DOCSLIB.ORG

Intrinsic Robustness of the Price of Anarchy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Intrinsic Robustness of the Price of Anarchy Intrinsic Robustness of the Price of Anarchy Tim Roughgarden Department of Computer Science Stanford University 353 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305 [email protected] ABSTRACT ations, with large networks being one obvious example. The The price of anarchy, defined as the ratio of the worst-case past ten years have provided an encouraging counterpoint objective function value of a Nash equilibrium of a game to this widespread equilibrium inefficiency: in a number of and that of an optimal outcome, quantifies the inefficiency of interesting application domains, decentralized optimization selfish behavior. Remarkably good bounds on this measure by competing individuals provably approximates the optimal are known for a wide range of application domains. How- outcome. ever, such bounds are meaningful only if a game’s partici- A rigorous guarantee of this type requires a formal behav- pants successfully reach a Nash equilibrium. This drawback ioral model, in order to define “the outcome of self-interested motivates inefficiency bounds that apply more generally to behavior”. The majority of previous research studies pure- weaker notions of equilibria, such as mixed Nash equilibria, strategy Nash equilibria, defined as follows. Each player i correlated equilibria, or to sequences of outcomes generated selects a strategy si from a set Si, like a path in a network. by natural experimentation strategies, such as simultaneous The cost Ci(s) incurred by a player i in a game is a function regret-minimization. of the entire vector s of players’ chosen strategies, which We prove a general and fundamental connection between is called a strategy profile or an outcome. By definition, a the price of anarchy and its seemingly more general relatives. strategy profile s of a game is a pure Nash equilibrium if no First, we identify a“canonical sufficient condition”for an up- player can decrease its cost via a unilateral deviation: 0 per bound on the price of anarchy of pure Nash equilibria, Ci(s) ≤ Ci(si, s−i) (1) which we call a smoothness argument. Second, we prove an 0 “extension theorem”: every bound on the price of anarchy for every i and si ∈ Si, where s−i denotes the strategies that is derived via a smoothness argument extends automat- chosen by the players other than i in s. These concepts can ically, with no quantitative degradation in the bound, to be defined equally well via payoff-maximization rather than mixed Nash equilibria, correlated equilibria, and the aver- cost-minimization; see also Example 2.5. age objective function value of every no-regret sequence of The price of anarchy (POA) measures the suboptimality joint repeated play. Third, we prove that in routing games, caused by self-interested behavior. Given a game, a notion smoothness arguments are “complete” in a proof-theoretic of an “equilibrium” (such as pure Nash equilibria), and an sense: despite their automatic generality, they are guaran- objective function (such as the sum of players’ costs), the teed to produce an optimal worst-case upper bound on the POA of the game is defined as the ratio between the largest price of anarchy. cost of an equilibrium and the cost of an optimal outcome. An upper bound on the POA has an attractive worst-case flavor: it applies to every possible equilibrium and obvi- 1. INTRODUCTION ates the need to predict a single outcome of selfish behavior. Every student of game theory learns early and often that Many researchers have proved remarkably good bounds on equilibria are inefficient — self-interested behavior by au- the POA in a wide range of models; see [17, Chapters 17–21] tonomous decision-makers generally leads to an outcome and the references therein. inferior to the one that a hypothetical benevolent dictator would choose. Such inefficiency is ubiquitous in real-world 1.1 The Need For More Robust Bounds situations and arises for many different reasons: congestion A good bound on the price of anarchy of a game is not externalities, network effects, mis-coordination, and so on. enough to conclude that self-interested behavior is relatively It can also be costly or infeasible to eliminate in many situ- benign. Such a bound is meaningful only if a game’s par- ticipants successfully reach an equilibrium. For pure Nash The original version of this article was published in the equilibria, however, there are a number of reasons why this Proceedings of the 41st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory might not occur: perhaps the players fail to coordinate on of Computing, May 2009. one of multiple equilibria; or they are playing a game in Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for which computing a pure Nash equilibrium is a computation- personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are ally intractable problem [9]; or, even more fundamentally, a not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies game in which pure Nash equilibria do not exist. These cri- bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to tiques motivate worst-case performance bounds that apply republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. to as wide a range of outcomes as possible, and under min- Copyright 2012 ACM 0001-0782/08/0X00 ...