We study the Popular Matching (PM) problem in multiple models, where the preferences of the agents in the instance may change or may be unknown or uncertain. In particular, we study an Uncertainty model, where each agent has a possible set of preference lists, a Multilayer model, where there are layers of preference profiles, and a Robust popularity model, where any agent may move some other agents up or down some places in his preference list. Our goal is always to find a matching that is popular in any possible preference profile. We study both one-sided (only one class of the agents have preferences) and two-sided bipartite markets. In the one-sided model, we show that all our problems can be solved in polynomial time by utilizing the structure of popular matchings. We also obtain nice structural results. With two-sided preferences, we show that all three above models lead to NP-hard questions for popular matchings. By using the connection between dominant matchings and stable matchings, we show that in the robust and uncertainty models, a certainly dominant matching in all possible preference profiles can be found in polynomial time, whereas in the multilayer model, the problem remains NP-hard for dominant matchings too. We also answer an open question about d-robust stable matchings.
论文检索
输入标题、作者或关键词，从 672 篇学术成果中精准定位
Couples Can Be Tractable: New Algorithms and Hardness Results for the Hospitals/Residents Problem with Couples
PDF ↗In this paper we study the Hospitals/Residents problem with Couples (HRC), where a solution is a stable matching or a report that none exists. We present a novel polynomial-time algorithm that can find a near-feasible stable matching (adjusting the hospitals' capacities by at most 1) in an HRC instance where the couples' preferences are sub-responsive (i.e., if one member switches to a better hospital, than the couple also improves if the new pair is also acceptable) and sub-complete (i.e., each pair of hospitals that are individually acceptable to both members are jointly acceptable for the couple) by reducing it to an instance of the Stable Fixtures problem. We also present a polynomial-time algorithm for HRC in a sub-responsive, sub-complete instance that is a Dual Market, or where all couples are one of several possible types. Our polynomial-time solvability results greatly expand the class of known tractable instances of HRC. We complement our algorithms with several hardness results. We show that HRC with sub-responsive and sub-complete couples is NP-hard, even with other strong restrictions. We also show that HRC with a Dual Market is NP-hard under several simultaneous restrictions.
Coalition formation involves partitioning agents into disjoint coalitions based on their preferences over other agents. In reality, agents may lack enough information to assess their preferences before interacting with others. This motivates us to initiate the research on coalition formation from the viewpoint of online learning. At each round, a possibly different subset of a given set of agents arrives, that a learner then partitions into coalitions. Only afterwards, the agents' preferences, which possibly change over time, are revealed. The learner's goal is optimizing social cost by minimizing his (static or dynamic) regret. We show that even no-static regret is hard to approximate, and constant approximation in polynomial time is unattainable. Yet, for a fractional relaxation of our problem, we devise an algorithm that simultaneously gives the optimal static and dynamic regret. We then present a rounding scheme with an optimal dynamic regret, which converts our algorithm's output into a solution for our original problem.
We study the problem of fairly allocating a set of chores to a group of agents. The existence of envy-free up to any item (EFX) allocations is a long-standing open question for both goods and chores. We resolve this question by providing a negative answer for the latter, presenting a simple construction that admits no EFX solutions for allocating six items to three agents equipped with superadditive cost functions, thus proving a separation result between goods and bads. In fact, we uncover a deeper insight, showing that the instance has unbounded approximation ratio. Moreover, we show that deciding whether an EFX allocation exists is NP-complete. On the positive side, we establish the existence of EFX allocations under general monotone cost functions when the number of items is at most n + 2. We then shift our attention to additive cost functions. We employ a general framework in order to improve the approximation guarantees in the well-studied case of three additive agents, and provide several conditional approximation bounds that leverage ordinal information.
Challenge the champ tournaments are one of the simplest forms of competition, where a (initially selected) champ is repeatedly challenged by other players. If a player beats the champ, then that player is considered the new (current) champ. Each player in the competition challenges the current champ once in a fixed order. The champ of the last round is considered the winner of the tournament. We investigate a setting where players can be bribed to lower their winning probability against the initial champ. The goal is to maximize the probability of the initial champ winning the tournament by bribing the other players, while not exceeding a given budget for the bribes. In previous work is was shown that the problem can be solved in pseudo-polynomial time, and that it is in XP when parameterized by the number of players. We show that the problem is weakly NP-hard and W[1]-hard when parameterized by the number of players. On the algorithmic side, we show that the problem is fixed-parameter tractable when parameterized either by the number of different bribe values or the number of different probability values. To this end, we establish several results that are of independent interest. In particular, we show that the product knapsack problem is W[1]-hard when parameterized by the number of items in the knapsack, and that constructive bribery for cup tournaments is W[1]-hard when parameterized by the number of players. Furthermore, we present a novel way of designing mixed integer linear programs, ensuring optimal solutions where all variables are integers.
