A computational characterization of multiagent games with fallacious rewards

Agents engaged in noncooperative interaction may seek to achieve a Nash equilibrium; this requires that agents be aware of others’ rewards. Misinformation about rewards leads to a gap between the real interaction model—the explicit game—and the game that the agents perceive—the implicit game. If estimation of rewards is based on modeling, agents may err. We define a robust equilibrium, which is impervious to slight perturbations, and prove that one can be efficiently pinpointed. We then relax this concept by introducing persistent equilibrium pairs—pairs of equilibria of the explicit and implicit games with nearly identical rewards—and resolve associated complexity questions. Assuming that valuations for different outcomes of the game are reported by agents in advance of play, agents may choose to report false rewards in order to improve their eventual payoff. We define the Game-Manipulation (GM) decision problem, and fully characterize the complexity of this problem and some variants.

[1]  Eitan Zemel,et al.  Nash and correlated equilibria: Some complexity considerations , 1989 .

[2]  Michael P. Wellman,et al.  Nash Q-Learning for General-Sum Stochastic Games , 2003, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[3]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Algorithms, Games, and the Internet , 2001, ICALP.

[4]  P. Morris Introduction to Game Theory , 1994 .

[5]  Takashi Ui,et al.  Robust Equilibria of Potential Games , 2001 .

[6]  Michael L. Littman,et al.  Friend-or-Foe Q-learning in General-Sum Games , 2001, ICML.

[7]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Junta Distributions and the Average-Case Complexity of Manipulating Elections , 2007, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[8]  Keith B. Hall,et al.  Correlated Q-Learning , 2003, ICML.

[9]  Ariel Rubinstein,et al.  A Course in Game Theory , 1995 .

[10]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Complexity Results about Nash Equilibria , 2002, IJCAI.

[11]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Communication complexity as a lower bound for learning in games , 2004, ICML.

[12]  Eduardo Alonso Fernández,et al.  Rules of encounter: designing conventions for automated negotiation among computers , 1995 .

[13]  Manuela M. Veloso,et al.  Existence of Multiagent Equilibria with Limited Agents , 2004, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[14]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  How many candidates are needed to make elections hard to manipulate? , 2003, TARK '03.

[15]  Manuela M. Veloso,et al.  Multiagent learning using a variable learning rate , 2002, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Jeffrey S. Rosenschein,et al.  Achieving Allocatively-Efficient and Strongly Budget-Balanced Mechanisms in the Network Flow Domain for Bounded-Rational Agents , 2005, IJCAI.

[17]  Vincent Conitzer,et al.  Complexity of manipulating elections with few candidates , 2002, AAAI/IAAI.