Policy gradient is one of the most famous algorithms in reinforcement learning. This paper studies the mean dynamics of the soft-max policy gradient algorithm and its properties in multi-agent settings by resorting to evolutionary game theory and dynamical system tools. Unlike most multi-agent reinforcement learning algorithms, whose mean dynamics are a slight variant of the replicator dynamics not affecting the properties of the original dynamics, the soft-max policy gradient dynamics presents a structure significantly different from that of the replicator. In particular, we show that the soft-max policy gradient dynamics in a given game are equivalent to the replicator dynamics in an auxiliary game obtained by a non-convex transformation of the payoffs of the original game. Such a structure gives the dynamics several non-standard properties. The first property we study concerns the convergence to the best response. In particular, while the continuous-time mean dynamics always converge to the best response, the crucial question concerns the convergence speed. Precisely, we show that the space of initializations can be split into two complementary sets such that the trajectories initialized from points of the first set (said good initialization region) directly move to the best response. In contrast, those initialized from points of the second set (said bad initialization region) move first to a series of sub-optimal strategies and then to the best response. Interestingly, in multi-agent adversarial machine learning environments, we show that an adversary can exploit this property to make any current strategy of the learning agent using the soft-max policy gradient fall inside a bad initialization region, thus slowing its learning process and exploiting that policy. When the soft-max policy gradient dynamics is studied in multi-population games, modeling the learning dynamics in self-play, we show that the dynamics preserve the volume of the set of initial points. This property proves that the dynamics cannot converge when the only equilibrium of the game is fully mixed, as the volume of the set of initial points would need to shrink. We also give empirical evidence that the volume expands over time, suggesting that the dynamics in games with fully-mixed equilibrium is chaotic.

We investigate the mechanism design problem faced by a principal who hires \emph{multiple} agents to gather and report costly information. Then, the principal exploits the information to make an informed decision. We model this problem as a game, where the principal announces a mechanism consisting in action recommendations and a payment function, a.k.a. scoring rule. Then, each agent chooses an effort level and receives partial information about an underlying state of nature based on the effort. Finally, the agents report the information (possibly non-truthfully), the principal takes a decision based on this information, and the agents are paid according to the scoring rule. While previous work focuses on single-agent problems, we consider multi-agents settings. This poses the challenge of coordinating the agents' efforts and aggregating correlated information. Indeed, we show that optimal mechanisms must correlate agents' efforts, which introduces externalities among the agents, and hence complex incentive compatibility constraints and equilibrium selection problems. First, we design a polynomial-time algorithm to find an optimal incentive compatible mechanism. Then, we study an online problem, where the principal repeatedly interacts with a group of unknown agents. We design a no-regret algorithm that provides $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(T^{2/3})$ regret with respect to an optimal mechanism, matching the state-of-the-art bound for single-agent settings.

We study hidden-action principal-agent problems with multiple agents, in which each agent has an arbitrary number of actions, and the joint action induces outcomes according to an arbitrary distribution. We study two classes of mechanisms: deterministic mechanisms, in which the agents play a Nash equilibrium of the game induced by the contract, and randomized mechanisms, inspired by single-agent randomized contracts and correlated equilibria. First, we compare the two classes, designing a polynomial-time algorithm to compute almost optimal contracts and showing that randomized mechanisms provide an arbitrarily larger principal's utility than deterministic ones.

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.

We study the problem of designing mechanisms for information acquisition scenarios. This setting models strategic interactions between a uniformed receiver and a set of informed senders. In our model the senders receive information about the underlying state of nature and communicate their observation (either truthfully or not) to the receiver, which, based on this information, selects an action. Our goal is to design mechanisms maximizing the receiver's utility while incentivizing the senders to report truthfully their information. First, we provide an algorithm that efficiently computes an optimal incentive compatible (IC) mechanism. Then, we focus on the online problem in which the receiver sequentially interacts in an unknown game, with the objective of minimizing the cumulative regret w.r.t. the optimal IC mechanism, and the cumulative violation of the incentive compatibility constraints. We investigate two different online scenarios, i.e., the full and bandit feedback settings. For the full feedback problem, we propose an algorithm that guarantees $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{T})$ regret and violation, while for the bandit feedback setting we present an algorithm that attains $\tilde{O}(T^{\alpha})$ regret and $\tilde{O}(T^{1-\alpha/2})$ violation for any $\alpha \in [1/2, 1]$. Finally, we complement our results providing a tight lower bound.

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.

Ex ante correlation is becoming the mainstream approach for sequential adversarial team games, where a team of players faces another team in a zero-sum game. It is known that team members’ asymmetric information makes both equilibrium computation \textsf{APX}-hard and team’s strategies not directly representable on the game tree. This latter issue prevents the adoption of successful tools for huge 2-player zero-sum games such as, e.g., abstractions, no-regret learning, and subgame solving. This work shows that we can recover from this weakness by bridging the gap between sequential adversarial team games and 2-player games. In particular, we propose a new, suitable game representation that we call team-public-information, in which a team is represented as a single coordinator who only knows information common to the whole team and prescribes to each member an action for any possible private state. The resulting representation is highly explainable, being a 2-player tree in which the team’s strategies are behavioral with a direct interpretation and more expressive than the original extensive form when designing abstractions. Furthermore, we prove payoff equivalence of our representation, and we provide techniques that, starting directly from the extensive form, generate dramatically more compact representations without information loss. Finally, we experimentally evaluate our techniques when applied to a standard testbed, comparing their performance with the current state of the art.

We study decision making problems in which an agent sequentially interacts with a stochastic environment defined by means of a tree structure. The agent repeatedly faces the environment over time, and, after each round, it perceives a utility and a cost, which are both stochastic. The goal of the agent is to learn an optimal strategy in an online fashion, while, at the same time, keeping costs below a given safety threshold. Our model naturally fits many real-world scenarios, such as, e.g., opponent exploitation in games and web link selection. We study the hard-threshold problem of achieving sublinear regret while guaranteeing that the threshold constraint is satisfied at every iteration with high probability. First, we show that, in general, any algorithm with such a guarantee incurs in a linear regret. This motivates the introduction of a relaxed problem, namely the soft-threshold problem, in which we only require that the cumulative violation of the threshold constraint grows sublinearly, and, thus, we can provide an algorithm with sublinear regret. Next, we show how, in the hard-threshold problem, a sublinear regret algorithm can be designed under the additional assumption that there exists a known strategy strictly satisfying the threshold constraint. We also show that our regret bounds are tight. Finally, we cast the opponent exploitation problem to our model, and we experimentally evaluate our algorithms on a standard testbed of games.

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.

Recently, game-playing agents based on AI techniques have demonstrated super-human performance in several sequential games, such as chess, Go, and poker. Surprisingly, the multi-agent learning techniques that allowed to reach these achievements do not take into account the actual behavior of the human player, potentially leading to an impressive gap in performances. In this paper, we address the problem of designing artificial agents that learn how to effectively exploit unknown human opponents while playing repeatedly against them in an online fashion. We study the case in which the agent's strategy during each repetition of the game is subject to constraints ensuring that the human's expected utility is within some lower and upper thresholds. Our framework encompasses several real-world problems, such as human engagement in repeated game playing and human education by means of serious games. As a first result, we formalize a set of linear inequalities encoding the conditions that the agent's strategy must satisfy at each iteration in order to do not violate the given bounds for the human's expected utility. Then, we use such formulation in an upper confidence bound algorithm, and we prove that the resulting procedure suffers from sublinear regret and guarantees that the constraints are satisfied with high probability at each iteration. Finally, we empirically evaluate the convergence of our algorithm on standard testbeds of sequential games.