Firms' algorithm development practices are often homogeneous. Whether firms train algorithms on similar data or rely on similar pre-trained models, the result is correlated predictions. In the context of personalized pricing, correlated algorithms can be viewed as a means to collude among competing firms, but whether or not this conduct is legal depends on the mechanisms of achieving collusion. We investigate the precise mechanisms through a formal game-theoretic model. Indeed, we find that (1) higher correlation diminishes consumer welfare and (2) as consumers become more price sensitive, firms are increasingly incentivized to compromise on the accuracy of their predictions in exchange for coordination. We demonstrate our theoretical results in a stylized empirical study where two firms compete using personalized pricing algorithms. Our results demonstrate a new mechanism for achieving collusion through correlation, which allows us to analyze its legal implications. Correlation through algorithms is a new frontier of anti-competitive behavior that is largely unconsidered by US antitrust law.

We consider the problem of computing stationary points in min-max optimization, with a focus on the special case of Nash equilibria in (two-)team zero-sum games. We first show that computing ϵ-Nash equilibria in 3-player adversarial team games--wherein a team of 2players competes against a single adversary-- is CLS-complete, resolving the complexity of Nash equilibria in such settings. Our proof proceeds by reducing from symmetric ϵ-Nash equilibria in symmetric, identical-payoff, two-player games, by suitably leveraging the adversarial player so as to enforce symmetry--without disturbing the structure of the game. In particular, the class of instances we construct comprises solely polymatrix games, thereby also settling a question left open by Hollender, Maystre, and Nagarajan (2024). Moreover, we establish that computing symmetric (first-order) equilibria in symmetric min-max optimization is PPAD-complete, even for quadratic functions. Building on this reduction, we show that computing symmetric ϵ-Nash equilibria in symmetric, 6-player (3 vs. 3) team zero-sum games is also PPAD-complete, even for ϵ = poly(1/n). As a corollary, this precludes the existence of symmetric dynamics--which includes many of the algorithms considered in the literature-- converging to stationary points. Finally, we prove that computing a non-symmetric poly(1/n)-equilibrium in symmetric min-max optimization is FNP-hard.

From media platforms to chatbots, algorithms shape how people interact, learn, and discover information. Such interactions between users and an algorithm often unfold over multiple steps, during which strategic users can guide the algorithm to better align with their true interests by selectively engaging with content. However, users frequently exhibit inconsistent preferences: they may spend considerable time on content that offers little long-term value, inadvertently signaling that such content is desirable. Focusing on the user side, this raises a key question: what does it take for such users to align the algorithm with their true interests? To investigate these dynamics, we model the user's decision process as split between a rational "system 2" that decides whether to engage and an impulsive "system 1" that determines how long engagement lasts.

Multi-agent Inverse Reinforcement Learning (MAIRL) aims to recover agent reward functions from expert demonstrations. We characterize the feasible reward set in Markov games, identifying all reward functions that rationalize a given equilibrium. However, equilibrium-based observations are often ambiguous: a single Nash equilibrium can correspond to many reward structures, potentially changing the game's nature in multi-agent systems. We address this by introducing entropyregularized Markov games, which yield a unique equilibrium while preserving strategic incentives. For this setting, we provide a sample complexity analysis detailing how errors affect learned policy performance. Our work establishes theoretical foundations and practical insights for MAIRL.

Federated continual learning (FCL) has garnered increasing attention for its ability to support distributed computation in environments with evolving data distributions. However, the emergence of new tasks introduces both temporal and cross-client shifts, making catastrophic forgetting a critical challenge. Most existing works aggregate knowledge from clients into a global model, which may not enhance client performance since irrelevant knowledge could introduce interference, especially in heterogeneous scenarios. Additionally, directly applying decentralized approaches to FCL suffers from ineffective group formation caused by task changes. To address these challenges, we propose a decentralized dynamic cooperation framework for FCL, where clients establish dynamic cooperative learning coalitions to balance the acquisition of new knowledge and the retention of prior learning, thereby obtaining personalized models. To maximize model performance, each client engages in selective cooperation, dynamically allying with others who offer meaningful performance gains.

