Equilibrium computation in games is currently considered one of the most challenging issues in AI. In this paper, we provide, to the best of our knowledge, the first algorithm to compute a Selten's extensive-form perfect equilibrium (EFPE) with two--player games. EFPE refines the Nash equilibrium requiring the equilibrium to be robust to slight perturbations of both players' behavioral strategies. Our result puts the computation of an EFPE into the PPAD class, leaving open the question whether or not the problem is hard. Finally, we experimentally evaluate the computational time spent to find an EFPE and some relaxations of EFPE.

The standard approach to computing an optimal mixed strategy to commit to is based on solving a set of linear programs, one for each of the follower's pure strategies. We show that these linear programs can be naturally merged into a single linear program; that this linear program can be interpreted as a formulation for the optimal correlated strategy to commit to, giving an easy proof of a result by von Stengel and Zamir that the leader's utility is at least the utility she gets in any correlated equilibrium of the simultaneous-move game; and that this linear program can be extended to compute optimal correlated strategies to commit to in games of three or more players. (Unlike in two-player games, in games of three or more players, the notions of optimal mixed and correlated strategies to commit to are truly distinct.) We give examples, and provide experimental results that indicate that for 50x50 games, this approach is usually significantly faster than the multiple-LPs approach.

We consider the problem of fairly dividing a heterogeneous divisible good among agents with different preferences. Previous work has shown that envy-free allocations, i.e., where each agent prefers its own allocation to any other, may not be efficient, in the sense of maximizing the total value of the agents. Our goal is to pinpoint the most efficient allocations among all envy-free allocations. We provide tractable algorithms for doing so under different assumptions regarding the preferences of the agents.

Coalition formation is a key topic in multi-agent systems. Coalitions enable agents to achieve goals that they may nothave been able to achieve on their own. Previous work hasshown problems in coalition games to be computationally hard. Wooldridge and Dunne (Artifi. Intell. 2006) studied the classical computational complexity of several natural decision problems in Coalitional Resource Games (CRG) - games in which each agent is endowed with a set of resources and coalitions can bring about a set of goals if they are collectively endowed with the necessary amount of resources. The input of coalitional resource games bundles together several elements, e.g., the agent set Ag, the goal set G, the resource set R, etc. Shrot et al. (AAMAS 2009) examine coalition formation problems in the CRG model using the theory of Parameterized Complexity. Their refined analysis shows that not all parts of input act equal - some instances of the problem are indeed tractable while others still remain intractable.We answer an important question left open by Shrot, Aumann,and Kraus by showing that the SC Problem (checking whether a Coalition is Successful) is W[1]-hard when parameterized by the size of the coalition. Then via a single theme of reduction from SC, we are able to show that various problems related to resources, resource bounds, and resource conflicts introduced by Wooldridge et al. are (i) W[1]-hard or co-W[1]-hard w.r.t the size of the coalition; and (ii) Para-NP hard or co-Para-NP-hard w.r.t |R|. When parameterized by |G| or |R| + |Ag|, we give a general algorithm which proves that these problems are indeed tractable.

This paper studies how automated agents can persuade humans to behave in certain ways. The motivation behind such agent's behavior resides in the utility function that the agent's designer wants to maximize and which may be different from the user's utility function. Specifically, in the strategic settings studied, the agent provides correct yet partial information about a state of the world that is unknown to the user but relevant to his decision. Persuasion games were designed to study interactions between automated players where one player sends state information to the other to persuade it to behave in a certain way. We show that this game theory based model is not sufficient to model human-agent interactions, since people tend to deviate from the rational choice. We use machine learning to model such deviation in people from this game theory based model. The agent generates a probabilistic description of the world state that maximizes its benefit and presents it to the users. The proposed model was evaluated in an extensive empirical study involving road selection tasks that differ in length, costs and congestion. Results showed that people's behavior indeed deviated significantly from the behavior predicted by the game theory based model. Moreover, the agent developed in our model performed better than an agent that followed the behavior dictated by the game-theoretical models.

In many real-life optimization problems involving multiple agents, the rewards are not necessarily known exactly in advance, but rather depend on sources of exogenous uncertainty. For instance, delivery companies might have to coordinate to choose who should serve which foreseen customer, under uncertainty in the locations of the customers. The framework of Distributed Constraint Optimization under Stochastic Uncertainty was proposed to model such problems; in this paper, we generalize this formalism by introducing the concept of evaluation functions that model various optimization criteria. We take the example of three such evaluation functions, expectation , consensus , and robustness , and we adapt and generalize two previous algorithms accordingly. Our experimental results on a class of Vehicle Routing Problems show that incomplete algorithms are not only cheaper than complete ones (in terms of simulated time , Non-Concurrent Constraint Checks , and information exchange) , but they are also often able to find the optimal solution. We also show that exchanging more information about the dependencies of their respective cost functions on the sources of uncertainty can help the agents discover higher-quality solutions.

We extend the potential-based shaping method from Markov decision processes to multi-player general-sum stochastic games. We prove that the Nash equilibria in a stochastic game remains unchanged after potential-based shaping is applied to the environment. The property of policy invariance provides a possible way of speeding convergence when learning to play a stochastic game.

Deliberation itself can be a computationally costly process and requires This paper shows how belief revision techniques an appropriate intention reconsideration policy which can be used in Defeasible Logic to change rulebased helps the agent to deliberate only when necessary. In this picture, theories characterizing the deliberation process it is still overlooked the problem of changing intentions of cognitive agents. We discuss intention reconsideration not because of the change of beliefs, but because the normative as a strategy to make agents compliant constraints require to do so.

In weighted voting games, each agent has a weight, and a coalition of players is deemed to be winning if its weight meets or exceeds the given quota. An agent's power in such games is usually measured by her Shapley value, which depends both on the agent's weight and the quota. [Zuckerman et. al., 2008] show that one can alter a player's power significantly by modifying the quota, and investigate some of the related algorithmic issues. In this paper, we answer a number of questions that were left open by [Zuckerman et. al., 2008]: we show that, even though deciding whether a quota maximizes or minimizes an agent's Shapley value is coNP-hard, finding a Shapley value-maximizing quota is easy. Minimizing a player's power appears to be more difficult. However, we propose and evaluate a heuristic for this problem, which takes into account the voter's rank and the overall weight distribution. We also explore a number of other algorithmic issues related to quota manipulation.

As explained by Axelrod in his seminal work An Evolutionary Approach to Norms , punishment is a key mechanism to achieve the necessary social control and to impose social norms in a self-regulated society. In this paper, we distinguish between two enforcing mechanisms. i.e. punishment and sanction , focusing on the specific ways in which they favor the emergence and maintenance of cooperation. The key research question is to find more stable and cheaper mechanisms for norm compliance in hybrid social environments (populated by humans and computational agents). To achieve this task, we have developed a normative agent able to punish and sanction defectors and to dynamically choose the right amount of punishment and sanction to impose on them ( Dynamic Adaptation Heuristic ). The results obtained through agent-based simulation show us that sanction is more effective and less costly than punishment in the achievement and maintenance of cooperation and it makes the population more resilient to sudden changes than if it were enforced only by mere punishment.