Game-theoretic interactions with AI agents could differ from traditional human-human interactions in various ways. One such difference is that it may be possible to simulate an AI agent (for example because its source code is known), which allows others to accurately predict the agent's actions. This could lower the bar for trust and cooperation. In this paper, we first formally define games in which one player can simulate another at a cost, and derive some basic properties of such games. Then, we prove a number of results for such games, including: (1) introducing simulation into generic-payoff normal-form games makes them easier to solve; (2) if the only obstacle to cooperation is a lack of trust in the possibly-simulated agent, simulation enables equilibria that improve the outcome for both agents; and (3) however, there are settings where introducing simulation results in strictly worse outcomes for both players.

Multiagent decision-making in partially observable environments is usually modelled as either an extensive-form game (EFG) in game theory or a partially observable stochastic game (POSG) in multiagent reinforcement learning (MARL). One issue with the current situation is that while most practical problems can be modelled in both formalisms, the relationship of the two models is unclear, which hinders the transfer of ideas between the two communities. A second issue is that while EFGs have recently seen significant algorithmic progress, their classical formalization is unsuitable for efficient presentation of the underlying ideas, such as those around decomposition. To solve the first issue, we introduce factored-observation stochastic games (FOSGs), a minor modification of the POSG formalism which distinguishes between private and public observation and thereby greatly simplifies decomposition. To remedy the second issue, we show that FOSGs and POSGs are naturally connected to EFGs: by "unrolling" a FOSG into its tree form, we obtain an EFG. Conversely, any perfect-recall timeable EFG corresponds to some underlying FOSG in this manner. Moreover, this relationship justifies several minor modifications to the classical EFG formalization that recently appeared as an implicit response to the model's issues with decomposition. Finally, we illustrate the transfer of ideas between EFGs and MARL by presenting three key EFG techniques -- counterfactual regret minimization, sequence form, and decomposition -- in the FOSG framework.

In this paper, we study Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) in zero-sum extensive-form games with perfect information and simultaneous moves. We present a general template of MCTS algorithms for these games, which can be instantiated by various selection methods. We formally prove that if a selection method is $\epsilon$-Hannan consistent in a matrix game and satisfies additional requirements on exploration, then the MCTS algorithm eventually converges to an approximate Nash equilibrium (NE) of the extensive-form game. We empirically evaluate this claim using regret matching and Exp3 as the selection methods on randomly generated and worst case games. We confirm the formal result and show that additional MCTS variants also converge to approximate NE on the evaluated games.