Beyond Winning Strategies: Admissible and Admissible Winning Strategies for Quantitative Reachability Games
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines winning strategies for quantitative reachability games, where the goal is to maximize the probability of reaching a target state.
- The authors introduce the concepts of "admissible" and "admissible winning" strategies, which provide additional guarantees beyond just winning the game.
- They analyze the computational complexity of finding these types of strategies and provide algorithms for constructing them.
Plain English Explanation
In many real-world situations, we need to make decisions that involve uncertainty or competition, such as in Automated Negotiation, Voting Systems, or Auctions. These can be modeled as "games" where each player tries to achieve the best outcome for themselves.
One common type of game is a "quantitative reachability game," where the goal is to maximize the probability of reaching a specific target state, like winning a competition or achieving a certain milestone. The authors of this paper looked at ways to find "winning strategies" for these types of games, but they also introduced the idea of "admissible" and "admissible winning" strategies.
An admissible strategy is one that is not only winning, but also doesn't do anything unnecessary or "wasteful" - it's the most efficient way to win. An admissible winning strategy takes this a step further, ensuring that not only is the strategy winning, but it's also the most efficient and sensible way to do so.
The paper analyzes how difficult it is to find these types of strategies, and provides algorithms for constructing them. This could be useful in a wide range of applications, from Managing Imperfect Information to Approximate Exploration in Reinforcement Learning.
Technical Explanation
The paper focuses on quantitative reachability games, where the goal is to maximize the probability of reaching a target state. The authors introduce the concepts of admissible and admissible winning strategies, which provide additional guarantees beyond just winning the game.
An admissible strategy is one that is winning and, at the same time, is not "wasteful" - it doesn't do anything unnecessary to achieve the winning objective. An admissible winning strategy takes this a step further, ensuring that the winning strategy is also the most efficient and sensible way to win.
The authors analyze the computational complexity of finding these types of strategies and provide algorithms for constructing them. Specifically, they show that the problem of finding an admissible winning strategy is PSPACE-complete, while the problem of finding an admissible strategy is in NP.
The paper also explores the connections between admissible strategies and the concept of dominance in game theory, and discusses how these strategies can be used to reason about the behavior of players in games with quantitative objectives.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a rigorous theoretical analysis of admissible and admissible winning strategies for quantitative reachability games, which is a valuable contribution to the field of game theory and decision-making under uncertainty.
One potential limitation of the research is that it focuses solely on the theoretical aspects and does not provide any empirical evaluation of the proposed algorithms or their performance in real-world scenarios. It would be interesting to see how these strategies perform in practical applications, such as in Automated Negotiation or Voting Systems.
Additionally, the paper does not address the issue of how to handle situations where there are multiple admissible or admissible winning strategies. In such cases, it might be necessary to introduce further criteria or decision-making mechanisms to select the most appropriate strategy.
Overall, the paper lays a strong theoretical foundation for understanding and reasoning about winning strategies in quantitative reachability games, and the concepts introduced could have important implications for various decision-making and optimization problems.
Conclusion
This paper introduces the novel concepts of admissible and admissible winning strategies for quantitative reachability games, which provide stronger guarantees than simply finding a winning strategy. The authors analyze the computational complexity of these problems and provide algorithms for constructing the desired strategies.
