Strategic interactions can be represented more concisely, and analyzed and solved more efficiently, if we are aware of the symmetries within the multiagent system. Symmetries also have conceptual implications, for example for equilibrium selection. We study the computational complexity of identifying and using symmetries. Using the classical framework of normal-form games, we consider game symmetries that can be across some or all players and/or actions. We find a strong connection between game symmetries and graph automorphisms, yielding graph automorphism and graph isomorphism completeness results for characterizing the symmetries present in a game. On the other hand, we also show that the problem becomes polynomial-time solvable when we restrict the consideration of actions in one of two ways. Next, we investigate when exactly game symmetries can be successfully leveraged for Nash equilibrium computation. We show that finding a Nash equilibrium that respects a given set of symmetries is PPAD- and CLS-complete in general-sum and team games respectively---that is, exactly as hard as Brouwer fixed point and gradient descent problems. Finally, we present polynomial-time methods for the special cases where we are aware of a vast number of symmetries, or where the game is two-player zero-sum and we do not even know the symmetries.

*Variational inequalities (VIs)* encompass many fundamental problems in diverse areas ranging from engineering to economics and machine learning. However, their considerable expressivity comes at the cost of computational intractability. In this paper, we introduce and analyze a natural relaxation—which we refer to as *expected variational inequalities (EVIs)*—where the goal is to find a distribution that satisfies the VI constraint in expectation. By adapting recent techniques from game theory, we show that, unlike VIs, EVIs can be solved in polynomial time under general (nonmonotone) operators. EVIs capture the seminal notion of correlated equilibria, but enjoy a greater reach beyond games. We also employ our framework to capture and generalize several existing disparate results, including from settings such as smooth games, and games with coupled constraints or nonconcave utilities.

Φ-equilibria—and the associated notion of Φ-regret—are a powerful and flexible framework at the heart of online learning and game theory, whereby enriching the set of deviations Φ begets stronger notions of rationality. Recently, Daskalakis, Farina, Fishelson, Pipis, and Schneider (STOC '24) settled the existence of efficient algorithms when Φ contains only linear maps under a general, d-dimensional convex constraint set X. In this paper, we significantly extend their work by resolving the case where Φ is k-dimensional; degree-ℓ polynomials constitute a canonical such example with k = dO(ℓ). In particular, we obtain two main positive results: i) a poly(n, d, k, log(1/ϵ))-time algorithm for computing ϵ-approximate Φ-equilibria in n-player multilinear games, and ii) an efficient online algorithm that incurs average Φ-regret at most ϵ using poly(d, k)/ϵ2 rounds.

We investigate two notions of correlated equilibrium for extensive-form games: the extensive-form correlated equilibrium (EFCE) and the behavioral correlated equilibrium (BCE). We show that the two are outcome-equivalent, in the sense that every outcome distribution achievable under one notion is achievable under the other. Our result implies, to our knowledge, the first polynomial-time algorithm for computing a BCE.

A recent paper by Farina and Pipis (2023) established the existence of uncoupled no-linear-swap regret dynamics with polynomial-time iterations in extensive-form games. The equilibrium points reached by these dynamics, known as linear correlated equilibria, are currently the tightest known relaxation of correlated equilibrium that can be learned in polynomial time in any finite extensive-form game. However, their properties remain vastly unexplored, and their computation is onerous. In this paper, we provide several contributions shedding light on the fundamental nature of linear-swap regret. First, we show a connection between linear deviations and a generalization of communication deviations in which the player can make queries to a ``mediator'' who replies with action recommendations, and, critically, the player is not constrained to match the timing of the game as would be the case for communication deviations. We coin this latter set the untimed communication (UTC) deviations. We show that the UTC deviations coincide precisely with the linear deviations, and therefore that any player minimizing UTC regret also minimizes linear-swap regret. We then leverage this connection to develop state-of-the-art no-regret algorithms for computing linear correlated equilibria, both in theory and in practice. In theory, our algorithms achieve polynomially better per-iteration runtimes; in practice, our algorithms represent the state of the art by several orders of magnitude.