Security games model strategic interactions in adversarial real-world applications. Such applications often involve extremely large but highly structured strategy sets (e.g., selecting a distribution over all patrol routes in a given graph). In this paper, we represent each player's strategy space using a layered graph whose paths represent an exponentially large strategy space. Our formulation entails not only classic pursuit-evasion games, but also other security games, such as those modeling anti-terrorism and logistical interdiction. We study two-player zero-sum games under two distinct utility models: linear and binary utilities. We show that under linear utilities, Nash equilibrium can be computed in polynomial time, while binary utilities may lead to situations where even computing a best-response is computationally intractable. To this end, we propose a practical algorithm based on incremental strategy generation and mixed integer linear programs. We show through extensive experiments that our algorithm efficiently computes epsilon-equilibrium for many games of interest. We find that target values and graph structure often have a larger influence on running times as compared to the size of the graph per se.
We consider the fundamental problem of designing a truthful single-item auction with the challenging objective of extracting a large fraction of the highest agent valuation as revenue. Following a recent trend in algorithm design, we assume that the agent valuations belong to a known interval, and a prediction for the highest valuation is available. Then, auction design aims for high consistency and robustness, meaning that, for appropriate pairs of values γ and ρ, the extracted revenue should be at least a γ- or ρ-fraction of the highest valuation when the prediction is correct for the input instance or not. We characterize all pairs of parameters γ and ρ so that a randomized γ-consistent and ρ-robust auction exists. Furthermore, for the setting in which robustness can be a function of the prediction error, we give sufficient and necessary conditions for the existence of robust auctions and present randomized auctions that extract a revenue that is only a polylogarithmic (in terms of the prediction error) factor away from the highest agent valuation.
We study ways of evaluating the performance of losing projects in participatory budgeting (PB) elections by seeking actions that would make them win. We focus on lowering their costs, obtaining additional approvals, and removing approvals for competing projects: The larger a change is needed, the less successful is the given project. We seek efficient algorithms for computing our measures and we analyze them experimentally, focusing on GreedyAV, Phragmen, and Equal-Shares PB rules.
Infinitely repeated games can support cooperative outcomes that are not equilibria in the one-shot game. The idea is to make sure that any gains from deviating will be offset by retaliation in future rounds. However, this model of cooperation fails in anonymous settings with many strategic agents that interact in pairs. Here, a player can defect and then avoid penalization by immediately switching partners. In this paper, we focus on a specific set of equilibria that avoids this pitfall. In them, agents follow a designated sequence of actions, and restart if their opponent ever deviates. We show that the socially-optimal sequence of actions consists of an infinitely repeating goal value, preceded by a hazing period. We introduce an equivalence relation on sequences and prove that the computational problem of finding a representative from the optimal equivalence class is (weakly) NP-hard. Nevertheless, we present a pseudo-polynomial time dynamic program for this problem, as well as an integer linear program, and show they are efficient in practice. Lastly, we introduce a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme that outputs a hazing sequence with arbitrarily small approximation ratio.
We study the allocation of indivisible goods that form an undirected graph and investigate the worst-case welfare loss when requiring that each agent must receive a connected subgraph. Our focus is on both egalitarian and utilitarian welfare. Specifically, we introduce the concept of egalitarian (resp., utilitarian) price of connectivity, which captures the worst-case ratio between the optimal egalitarian (resp., utilitarian) welfare among all allocations and that among the connected allocations. We provide tight or asymptotically tight bounds on the price of connectivity for various large classes of graphs when there are two agents, and for paths, stars and cycles in the general case. Many of our results are supplemented with algorithms which find connected allocations with a welfare guarantee corresponding to the price of connectivity.
In this paper, we investigate the Mechanism Design aspects of the m-Capacitated Facility Location Problem (m-CFLP) on a line. We focus on two frameworks. In the first framework, the number of facilities is arbitrary, all facilities have the same capacity, and the number of agents is equal to the total capacity of all facilities. In the second framework, we aim to place two facilities, each with a capacity of at least half of the total agents. For both of these frameworks, we propose truthful mechanisms with bounded approximation ratios with respect to the Social Cost (SC) and the Maximum Cost (MC). When m>2, the result sharply contrasts with the impossibility results known for the classic m-Facility Location Problem, where capacity constraints are not considered. Furthermore, all our mechanisms are optimal with respect to the MC and optimal or nearly optimal with respect to the SC among anonymous mechanisms. For both frameworks, we provide a lower bound on the approximation ratio that any truthful and deterministic mechanism can achieve with respect to the SC and MC.