The insights from this research could have applications in a wide range of areas, from Automated Negotiation to Voting Systems and Auctions, where decision-makers need to find efficient and sensible strategies to achieve their objectives. While the paper focuses on the theoretical aspects, future work could explore the practical implications and performance of these strategies in real-world scenarios.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Beyond Winning Strategies: Admissible and Admissible Winning Strategies for Quantitative Reachability Games
Karan Muvvala, Qi Heng Ho, Morteza Lahijanian
Classical reactive synthesis approaches aim to synthesize a reactive system that always satisfies a given specifications. These approaches often reduce to playing a two-player zero-sum game where the goal is to synthesize a winning strategy. However, in many pragmatic domains, such as robotics, a winning strategy does not always exist, yet it is desirable for the system to make an effort to satisfy its requirements instead of giving up. To this end, this paper investigates the notion of admissible strategies, which formalize doing-your-best, in quantitative reachability games. We show that, unlike the qualitative case, quantitative admissible strategies are history-dependent even for finite payoff functions, making synthesis a challenging task. In addition, we prove that admissible strategies always exist but may produce undesirable optimistic behaviors. To mitigate this, we propose admissible winning strategies, which enforce the best possible outcome while being admissible. We show that both strategies always exist but are not memoryless. We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of both strategies and propose synthesis algorithms. Finally, we illustrate the strategies on gridworld and robot manipulator domains.
Read more8/27/2024
🎯
0
ApproxED: Approximate exploitability descent via learned best responses
Carlos Martin, Tuomas Sandholm
There has been substantial progress on finding game-theoretic equilibria. Most of that work has focused on games with finite, discrete action spaces. However, many games involving space, time, money, and other fine-grained quantities have continuous action spaces (or are best modeled as having such). We study the problem of finding an approximate Nash equilibrium of games with continuous action sets. The standard measure of closeness to Nash equilibrium is exploitability, which measures how much players can benefit from unilaterally changing their strategy. We propose two new methods that minimize an approximation of exploitability with respect to the strategy profile. The first method uses a learned best-response function, which takes the current strategy profile as input and outputs candidate best responses for each player. The strategy profile and best-response functions are trained simultaneously, with the former trying to minimize exploitability while the latter tries to maximize it. The second method maintains an ensemble of candidate best responses for each player. In each iteration, the best-performing elements of each ensemble are used to update the current strategy profile. The strategy profile and ensembles are simultaneously trained to minimize and maximize the approximate exploitability, respectively. We evaluate our methods on various continuous games and GAN training, showing that they outperform prior methods.
Read more6/14/2024
0
Strategy-Proof Auctions through Conformal Prediction
Roy Maor Lotan, Inbal Talgam-Cohen, Yaniv Romano
Auctions are key for maximizing sellers' revenue and ensuring truthful bidding among buyers. Recently, an approach known as differentiable economics based on deep learning shows promise in learning optimal auction mechanisms for multiple items and participants. However, this approach has no guarantee of strategy-proofness at test time. Strategy-proofness is crucial as it ensures that buyers are incentivized to bid their true valuations, leading to optimal and fair auction outcomes without the risk of manipulation. Building on conformal prediction, we introduce a novel approach to achieve strategy-proofness with rigorous statistical guarantees. The key novelties of our method are: (i) the formulation of a regret prediction model, used to quantify at test time violations of strategy-proofness; and (ii) an auction acceptance rule that leverages the predicted regret to ensure that for a new auction, the data-driven mechanism meets the strategy-proofness requirement with high probability (e.g., 99%). Numerical experiments demonstrate the necessity for rigorous guarantees, the validity of our theoretical results, and the applicability of our proposed method.
Read more7/9/2024
0
Strategizing against Q-learners: A Control-theoretical Approach
Yuksel Arslantas, Ege Yuceel, Muhammed O. Sayin
In this paper, we explore the susceptibility of the independent Q-learning algorithms (a classical and widely used multi-agent reinforcement learning method) to strategic manipulation of sophisticated opponents in normal-form games played repeatedly. We quantify how much strategically sophisticated agents can exploit naive Q-learners if they know the opponents' Q-learning algorithm. To this end, we formulate the strategic actors' interactions as a stochastic game (whose state encompasses Q-function estimates of the Q-learners) as if the Q-learning algorithms are the underlying dynamical system. We also present a quantization-based approximation scheme to tackle the continuum state space and analyze its performance for two competing strategic actors and a single strategic actor both analytically and numerically.
Read more7/17/2024