. Falk,et al.  Jointly Constrained Biconvex Programming , 1983, Math. Oper. Res..

[18]  Stefano Coniglio,et al.  Leadership in Singleton Congestion Games , 2018, IJCAI.

[19]  Stefano Coniglio,et al.  On the Generation of Cutting Planes which Maximize the Bound Improvement , 2015, SEA.

[20]  Edoardo Amaldi,et al.  Network Optimization Problems Subject to Max-Min Fair Flow Allocation , 2013, IEEE Communications Letters.

[21]  Bernhard von Stengel,et al.  Computation of Nash equilibria in finite games: introduction to the symposium , 2010 .

[22]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  Simple search methods for finding a Nash equilibrium , 2004, Games Econ. Behav..

[23]  Carlos Henggeler Antunes,et al.  An illustration of different concepts of solutions in semivectorial bilevel programming , 2016, 2016 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI).

[24]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  New complexity results about Nash equilibria , 2008, Games Econ. Behav..

[25]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  Multiagent Systems - Algorithmic, Game-Theoretic, and Logical Foundations , 2009 .

[26]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  Run the GAMUT: a comprehensive approach to evaluating game-theoretic algorithms , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[27]  Martin Skutella,et al.  Protection of flows under targeted attacks , 2017, Oper. Res. Lett..

[28]  Garth P. McCormick,et al.  Computability of global solutions to factorable nonconvex programs: Part I — Convex underestimating problems , 1976, Math. Program..

[29]  J. Nash Equilibrium Points in N-Person Games. , 1950, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  Heinrich von Stackelberg Market Structure and Equilibrium , 2010 .

[31]  Manish Jain,et al.  Computing optimal randomized resource allocations for massive security games , 2009, AAMAS 2009.

[32]  Warren P. Adams,et al.  A hierarchy of relaxation between the continuous and convex hull representations , 1990 .

[33]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Computing the optimal strategy to commit to , 2006, EC '06.