Viscous democracy is a generalization of liquid democracy, a social choice framework in which voters may transitively delegate their votes. In viscous democracy, a "viscosity" factor decreases the weight of a delegation the further it travels, reducing the chance of excessive weight flowing between ideologically misaligned voters. We demonstrate that viscous democracy often significantly improves the quality of group decision-making over liquid democracy. We first show that finding optimal delegations within a viscous setting is NP-hard. However, simulations allow us to explore the practical effects of viscosity. Across social network structures, competence distributions, and delegation mechanisms we find high viscosity reduces the chance of ``super-voters'' attaining large amounts of weight and increases the number of voters that are able to affect the outcome of elections. This, in turn, improves group accuracy as a whole. As a result, we argue that viscosity should be considered a core component of liquid democracy.
Iterated prisoner’s dilemma (IPD) and its variants are fundamental models for understanding the evolution of cooperation in human society as well as AI systems. In this paper, we focus on multichannel IPD, and examine how an agent should behave to obtain generally high payoffs under this setting. We propose a novel strategy that chooses to cooperate or defect by considering the difference in the cumulative number of defections between two agents. We show that our proposed strategy is nice, retaliatory, and forgiving. Moreover, we analyze the performance of our proposed strategy across different scenarios, including the self-play settings with and without errors, as well as when facing various opponent strategies. In particular, we show that our proposed strategy is invincible and never loses to any opponent strategy in terms of the expected payoff. Last but not least, we empirically validate the evolutionary advantage of our strategy, and demonstrate its potential to serve as a catalyst for cooperation emergence.
Nash Equilibrium (NE) is the canonical solution concept of game theory, which provides an elegant tool to understand the rationalities. Though mixed strategy NE exists in any game with finite players and actions, computing NE in two- or multi-player general-sum games is PPAD-Complete. Various alternative solutions, e.g., Correlated Equilibrium (CE), and learning methods, e.g., fictitious play (FP), are proposed to approximate NE. For convenience, we call these methods as ``inexact solvers'', or ``solvers'' for short. However, the alternative solutions differ from NE and the learning methods generally fail to converge to NE. Therefore, in this work, we propose REinforcement Nash Equilibrium Solver (RENES), which trains a single policy to modify the games with different sizes and applies the solvers on the modified games where the obtained solution is evaluated on the original games. Specifically, our contributions are threefold. i) We represent the games as alpha-rank response graphs and leverage graph neural network (GNN) to handle the games with different sizes as inputs; ii) We use tensor decomposition, e.g., canonical polyadic (CP), to make the dimension of modifying actions fixed for games with different sizes; iii) We train the modifying strategy for games with the widely-used proximal policy optimization (PPO) and apply the solvers to solve the modified games, where the obtained solution is evaluated on original games. Extensive experiments on large-scale normal-form games show that our method can further improve the approximation of NE of different solvers, i.e., alpha-rank, CE, FP and PRD, and can be generalized to unseen games.
Faster Optimal Coalition Structure Generation via Offline Coalition Selection and Graph-Based Search
PDF ↗Coalition formation is a key capability in multi-agent systems. An important problem in coalition formation is coalition structure generation: partitioning agents into coalitions to optimize the social welfare. This is a challenging problem that has been the subject of active research for the past three decades. In this paper, we present a novel algorithm, SMART, for the problem based on a hybridization of three innovative techniques. Two of these techniques are based on dynamic programming, where we show a powerful connection between the coalitions selected for evaluation and the performance of the algorithms. These algorithms use offline phases to optimize the choice of coalitions to evaluate. The third one uses branch-and-bound and integer partition graph search to explore the solution space. Our techniques bring a new way of approaching the problem and a new level of precision to the field. In experiments over several common value distributions, we show that the hybridization of these techniques in SMART is faster than the fastest prior algorithms (ODP-IP, BOSS) in generating optimal solutions across all the value distributions.
Many settings of interest involving humans and machines – from virtual personal assistants to autonomous vehicles – can naturally be modelled as principals (humans) delegating to agents (machines), which then interact with each other on their principals’ behalf. We refer to these multi-principal, multi-agent scenarios as delegation games. In such games, there are two important failure modes: problems of control (where an agent fails to act in line their principal’s preferences) and problems of cooperation (where the agents fail to work well together). In this paper we formalise and analyse these problems, further breaking them down into issues of alignment (do the players have similar preferences?) and capabilities (how competent are the players at satisfying those preferences?). We show – theoretically and empirically – how these measures determine the principals’ welfare, how they can be estimated using limited observations, and thus how they might be used to help us design more aligned and cooperative AI systems.
