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.

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.

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.