Recent breakthrough results by Dagan, Daskalakis, Fishelson and Golowich [2023] and Peng and Rubinstein [2023] established an efficient algorithm attaining at most $\epsilon$ swap regret over extensive-form strategy spaces of dimension $N$ in $N^{\tilde O(1/\epsilon)}$ rounds. On the other extreme, Farina and Pipis [2023] developed an efficient algorithm for minimizing the weaker notion of linear-swap regret in $\mathsf{poly}(N)/\epsilon^2$ rounds. In this paper, we develop efficient parameterized algorithms for regimes between these two extremes. We introduce the set of $k$-mediator deviations, which generalize the untimed communication deviations recently introduced by Zhang, Farina and Sandholm [2024] to the case of having multiple mediators, and we develop algorithms for minimizing the regret with respect to this set of deviations in $N^{O(k)}/\epsilon^2$ rounds. Moreover, by relating $k$-mediator deviations to low-degree polynomials, we show that regret minimization against degree-$k$ polynomial swap deviations is achievable in $N^{O(kd)^3}/\epsilon^2$ rounds, where $d$ is the depth of the game, assuming a constant branching factor. For a fixed degree $k$, this is polynomial for Bayesian games and quasipolynomial more broadly when $d = \mathsf{polylog} N$---the usual balancedness assumption on the game tree. The first key ingredient in our approach is a relaxation of the usual notion of a fixed point required in the framework of Gordon, Greenwald and Marks [2008]. Namely, for a given deviation $\phi$, we show that it suffices to compute what we refer to as a fixed point in expectation; that is, a distribution $\pi$ such that $\mathbb{E}_{x \sim \pi} [\phi(x) - x] \approx 0$. Unlike the problem of computing an actual (approximate) fixed point $x \approx \phi(x)$, which we show is \PPAD-hard, there is a simple and efficient algorithm for finding a solution that satisfies our relaxed notion. As a byproduct, we provide, to our knowledge, the fastest algorithm for computing $\epsilon$-correlated equilibria in normal-form games in the medium-precision regime, obviating the need to solve a linear system in every round. Our second main contribution is a characterization of the set of low-degree deviations, made possible through a connection to low-depth decisions trees from Boolean analysis.

In this paper, we study the class of games known as hidden-role games in which players are assigned privately to teams and are faced with the challenge of recognizing and cooperating with teammates. This model includes both popular recreational games such as the Mafia/Werewolf family and The Resistance (Avalon) and many real-world settings, such as distributed systems where nodes need to work together to accomplish a goal in the face of possible corruptions. There has been little to no formal mathematical grounding of such settings in the literature, and it was previously not even clear what the right solution concepts (notions of equilibria) should be. A suitable notion of equilibrium should take into account the communication channels available to the players (e.g., can they communicate? Can they communicate in private?). Defining such suitable notions turns out to be a nontrivial task with several surprising consequences. In this paper, we provide the first rigorous definition of equilibrium for hidden-role games, which overcomes serious limitations of other solution concepts not designed for hidden-role games. We then show that in certain cases, including the above recreational games, optimal equilibria can be computed efficiently. In most other cases, we show that computing an optimal equilibrium is at least NP-hard or coNP-hard. Lastly, we experimentally validate our approach by computing exact equilibria for complete 5- and 6-player Avalon instances whose size in terms of number of information sets is larger than 1056.