$5.00. imal assumptions about how players play and coordinate in Many of the POA upper bounds in the literature can easy to be recast as instantiations of this canonical method. No Regret (CCE) compute/ (B) We prove an “extension theorem”: every bound on the learn CorEq price of anarchy that is derived via a smoothness ar- gument extends automatically, with no quantitative always degradation in the bound, to all of the more general exists, hard MNE equilibrium concepts pictured in Figure 1. to compute (C) We prove that routing games, with cost functions re- need not stricted to some arbitrary set, are “tight” in the fol- PNE lowing sense: smoothness arguments, despite their au- exist, hard to compute tomatic generality, are guaranteed to produce optimal worst-case upper bounds on the POA, even for the set of pure Nash equilibria. Thus, in these classes of games, the worst-case POA is the same for each of the equilibrium concepts of Figure 1. Figure 1: Generalizations of pure Nash equilibria. “PNE” stands for pure Nash equilibria; “MNE” for mixed Nash equilibria; “CorEq” for correlated equi- 2. SMOOTH GAMES libria; and “No Regret (CCE)” for coarse correlated equilibria, which are the empirical distributions cor- 2.1 Definitions responding to repeated joint play in which every By a cost-minimization game, we mean a game — play- player has no (external) regret. ers, strategies, and cost functions — together with the joint Pk cost objective function C(s) = i=1 Ci(s). Essentially, a “smooth game” is a cost-minimization game that admits a POA bound of a canonical type (a “smoothness argument”). a game. We give the formal definition and then explain how to inter- This article presents a general theory of “robust” bounds pret it. on the price of anarchy. We focus on the hierarchy of fun- damental equilibrium concepts shown in Figure 1; the full Definition 2.1 (Smooth Games) A cost-minimization game version [22] discusses additional generalizations of pure Nash is (λ, µ)-smooth if for every two outcomes s and s∗, equilibria, including approximate equilibria and outcome se- k quences generated by best-response dynamics. We formally X ∗ ∗ C (s , s ) ≤ λ · C(s ) + µ · C(s). (2) define the equilibrium concepts of Figure 1 — mixed Nash i i −i i=1 equilibria, correlated equilibria, and coarse correlated equi- libria — in Section 3.1, but mention next some of their im- Roughly, smoothness controls the cost of a set of“one-dimensional portant properties. perturbations” of an outcome, as a function of both the ini- Enlarging the set of equilibria weakens the behavioral and tial outcome s and the perturbations s∗. technical assumptions necessary to justify equilibrium anal- We claim that if a game is (λ, µ)-smooth, with λ > 0 and ysis. First, while there are games with no pure Nash equilib- µ < 1, then each of its pure Nash equilibria s has cost at ria — “Matching Pennies” being a simple example — every most λ/(1 − µ) times that of an optimal solution s∗. In (finite) game has at least one mixed Nash equilibrium [16]. proof, we derive As a result, the “non-existence critique” for pure Nash equi- k libria does not apply to any of the more general concepts in X C(s) = Ci(s) (3) Figure 1. Second, while computing a mixed Nash equilib- i=1 rium is in general a computationally intractable problem [5, k 8], computing a correlated equilibrium is not (see, e.g., [17, X ∗ ≤ Ci(si , s−i) (4) Chapter 2]). Thus, the “intractability critique” for pure and i=1 mixed Nash equilibria does not apply to the two largest sets ∗ ≤ λ · C(s ) + µ · C(s), (5) of Figure 1. More importantly, these two sets are “easily learnable”: when a game is played repeatedly over time, where (3) follows from the definition of the objective func- there are natural classes of learning dynamics — processes tion; inequality (4) follows from the Nash equilibrium condi- by which a player chooses its strategy for the next time step, tion (1), applied once to each player i with the hypothetical ∗ as a function only of its own payoffs and the history of play deviation si ; and inequality (5) follows from the defining — that are guaranteed to converge quickly to these sets of condition (2) of a smooth game.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Potential Games. Congestion Games. Price of Anarchy and Price of Stability