This paper provides the first expert sample complexity characterization for learning a Nash equilibrium from expert data in Markov Games. We show that a new quantity named the all policy deviation concentrability coefficient is unavoidable in the non-interactive imitation learning setting, and we provide an upper bound for behavioral cloning (BC) featuring such coefficient. BC exhibits substantial regret in games with high concentrability coefficient, leading us to utilize expert queries to develop and introduce two novel solution algorithms: MAIL-BRO and MURMAIL. The former employs a best response oracle and learns an ε-Nash equilibrium with O(ε 4)expert and oracle queries.

We introduce TRiCo, a novel triadic game-theoretic co-training framework that rethinks the structure of semi-supervised learning by incorporating a teacher, two students, and an adversarial generator into a unified training paradigm. Unlike existing co-training or teacher-student approaches, TRiCo formulates SSL as a structured interaction among three roles: (i) two student classifiers trained on frozen, complementary representations, (ii) a meta-learned teacher that adaptively regulates pseudo-label selection and loss balancing via validation-based feedback, and (iii) a non-parametric generator that perturbs embeddings to uncover decision boundary weaknesses. Pseudo-labels are selected based on mutual information rather than confidence, providing a more robust measure of epistemic uncertainty. This triadic interaction is formalized as a Stackelberg game, where the teacher leads strategy optimization and students follow under adversarial perturbations. By addressing key limitations in existing SSL frameworks--such as static view interactions, unreliable pseudo-labels, and lack of hard sample modeling--TRiCo provides a principled and generalizable solution. Extensive experiments on CIFAR10, SVHN, STL-10, and ImageNet demonstrate that TRiCo consistently achieves state-of-the-art performance in low-label regimes, while remaining architectureagnostic and compatible with frozen vision backbones.

On many learning platforms, the optimization criteria guiding model training reflect the priorities of the designer rather than those of the individuals they affect. Consequently, users may act strategically to obtain more favorable outcomes. While past work has studied strategic user behavior on learning platforms, the focus has largely been on individual strategic responses to a deployed model, without considering the behavior of other users. In contrast, look-ahead reasoning takes into account that user actions are coupled, and--at scale--impact future predictions. Within this framework, we first formalize level-k thinking, a concept from behavioral economics, where users aim to outsmart their peers by looking one step ahead. We show that, while convergence to an equilibrium is accelerated, the equilibrium remains the same, providing no benefit of higher-level reasoning for individuals in the long run. Then, we focus on collective reasoning, where users take coordinated actions by optimizing through their joint impact on the model. By contrasting collective with selfish behavior, we characterize the benefits and limits of coordination; a new notion of alignment between the learner's and the users' utilities emerges as a key concept. Look-ahead reasoning can be seen as a generalization of algorithmic collective action; we thus offer the first results characterizing the utility trade-offs of coordination when contesting algorithmic systems.

In this paper, we examine the convergence landscape of multi-agent learning under uncertainty. Specifically, we analyze two stochastic models of regularized learning in continuous games--one in continuous and one in discrete time--with the aim of characterizing the long-run behavior of the induced sequence of play. In stark contrast to deterministic, full-information models of learning (or models with a vanishing learning rate), we show that the resulting dynamics do not converge in general. In lieu of this, we ask instead which actions are played more often in the long run, and by how much. We show that, in strongly monotone games, the dynamics of regularized learning may wander away from equilibrium infinitely often, but they always return to its vicinity in finite time (which we estimate), and their long-run distribution is sharply concentrated around a neighborhood thereof. We quantify the degree of this concentration, and we show that these favorable properties may all break down if the underlying game is not strongly monotone--underscoring in this way the limits of regularized learning in the presence of persistent randomness and uncertainty.

When a prediction algorithm serves a collection of users, disparities in prediction quality are likely to emerge. If users respond to accurate predictions by increasing engagement, inviting friends, or adopting trends, repeated learning creates a feedback loop that shapes both the model and the population of its users. In this work, we introduce evolutionary prediction games, a framework grounded in evolutionary game theory which models such feedback loops as natural-selection processes among groups of users. Our theoretical analysis reveals a gap between idealized and real-world learning settings: In idealized settings with unlimited data and computational power, repeated learning creates competition and promotes competitive exclusion across a broad class of behavioral dynamics. However, under realistic constraints such as finite data, limited compute, or risk of overfitting, we show that stable coexistence and mutualistic symbiosis between groups becomes possible. We analyze these possibilities in terms of their stability and feasibility, present mechanisms that can sustain their existence, and empirically demonstrate our findings.