A mediator observes no-regret learners playing an extensive-form game repeatedly across T rounds. The mediator attempts to steer players toward some desirable predetermined equilibrium by giving (nonnegative) payments to players. We call this the steering problem. The steering problem captures problems several problems of interest, among them equilibrium selection and information design (persuasion). If the mediator's budget is unbounded, steering is trivial because the mediator can simply pay the players to play desirable actions. We study two bounds on the mediator's payments: a total budget and a per-round budget. If the mediator's total budget does not grow with T, we show that steering is impossible. However, we show that it is enough for the total budget to grow sublinearly with T, that is, for the average payment to vanish. When players' full strategies are observed at each round, we show that constant per-round budgets permit steering. In the more challenging setting where only trajectories through the game tree are observable, we show that steering is impossible with constant per-round budgets in general extensive-form games, but possible in normal-form games or if the per-round budget may itself depend on T. We also show how our results can be generalized to the case when the equilibrium is being computed online while steering is happening. We supplement our theoretical positive results with experiments highlighting the efficacy of steering in large games.

A classic result in the theory of extensive-form games asserts that the set of strategies available to any perfect-recall player is strategically equivalent to a low-dimensional convex polytope, called the *sequence-form polytope*. Online convex optimization tools operating on this polytope are the current state-of-the-art for computing several notions of equilibria in games, and have been crucial in landmark applications of computational game theory. However, when optimizing over the *joint* strategy space of a *team* of players, one cannot use the sequence form to obtain a strategically-equivalent convex description of the strategy set of the team. In this paper, we provide new complexity results on the computation of optimal strategies for teams, and propose a new representation, coined *team belief DAG (TB-DAG)*, that describes team strategies as a convex set. The TB-DAG enjoys state-of-the-art parameterized complexity bounds, while at the same time enjoying the advantages of efficient regret minimization techniques. We show that TB-DAG can be exponentially smaller and can be computed exponentially faster than all other known representations, and that the converse is never true. Experimentally, we show that the TB-DAG, when paired with learning techniques, yields state of the art on a wide variety of benchmark team games.

We introduce a new approach for computing optimal equilibria via learning in games. It applies to extensive-form settings with any number of players, including mechanism design, information design, and solution concepts such as correlated, communication, and certification equilibria. We observe that optimal equilibria are minimax equilibrium strategies of a player in an extensive-form zero-sum game. This reformulation allows to apply techniques for learning in zero-sum games, yielding the first learning dynamics that converge to optimal equilibria, not only in empirical averages, but also in iterates. We demonstrate the practical scalability and flexibility of our approach by attaining state-of-the-art performance in benchmark tabular games, and by computing an optimal mechanism for a sequential auction design problem using deep reinforcement learning.

Despite the many recent practical and theoretical breakthroughs in computational game theory, equilibrium finding in extensive-form team games remains a significant challenge. While NP-hard in the worst case, there are provably efficient algorithms for certain families of team game. In particular, if the game has common external information, also known as A-loss recall---informally, actions played by non-team members (i.e., the opposing team or nature) are either unknown to the entire team, or common knowledge within the team---then polynomial-time algorithms exist. In this paper, we devise a completely new algorithm for solving team games. It uses a tree decomposition of the constraint system representing each team's strategy to reduce the number and degree of constraints required for correctness (tightness of the mathematical program). Our approach has the bags of the tree decomposition correspond to team-public states---that is, minimal sets of nodes (that is, states of the team) such that, upon reaching the set, it is common knowledge among the players on the team that the set has been reached. Our algorithm reduces the problem of solving team games to a linear program with at most O(NW^(w+1)) nonzero entries in the constraint matrix, where N is the size of the game tree, w is a parameter that depends on the amount of uncommon external information, and W is the treewidth of the tree decomposition. In public-action games, our program size is bounded by the tighter 2^(O(nt))N for teams of n players with t types each. Our algorithm is based on a new way to write a custom, concise tree decomposition, and its fast run time does not assume that the decomposition has small treewidth. Since our algorithm describes the polytope of correlated strategies directly, we get equilibrium finding in correlated strategies for free---instead of, say, having to run a double oracle algorithm. We show via experiments on a standard suite of games that our algorithm achieves state-of-the-art performance on all benchmark game classes except one. We also present, to our knowledge, the first experiments for this setting where both teams have more than one member.