    8803 Connections between Learning, Game Theory, and Optimization Maria-Florina Balcan Lecture 13: October 5, 2010 Reading: Algorithmic Game Theory book, Chapters 17, 18 and 19. Price of Anarchy and Price of Staility We assume a (finite) game with n players, where player i's set of possible strategies is Si. We let s = (s1; : : : ; sn) denote the (joint) vector of strategies selected by players in the space S = S1 × · · · × Sn of joint actions. The game assigns utilities ui : S ! R or costs ui : S ! R to any player i at any joint action s 2 S: any player maximizes his utility ui(s) or minimizes his cost ci(s). As we recall from the introductory lectures, any finite game has a mixed Nash equilibrium (NE), but a finite game may or may not have pure Nash equilibria. Today we focus on games with pure NE. Some NE are \better" than others, which we formalize via a social objective function f : S ! R. Two classic social objectives are: P sum social welfare f(s) = i ui(s) measures social welfare { we make sure that the av- erage satisfaction of the population is high maxmin social utility f(s) = mini ui(s) measures the satisfaction of the most unsatisfied player A social objective function quantifies the efficiency of each strategy profile. We can now measure how efficient a Nash equilibrium is in a specific game. Since a game may have many NE we have at least two natural measures, corresponding to the best and the worst NE. We first define the best possible solution in a game Definition 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes
    GRADUATE GAME THEORY LECTURE NOTES BY OMER TAMUZ California Institute of Technology 2018 Acknowledgments These lecture notes are partially adapted from Osborne and Rubinstein [29], Maschler, Solan and Zamir [23], lecture notes by Federico Echenique, and slides by Daron Acemoglu and Asu Ozdaglar. I am indebted to Seo Young (Silvia) Kim and Zhuofang Li for their help in finding and correcting many errors. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. 2 Contents 1 Extensive form games with perfect information 7 1.1 Tic-Tac-Toe ........................................ 7 1.2 The Sweet Fifteen Game ................................ 7 1.3 Chess ............................................ 7 1.4 Definition of extensive form games with perfect information ........... 10 1.5 The ultimatum game .................................. 10 1.6 Equilibria ......................................... 11 1.7 The centipede game ................................... 11 1.8 Subgames and subgame perfect equilibria ...................... 13 1.9 The dollar auction .................................... 14 1.10 Backward induction, Kuhn’s Theorem and a proof of Zermelo’s Theorem ... 15 2 Strategic form games 17 2.1 Definition ......................................... 17 2.2 Nash equilibria ...................................... 17 2.3 Classical examples .................................... 17 2.4 Dominated strategies .................................. 22 2.5 Repeated elimination of dominated strategies ................... 22 2.6 Dominant strategies ..................................
    [Show full text]
  • Price of Competition and Dueling Games
    Price of Competition and Dueling Games Sina Dehghani ∗† MohammadTaghi HajiAghayi ∗† Hamid Mahini ∗† Saeed Seddighin ∗† Abstract We study competition in a general framework introduced by Immorlica, Kalai, Lucier, Moitra, Postlewaite, and Tennenholtz [19] and answer their main open question. Immorlica et al. [19] considered classic optimization problems in terms of competition and introduced a general class of games called dueling games. They model this competition as a zero-sum game, where two players are competing for a user’s satisfaction. In their main and most natural game, the ranking duel, a user requests a webpage by submitting a query and players output an or- dering over all possible webpages based on the submitted query. The user tends to choose the ordering which displays her requested webpage in a higher rank. The goal of both players is to maximize the probability that her ordering beats that of her opponent and gets the user’s at- tention. Immorlica et al. [19] show this game directs both players to provide suboptimal search results. However, they leave the following as their main open question: “does competition be- tween algorithms improve or degrade expected performance?” (see the introduction for more quotes) In this paper, we resolve this question for the ranking duel and a more general class of dueling games. More precisely, we study the quality of orderings in a competition between two players. This game is a zero-sum game, and thus any Nash equilibrium of the game can be described by minimax strategies. Let the value of the user for an ordering be a function of the position of her requested item in the corresponding ordering, and the social welfare for an ordering be the expected value of the corresponding ordering for the user.