Altruistic cooperation is costly yet socially desirable. As a result, agents struggle to learn cooperative policies through independent reinforcement learning (RL). Indirect reciprocity, where agents consider their interaction partner’s reputation, has been shown to stabilise cooperation in homogeneous, idealised populations. However, more realistic settings are comprised of heterogeneous agents with different characteristics and group-based social identities. We study cooperation when agents are stratified into two such groups, and allow reputation updates and actions to depend on group information. We consider two modelling approaches: evolutionary game theory, where we comprehensively search for social norms (i.e., rules to assign reputations) leading to cooperation and fairness; and RL, where we consider how the stochastic dynamics of policy learning affects the analytically identified equilibria. We observe that a defecting majority leads the minority group to defect, but not the inverse. Moreover, changing the norms that judge inand out-group interactions can steer a system towards either fair or unfair cooperation. This is made clearer when moving beyond equilibrium analysis to independent RL agents, where convergence to fair cooperation occurs with a narrower set of norms. Our results highlight that, in heterogeneous populations with reputations, carefully defining interaction norms is fundamental to tackle both dilemmas of cooperation and of fairness.
Enhancing Cooperation through Selective Interaction and Long-term Experiences in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning
PDF ↗The significance of network structures in promoting group cooperation within social dilemmas has been widely recognized. Prior studies attribute this facilitation to the assortment of strategies driven by spatial interactions. Although reinforcement learning has been employed to investigate the impact of dynamic interaction on the evolution of cooperation, there remains a lack of understanding about how agents develop neighbour selection behaviours and the formation of strategic assortment within an explicit interaction structure. To address this, our study introduces a computational framework based on multi-agent reinforcement learning in the spatial Prisoner's Dilemma game. This framework allows agents to select dilemma strategies and interacting neighbours based on their long-term experiences, differing from existing research that relies on preset social norms or external incentives. By modelling each agent using two distinct Q-networks, we disentangle the coevolutionary dynamics between cooperation and interaction. The results indicate that long-term experience enables agents to develop the ability to identify non-cooperative neighbours and exhibit a preference for interaction with cooperative ones. This emergent self-organizing behaviour leads to the clustering of agents with similar strategies, thereby increasing network reciprocity and enhancing group cooperation.
Evaluating deep multiagent reinforcement learning (MARL) algorithms is complicated by stochasticity in training and sensitivity of agent performance to the behavior of other agents. We propose a meta-game evaluation framework for deep MARL, by framing each MARL algorithm as a meta-strategy, and repeatedly sampling normal-form empirical games over combinations of meta-strategies resulting from different random seeds. Each empirical game captures both self-play and cross-play factors across seeds. These empirical games provide the basis for constructing a sampling distribution, using bootstrapping, over a variety of game analysis statistics. We use this approach to evaluate state-of-the-art deep MARL algorithms on a class of negotiation games. From statistics on individual payoffs, social welfare, and empirical best-response graphs, we uncover strategic relationships among self-play, population-based, model-free, and model-based MARL methods. We also investigate the effect of run-time search as a meta-strategy operator, and find via meta-game analysis that the search version of a meta-strategy generally leads to improved performance.
Policy-Space Response Oracles (PSRO) as a general algorithmic framework has achieved state-of-the-art performance in learning equilibrium policies of two-player zero-sum games. However, the hand-crafted hyperparameter value selection in most of the existing works requires extensive domain knowledge, forming the main barrier to applying PSRO to different games. In this work, we make the first attempt to investigate the possibility of self-adaptively determining the optimal hyperparameter values in the PSRO framework. Our contributions are three-fold: (1) Using several hyperparameters, we propose a parametric PSRO that unifies the gradient descent ascent (GDA) and different PSRO variants. (2) We propose the self-adaptive PSRO (SPSRO) by casting the hyperparameter value selection of the parametric PSRO as a hyperparameter optimization (HPO) problem where our objective is to learn an HPO policy that can self-adaptively determine the optimal hyperparameter values during the running of the parametric PSRO. (3) To overcome the poor performance of online HPO methods, we propose a novel offline HPO approach to optimize the HPO policy based on the Transformer architecture. Experiments on various two-player zero-sum games demonstrate the superiority of SPSRO over different baselines.