In this work, we revisit the problem of estimating the mean and covariance of an unknown $d$-dimensional Gaussian distribution in the presence of an $\varepsilon$-fraction of adversarial outliers. The work of Diakonikolas et al. (2016) gave a polynomial time algorithm for this task with optimal $\tilde{O}(\varepsilon)$ error using $n = \textrm{poly}(d, 1/\varepsilon)$ samples. On the other hand, Kothari and Steurer (2017) introduced a general framework for robust moment estimation via a canonical sum-of-squares relaxation that succeeds for the more general class of \emph{certifiably subgaussian} and \emph{certifiably hypercontractive} (Bakshi and Kothari, 2020) distributions. When specialized to Gaussians, this algorithm obtains the same $\tilde{O}(\varepsilon)$ error guarantee as Diakonikolas et al. (2016) but incurs a super-polynomial sample complexity ($n = d^{O(\log 1/\varepsilon)}$) and running time ($n^{O(\log(1/\varepsilon))}$). This cost appears inherent to their analysis as it relies only on sum-of-squares certificates of upper bounds on directional moments while the analysis in Diakonikolas et al. (2016) relies on \emph{lower bounds} on directional moments inferred from algebraic relationships between moments of Gaussian distributions. We give a new, simple analysis of the \emph{same} canonical sum-of-squares relaxation used in Kothari and Steurer (2017) and Bakshi and Kothari (2020) and show that for Gaussian distributions, their algorithm achieves the same error, sample complexity and running time guarantees as of the specialized algorithm in Diakonikolas et al. (2016). Our key innovation is a new argument that allows using moment lower bounds without having sum-of-squares certificates for them. We believe that our proof technique will likely be useful in designing new robust estimation algorithms.

In adversarial team games, a team of players sequentially faces a team of adversaries. These games are the simplest setting with multiple players where cooperation and competition coexist, and it is known that the information asymmetry among the team members makes equilibrium approximation computationally hard. Although much effort has been spent designing scalable algorithms, the problem of solving large game instances is open. In this paper, we extend the successful approach of solving huge two-player zero-sum games, where a blueprint strategy is computed offline by using an abstract version of the game and then it is refined online, that is, during a playthrough. In particular, to the best of our knowledge, our paper provides the first method for online strategy refinement via subgame solving in adversarial team games. Our method, based on the team belief DAG, generates a gadget game and then refine the blueprint strategy by using column-generation approaches in anytime fashion. If the blueprint is sparse, then our whole algorithm runs end-to-end in polynomial time given a best-response oracle; in particular, it avoids expanding the whole team belief DAG, which has exponential worst-case size. We apply our method to a standard test suite, and we empirically show the performance improvement of the strategies thanks to subgame solving.

For common notions of correlated equilibrium in extensive-form games, computing an optimal (e.g., welfare-maximizing) equilibrium is NP-hard. Other equilibrium notions---communication and certification equilibria---augment the game with a mediator that has the power to both send and receive messages to and from the players---and, in particular, to remember the messages. In this paper, we investigate both notions in extensive-form games from a computational lens. We show that optimal equilibria in both notions can be computed in polynomial time, the latter under a natural additional assumption known in the literature. Our proof works by constructing a {\em mediator-augmented game} of polynomial size that explicitly represents the mediator's decisions and actions. Our framework allows us to define an entire family of equilibria by varying the mediator's information partition, the players' ability to lie, and the players' ability to deviate. From this perspective, we show that other notions of equilibrium, such as extensive-form correlated equilibrium, correspond to the mediator having imperfect recall. This shows that, at least among all these equilibrium notions, the hardness of computation is driven by the mediator's imperfect recall. As special cases of our general construction, we recover the polynomial-time algorithm of Conitzer & Sandholm [2004] for automated mechanism design in Bayes-Nash equilibria, and the correlation DAG algorithm of Zhang et al [2022] for optimal correlation. Our algorithm is especially scalable when the equilibrium notion is what we define as the full-certification equilibrium, where players cannot lie about their information but they can be silent. We back up our theoretical claims with experiments on a suite of standard benchmark games.

