Representing and Processing Infinite Belief Hierarchies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Reasoning About Others: Representing and Processing Infinite Belief Hierarchies Sviatoslav Brainov and Tuomas Sandholm Department of Computer Science Washington University St. Louis, MO 63130 {brainov, sandholm}@cs.wustl.edu Abstract to represent them. The second issue that deserves In this paper we focus on the problem of how infinite consideration is the feasibility of decision making belief hierarchies can be represented and reasoned based on infinitely nested beliefs. with in a computationally tractable way. When Finite hierarchies of beliefs have been studied by modeling nested beliefs one usually deals with two Gmytrasiewicz, Durfee and Vidal [11,12,13, 20]. The types of infinity: infinity of beliefs on every level of main advantage of their recursive modeling method is reflection and infinity of levels. In this work we that a solution can always be derived. The recursive assume that beliefs are finite at every level, while the modeling method is based on the assumption that number of levels may still be infinite. We propose a once an agent has run out of information his belief method for reducing the infinite regress of beliefs to a hierarchy can be cut at the point where there is no finite structure. We identify the class of infinite belief sufficient information. At the point of cutting, trees that allow finite representation. We propose a absence of information is represented by a uniform method for deciding on an action based on this distribution over the space of all possible states of the presentation. We apply the method to the analysis of world. The absence of information with which to auctions. We prove that if the agents’ prior beliefs model other agents implies that belief hierarchies are are not common knowledge, the revenue equivalence potentially finite. In our work we take a different theorem ceases to hold. That is, different auctions approach. We suppose that every belief hierarchy is yield different expected revenue. Our method can be potentially infinite and we consider the problem of used to design better auction protocols, given the how such a hierarchy can be represented using a finite participants’ belief structures. structure and manipulated in a computationally tractable way. We show that some infinite belief trees 1. Introduction allow finite representation in the form of pointed accessible graphs. Reasoning about others and interactive knowledge The most typical and the most studied example of have been the subject of continuous interest in infinite belief hierarchies is common knowledge multiagent systems [11,12,13,20], artificial intelligence [6,7,8] and game theory [1,3,15]. In [4,7,10]. Common knowledge means that everyone multiagent interaction, where an agent’s action knows that everyone knows that… Common interferes with other agents’ actions, hierarchies of knowledge, however, is a very special case of a belief beliefs arise in an essential way. Usually an agent’s hierarchy, namely, a hierarchy that consists of infinite optimal decision depends on what he believes the repetition of some event. Such a hierarchy can be other agents will do, which in turn depends on what reduced to a finite representation if we treat all the he believes the other agents believe about him, and so repetitions in the hierarchy as identical. In this paper on. An infinite regress of this kind gives rise to we extend this idea to infinite belief hierarchies with several important issues. The first issue concerns the more complex structure. methods for representing infinitely nested beliefs. In The research presented in this paper is closely order to maintain and update such beliefs, agents related to the work in game theory devoted to games need some finite and computationally tractable way with incomplete information [9]. In our work, the epistemic state of each agent is modeled as an infinite hierarchy of beliefs. Harsanyi suggested that each 1 shows a belief tree that represents first-order beliefs hierarchy of beliefs could be summarized by the of agent i. notion of agent’s type [9]. Later Mertens and Zamir Second order beliefs of agent i include his beliefs proved that the space of all possible types is closed in about the true state of the environment and his beliefs the sense that it is large enough to include even about agent j’s beliefs about the true state of the higher-order beliefs about itself [15]. Brandenburger environment. A second-order belief tree for agent i is has shown that if agents’ beliefs are coherent the represented in Figure 2. space of all possible types is closed [4]. i’s level of reflection The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we propose the notion of balanced strategy labeling. In p1 p Section 3 we show how regular belief trees can be n represented with finite trees. In section 4 we propose j’s level of reflection t1 ………………………….