    [Show full text]
  • The Three Types of Collusion: Fixing Prices, Rivals, and Rules Robert H
    University of Baltimore Law ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law All Faculty Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 2000 The Three Types of Collusion: Fixing Prices, Rivals, and Rules Robert H. Lande University of Baltimore School of Law, [email protected] Howard P. Marvel Ohio State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, and the Law and Economics Commons Recommended Citation The Three Types of Collusion: Fixing Prices, Rivals, and Rules, 2000 Wis. L. Rev. 941 (2000) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES THE THREE TYPES OF COLLUSION: FIXING PRICES, RIVALS, AND RULES ROBERTH. LANDE * & HOWARDP. MARVEL** Antitrust law has long held collusion to be paramount among the offenses that it is charged with prohibiting. The reason for this prohibition is simple----collusion typically leads to monopoly-like outcomes, including monopoly profits that are shared by the colluding parties. Most collusion cases can be classified into two established general categories.) Classic, or "Type I" collusion involves collective action to raise price directly? Firms can also collude to disadvantage rivals in a manner that causes the rivals' output to diminish or causes their behavior to become chastened. This "Type 11" collusion in turn allows the colluding firms to raise prices.3 Many important collusion cases, however, do not fit into either of these categories.
    [Show full text]
  • Prophylaxy Copie.Pdf
    Social interactions and the prophylaxis of SI epidemics on networks Géraldine Bouveret, Antoine Mandel To cite this version: Géraldine Bouveret, Antoine Mandel. Social interactions and the prophylaxis of SI epi- demics on networks. Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, 2021, 93, pp.102486. 10.1016/j.jmateco.2021.102486. halshs-03165772 HAL Id: halshs-03165772 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-03165772 Submitted on 17 Mar 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Social interactions and the prophylaxis of SI epidemics on networkssa G´eraldineBouveretb Antoine Mandel c March 17, 2021 Abstract We investigate the containment of epidemic spreading in networks from a nor- mative point of view. We consider a susceptible/infected model in which agents can invest in order to reduce the contagiousness of network links. In this setting, we study the relationships between social efficiency, individual behaviours and network structure. First, we characterise individual and socially efficient behaviour using the notions of communicability and exponential centrality. Second, we show, by computing the Price of Anarchy, that the level of inefficiency can scale up to lin- early with the number of agents.
    [Show full text]
  • Collusion Constrained Equilibrium
    Theoretical Economics 13 (2018), 307–340 1555-7561/20180307 Collusion constrained equilibrium Rohan Dutta Department of Economics, McGill University David K. Levine Department of Economics, European University Institute and Department of Economics, Washington University in Saint Louis Salvatore Modica Department of Economics, Università di Palermo We study collusion within groups in noncooperative games. The primitives are the preferences of the players, their assignment to nonoverlapping groups, and the goals of the groups. Our notion of collusion is that a group coordinates the play of its members among different incentive compatible plans to best achieve its goals. Unfortunately, equilibria that meet this requirement need not exist. We instead introduce the weaker notion of collusion constrained equilibrium. This al- lows groups to put positive probability on alternatives that are suboptimal for the group in certain razor’s edge cases where the set of incentive compatible plans changes discontinuously. These collusion constrained equilibria exist and are a subset of the correlated equilibria of the underlying game. We examine four per- turbations of the underlying game. In each case,we show that equilibria in which groups choose the best alternative exist and that limits of these equilibria lead to collusion constrained equilibria. We also show that for a sufficiently broad class of perturbations, every collusion constrained equilibrium arises as such a limit. We give an application to a voter participation game that shows how collusion constraints may be socially costly. Keywords. Collusion, organization, group. JEL classification. C72, D70. 1. Introduction As the literature on collective action (for example, Olson 1965) emphasizes, groups often behave collusively while the preferences of individual group members limit the possi- Rohan Dutta: [email protected] David K.