We study the problem of finding optimal correlated equilibria of various sorts in extensive-form games: normal-form coarse correlated equilibrium (NFCCE), extensive-form coarse correlated equilibrium (EFCCE), and extensive-form correlated equilibrium (EFCE). We make two primary contributions. First, we introduce a new algorithm for computing optimal equilibria in all three notions. Its runtime depends exponentially only on a parameter related to the information structure of the game. We also prove a fundamental complexity gap between NFCCE and the other two concepts. Second, we propose a two-sided column generation approach for use when the runtime or memory usage of the previous algorithm is prohibitive. Our algorithm improves upon an earlier one-sided approach by means of a new decomposition of correlated strategies which allows players to reoptimize their sequence-form strategies with respect to correlation plans which were previously added to the support. Experiments show that our techniques outperform the prior state of the art for computing optimal general-sum correlated equilibria. Funding: This work was supported by National Institutes of Health [Grant A240108S001]; Vannevar Bush Faculty Fellowship [Grant ONR N00014-23-1-2876]; National Science Foundation [Grants CCF-173355, IIS-190140, RI-1901403, RI-2312342]; and Army Research Office [Grants W911NF2010081, W911NF2210266].

Often---for example in war games, strategy video games, and financial simulations---the game is given to us only as a black-box simulator in which we can play it. In these settings, since the game may have unknown nature action distributions (from which we can only obtain samples) and/or be too large to expand fully, it can be difficult to compute strategies with guarantees on exploitability. Recent work (Zhang and Sandholm 2020) resulted in a notion of certificate for extensive-form games that allows exploitability guarantees while not expanding the full game tree. However, that work assumed that the black box could sample or expand arbitrary nodes of the game tree at any time, and that a series of exact game solves (via, for example, linear programming) can be conducted to compute the certificate. Each of those two assumptions severely restricts the practical applicability of that method. In this work, we relax both of the assumptions. We show that high-probability certificates can be obtained with a black box that can do nothing more than play through games, using only a regret minimizer as a subroutine. As a bonus, we obtain an equilibrium-finding algorithm with $\tilde O(1/\sqrt{T})$ convergence rate in the extensive-form game setting that does not rely on a sampling strategy with lower-bounded reach probabilities (which MCCFR assumes). We demonstrate experimentally that, in the black-box setting, our methods are able to provide nontrivial exploitability guarantees while expanding only a small fraction of the game tree.

In imperfect-information games, subgame solving is significantly more challenging than in perfect-information games, but in the last few years, such techniques have been developed. They were the key ingredient to the milestone of superhuman play in no-limit Texas hold'em poker. Current subgame-solving techniques analyze the entire common-knowledge closure of the player's current information set, that is, the smallest set of nodes within which it is common knowledge that the current node lies. While this is acceptable in games like poker where the common-knowledge closure is relatively small, many practical games have more complex information structure, which renders the common-knowledge closure impractically large to enumerate or even reasonably approximate. We introduce an approach that overcomes this obstacle, by instead working with only low-order knowledge. Our approach allows an agent, upon arriving at an infoset, to basically prune any node that is no longer reachable, thereby massively reducing the game tree size relative to the common-knowledge subgame. We prove that, as is, our approach can increase exploitability compared to the blueprint strategy. However, we develop three avenues by which safety can be guaranteed. First, safety is guaranteed if the results of subgame solves are incorporated back into the blueprint. Second, we provide a method where safety is achieved by limiting the infosets at which subgame solving is performed. Third, we prove that our approach, when applied at every infoset reached during play, achieves a weaker notion of equilibrium, which we coin affine equilibrium, and which may be of independent interest. We show that affine equilibria cannot be exploited by any Nash strategy of the opponent, so an opponent who wishes to exploit must open herself to counter-exploitation. Even without the safety-guaranteeing additions, experiments on medium-sized games show that our approach always reduced exploitability in practical games even when applied at every infoset, and a depth-limited version of it led to---to our knowledge---the first strong AI for the challenge problem dark chess.