…. tn a graph representation for infinite belief trees. We σ1 σn apply our approach to the analysis of auctions in q1 q2 qn r1 r2 rn Section 5. Finally, the paper concludes by summarizing the results and providing directions for t1 t2 ……. tn t1 t2 ……. tn future research. 2. Infinite belief hierarchies Figure 2. A second-order belief tree σ Let 1 denote the first-order beliefs of agent j that In every multiagent interaction, an agent faces two the true state of the environment is t1 with probability types of uncertainty: basic and belief uncertainty. q1 and t2 with probability q2, and so on. Similarly, let Basic uncertainty relates to the elements of the σ n denote agent j’s beliefs that the true state of the physical environment, which are uncertain to agents. environment is t with probability r and t with We model basic uncertainty by a finite set T, 1 1 2 probability r2, and so on. According to Figure 2, agent T={t1,t2,…,tn}, including all uncertain elements of the i assigns probability p1 to the event that the true state physical environment. We represent agents’ basic is t and the first order beliefs of agent j are σ . At the beliefs as a subjective probability distributions on T. 1 1 same time, agent i believes that with probability pn While basic uncertainty deals with the elements of σ the true state is tn and agent j’s beliefs are n. the physical environment, belief uncertainty relates to Therefore, each level of a belief tree is associated other agents’ beliefs. That is, belief uncertainty with one of the agents. Levels alternate: the first level includes an agent’s beliefs about other agents’ corresponds to agent i, the second to agent j, and so beliefs, his beliefs about other agents’ beliefs about an. This alternation of levels produces alternation of other agents’ beliefs, and so on. beliefs: agent i believes that agent j believes that agent i believes, and so on. Agent i In this paper we assume that all belief trees are locally finite. That is, the branching factor of every p1 p2 pn node is finite. At first sight this may seem to be a substantial constraint. Since the cardinality of the space of all first-order beliefs is a continuum, one t1 t2 ….………. tn might expect that trees are not an adequate representation of an agent’s beliefs. In interactive Figure 1. A first-order belief tree epistemology and game theory [1,3,15] recursive Suppose that the agents under consideration are beliefs are usually represented as nested probability agent i and agent j. First order beliefs of agent i can distributions. Such representations, although be represented by a discrete probability distribution theoretically elegant, are not often tractable from a σ σ , =(p1,p2,…,pn). That is, agent i believes that the computational point of view. In this paper we focus true state of the environment is t1 with probability p1, on the problem of how beliefs can be represented in a t2 with probability p2, and so on. First order beliefs of computationally tractable way. In recursive modeling, agent i can be represented by a belief tree. The nodes one usually deals with two types of infinity: infinity of the tree are labeled with the elements of T and arcs of beliefs on every level of reflection and infinity of are labeled with probabilities. For every node, the levels. In this work we assume that beliefs are finite sum of the probabilities on outgoing arcs is 1. Figure at every level, while the number of levels can be infinite. We propose a method for reducing the the following notation: Γ ag infinite regress of beliefs to a finite structure. The i (v) returns the name of the agent whose ∈ Γ idea behind our approach is that some infinite belief beliefs are represented at node v, v N( i). Γ ag Γ → hierarchies display repetitive patterns and That is, i : N( i) {i,j}. For example, Γ ag regularities. This makes it possible to “merge” some i (v) returns i for every node that is Γ parts of an infinite hierarchy and to “cut” other parts. located at an odd-numbered level of i. Previous research of Gmytrasiewicz and Durfee Γ succ i (v) denotes the set of the successors of a node [11,20] assumes that both the number of levels of ∈ Γ v, v N( i). beliefs and the number of beliefs at each level are Γ prob i (v) denotes the probability distribution finite. ∈ Γ assigned to node v, v N( i). According to the game-theoretic tradition [1], the Γ With each node, v, of the belief tree, i, we assign belief structure of an agent can be represented by a Γ ag a strategy that tells what agent i (v) will do at that hierarchy of beliefs.