    [Show full text]
  • Correlated Equilibria and Communication in Games Françoise Forges
    Correlated equilibria and communication in games Françoise Forges To cite this version: Françoise Forges. Correlated equilibria and communication in games. Computational Complex- ity. Theory, Techniques, and Applications, pp.295-704, 2012, 10.1007/978-1-4614-1800-9_45. hal- 01519895 HAL Id: hal-01519895 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01519895 Submitted on 9 May 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Correlated Equilibrium and Communication in Games Françoise Forges, CEREMADE, Université Paris-Dauphine Article Outline Glossary I. De…nition of the Subject and its Importance II. Introduction III. Correlated Equilibrium: De…nition and Basic Properties IV. Correlated Equilibrium and Communication V. Correlated Equilibrium in Bayesian Games VI. Related Topics and Future Directions VII. Bibliography Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank Elchanan Ben-Porath, Frédéric Koessler, R. Vijay Krishna, Ehud Lehrer, Bob Nau, Indra Ray, Jérôme Renault, Eilon Solan, Sylvain Sorin, Bernhard von Stengel, Tristan Tomala, Amparo Ur- bano, Yannick Viossat and, especially, Olivier Gossner and Péter Vida, for useful comments and suggestions. Glossary Bayesian game: an interactive decision problem consisting of a set of n players, a set of types for every player, a probability distribution which ac- counts for the players’ beliefs over each others’ types, a set of actions for every player and a von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function de…ned over n-tuples of types and actions for every player.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Behavior in Queues
    Strategic behavior in queues Lecturer: Moshe Haviv1 Dates: 31 January – 4 February 2011 Abstract: The course will first introduce some concepts borrowed from non-cooperative game theory to the analysis of strategic behavior in queues. Among them: Nash equilibrium, socially optimal strategies, price of anarchy, evolutionarily stable strategies, avoid the crowd and follow the crowd. Various decision models will be considered. Among them: to join or not to join an M/M/1 or an M/G/1 queue, when to abandon the queue, when to arrive to a queue, and from which server to seek service (if at all). We will also look at the application of cooperative game theory concepts to queues. Among them: how to split the cost of waiting among customers and how to split the reward gained when servers pooled their resources. Program: 1. Basic concepts in strategic behavior in queues: Unobservable and observable queueing models, strategy profiles, to avoid or to follow the crowd, Nash equilibrium, evolutionarily stable strategy, social optimization, the price of anarchy. 2. Examples: to queue or not to queue, priority purchasing, retrials and abandonment, server selection. 3. Competition between servers. Examples: price war, capacity competition, discipline competition. 4. When to arrive to a queue so as to minimize waiting and tardiness costs? Examples: Poisson number of arrivals, fluid approximation. 5. Basic concepts in cooperative game theory: The Shapley value, the core, the Aumann-Shapley prices. Ex- amples: Cooperation among servers, charging customers based on the externalities they inflict on others. Bibliography: [1] M. Armony and M. Haviv, Price and delay competition between two service providers, European Journal of Operational Research 147 (2003) 32–50.
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Correlated Rationalizability
    Interim Correlated Rationalizability The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Dekel, Eddie, Drew Fudenberg, and Stephen Morris. 2007. Interim correlated rationalizability. Theoretical Economics 2, no. 1: 15-40. Published Version http://econtheory.org/ojs/index.php/te/article/view/20070015 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:3196333 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Theoretical Economics 2 (2007), 15–40 1555-7561/20070015 Interim correlated rationalizability EDDIE DEKEL Department of Economics, Northwestern University, and School of Economics, Tel Aviv University DREW FUDENBERG Department of Economics, Harvard University STEPHEN MORRIS Department of Economics, Princeton University This paper proposes the solution concept of interim correlated rationalizability, and shows that all types that have the same hierarchies of beliefs have the same set of interim-correlated-rationalizable outcomes. This solution concept charac- terizes common certainty of rationality in the universal type space. KEYWORDS. Rationalizability, incomplete information, common certainty, com- mon knowledge, universal type space. JEL CLASSIFICATION. C70, C72. 1. INTRODUCTION Harsanyi (1967–68) proposes solving games of incomplete
    [Show full text]
  • Tacit Collusion in Oligopoly"