Computational equilibrium finding in large zero-sum extensive-form imperfect-information games has led to significant recent AI breakthroughs. The fastest algorithms for the problem are new forms of counterfactual regret minimization (Brown & Sandholm, 2019). In this paper we present a totally different approach to the problem, which is competitive and often orders of magnitude better than the prior state of the art. The equilibrium-finding problem can be formulated as a linear program (LP) (Koller et al., 1994), but solving it as an LP has not been scalable due to the memory requirements of LP solvers, which can often be quadratically worse than CFR-based algorithms. We give an efficient practical algorithm that factors a large payoff matrix into a product of two matrices that are typically dramatically sparser. This allows us to express the equilibrium-finding problem as a linear program with size only a logarithmic factor worse than CFR, and thus allows linear program solvers to run on such games. With experiments on poker endgames, we demonstrate in practice, for the first time, that modern linear program solvers are competitive against even game-specific modern variants of CFR in solving large extensive-form games, and can be used to compute exact solutions unlike iterative algorithms like CFR.

In many game settings, the game is not explicitly given but is only accessible by playing it. While there have been impressive demonstrations in such settings, prior techniques have not offered safety guarantees, that is, guarantees on the game-theoretic exploitability of the computed strategies. In this paper we introduce an approach that shows that it is possible to provide exploitability guarantees in such settings without ever exploring the entire game. We introduce a notion of a certificatae of an extensive-form approximate Nash equilibrium. For verifying a certificate, we give an algorithm that runs in time linear in the size of the certificate rather than the size of the whole game. In zero-sum games, we further show that an optimal certificate---given the exploration so far---can be computed with any standard game-solving algorithm (e.g., using a linear program or counterfactual regret minimization). However, unlike in the cases of normal form or perfect information, we show that certain families of extensive-form games do not have small approximate certificates, even after making extremely nice assumptions on the structure of the game. Despite this difficulty, we find experimentally that very small certificates, even exact ones, often exist in large and even in infinite games. Overall, our approach enables one to try one's favorite exploration strategies while offering exploitability guarantees, thereby decoupling the exploration strategy from the equilibrium-finding process.

Machine learning is a tool for building models that accurately represent input training data. When undesired biases concerning demographic groups are in the training data, well-trained models will reflect those biases. We present a framework for mitigating such biases by including a variable for the group of interest and simultaneously learning a predictor and an adversary. The input to the network X, here text or census data, produces a prediction Y, such as an analogy completion or income bracket, while the adversary tries to model a protected variable Z, here gender or zip code. The objective is to maximize the predictor's ability to predict Y while minimizing the adversary's ability to predict Z. Applied to analogy completion, this method results in accurate predictions that exhibit less evidence of stereotyping Z. When applied to a classification task using the UCI Adult (Census) Dataset, it results in a predictive model that does not lose much accuracy while achieving very close to equality of odds (Hardt, et al., 2016). The method is flexible and applicable to multiple definitions of fairness as well as a wide range of gradient-based learning models, including both regression and classification tasks.

Given the apparent difficulty of learning models that are robust to adversarial perturbations, we propose tackling the simpler problem of developing adversarially robust features. Specifically, given a dataset and metric of interest, the goal is to return a function (or multiple functions) that 1) is robust to adversarial perturbations, and 2) has significant variation across the datapoints. We establish strong connections between adversarially robust features and a natural spectral property of the geometry of the dataset and metric of interest. This connection can be leveraged to provide both robust features, and a lower bound on the robustness of any function that has significant variance across the dataset. Finally, we provide empirical evidence that the adversarially robust features given by this spectral approach can be fruitfully leveraged to learn a robust (and accurate) model.