    Tacit Collusion in Oligopoly Edward J. Green,y Robert C. Marshall,z and Leslie M. Marxx February 12, 2013 Abstract We examine the economics literature on tacit collusion in oligopoly markets and take steps toward clarifying the relation between econo- mists’analysis of tacit collusion and those in the legal literature. We provide examples of when the economic environment might be such that collusive pro…ts can be achieved without communication and, thus, when tacit coordination is su¢ cient to elevate pro…ts versus when com- munication would be required. The authors thank the Human Capital Foundation (http://www.hcfoundation.ru/en/), and especially Andrey Vavilov, for …nancial support. The paper bene…tted from discussions with Roger Blair, Louis Kaplow, Bill Kovacic, Vijay Krishna, Steven Schulenberg, and Danny Sokol. We thank Gustavo Gudiño for valuable research assistance. [email protected], Department of Economics, Penn State University [email protected], Department of Economics, Penn State University [email protected], Fuqua School of Business, Duke University 1 Introduction In this chapter, we examine the economics literature on tacit collusion in oligopoly markets and take steps toward clarifying the relation between tacit collusion in the economics and legal literature. Economists distinguish between tacit and explicit collusion. Lawyers, using a slightly di¤erent vocabulary, distinguish between tacit coordination, tacit agreement, and explicit collusion. In hopes of facilitating clearer communication between economists and lawyers, in this chapter, we attempt to provide a coherent resolution of the vernaculars used in the economics and legal literature regarding collusion.1 Perhaps the easiest place to begin is to de…ne explicit collusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterizing Solution Concepts in Terms of Common Knowledge Of
    Characterizing Solution Concepts in Terms of Common Knowledge of Rationality Joseph Y. Halpern∗ Computer Science Department Cornell University, U.S.A. e-mail: [email protected] Yoram Moses† Department of Electrical Engineering Technion—Israel Institute of Technology 32000 Haifa, Israel email: [email protected] March 15, 2018 Abstract Characterizations of Nash equilibrium, correlated equilibrium, and rationaliz- ability in terms of common knowledge of rationality are well known (Aumann 1987; arXiv:1605.01236v1 [cs.GT] 4 May 2016 Brandenburger and Dekel 1987). Analogous characterizations of sequential equi- librium, (trembling hand) perfect equilibrium, and quasi-perfect equilibrium in n-player games are obtained here, using results of Halpern (2009, 2013). ∗Supported in part by NSF under grants CTC-0208535, ITR-0325453, and IIS-0534064, by ONR un- der grant N00014-02-1-0455, by the DoD Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) pro- gram administered by the ONR under grants N00014-01-1-0795 and N00014-04-1-0725, and by AFOSR under grants F49620-02-1-0101 and FA9550-05-1-0055. †The Israel Pollak academic chair at the Technion; work supported in part by Israel Science Foun- dation under grant 1520/11. 1 Introduction Arguably, the major goal of epistemic game theory is to characterize solution concepts epistemically. Characterizations of the solution concepts that are most commonly used in strategic-form games, namely, Nash equilibrium, correlated equilibrium, and rational- izability, in terms of common knowledge of rationality are well known (Aumann 1987; Brandenburger and Dekel 1987). We show how to get analogous characterizations of sequential equilibrium (Kreps and Wilson 1982), (trembling hand) perfect equilibrium (Selten 1975), and quasi-perfect equilibrium (van Damme 1984) for arbitrary n-player games, using results of Halpern (2009, 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Imbalanced Collusive Security Games
    Imbalanced Collusive Security Games Han-Ching Ou, Milind Tambe, Bistra Dilkina, and Phebe Vayanos Computer Science Department, University of Southern California {hanchino,tambe,dilkina,phebe.vayanos }@usc.edu Abstract. Colluding adversaries is a crucial challenge for defenders in many real-world applications. Previous literature has provided Collusive Security Games (COSG) to model colluding adversaries, and provided models and algorithms to generate defender strategies to counter colluding adversaries, often by devising strategies that inhibit collusion [6]. Unfortunately, this previous work focused exclusively on situations with perfectly matched adversaries, i.e., where their rewards were symmetrically distributed. In the real world, however, defenders often face adversaries where their rewards are asymmetrically distributed. Such inherent asymmetry raises a question as to whether human adversaries would at- tempt to collude in such situations, and whether defender strategies to counter such collusion should focus on inhibiting collusion. To address these open ques- tions, this paper: (i) explores and theoretically analyzes Imbalanced Collusive Security Games (ICOSG) where defenders face adversaries with asymmetrically distributed rewards; (ii) conducts extensive experiments of three different adver- sary models involving 1800 real human subjects and (iii) derives novel analysis of the reason behind why bounded rational attackers models outperform perfectly rational attackers models. The key principle discovered as the result of our
    [Show full text]