The usage of automated learning agents is becoming increasingly prevalent in many online economic applications such as online auctions and automated trading. Motivated by such applications, this paper is dedicated to fundamental modeling and analysis of the strategic situations that the users of automated learning agents are facing. We consider strategic settings where several users engage in a repeated online interaction, assisted by regret-minimizing learning agents that repeatedly play a game on their behalf. We propose to view the outcomes of the agents' dynamics as inducing a meta-game between the users. Our main focus is on whether users can benefit in this meta-game from manipulating their own agents by misreporting their parameters to them. We define a general framework to model and analyze these strategic interactions between users of learning agents for general games and analyze the equilibria induced between the users in three classes of games. We show that, generally, users have incentives to misreport their parameters to their own agents, and that such strategic user behavior can lead to very different outcomes than those anticipated by standard analysis.

The challenge of developing powerful and general Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents has received increasing attention in recent years. Much of this effort has focused on the single-agent setting, in which an agent maximizes a predefined extrinsic reward function. However, a long-term question inevitably arises: how will such independent agents cooperate when they are continually learning and acting in a shared multi-agent environment? Observing that humans often provide incentives to influence others' behavior, we propose to equip each RL agent in a multi-agent environment with the ability to give rewards directly to other agents, using a learned incentive function. Each agent learns its own incentive function by explicitly accounting for its impact on the learning of recipients and, through them, the impact on its own extrinsic objective. We demonstrate in experiments that such agents significantly outperform standard RL and opponent-shaping agents in challenging general-sum Markov games, often by finding a near-optimal division of labor. Our work points toward more opportunities and challenges along the path to ensure the common good in a multi-agent future.

Peer prediction refers to a collection of mechanisms for eliciting information from human agents when direct verification of the obtained information is unavailable. They are designed to have a game-theoretic equilibrium where everyone reveals their private information truthfully. This result holds under the assumption that agents are Bayesian and they each adopt a fixed strategy across all tasks. Human agents however are observed in many domains to exhibit learning behavior in sequential settings. In this paper, we explore the dynamics of sequential peer prediction mechanisms when participants are learning agents.

Hanabi has become a popular game for research when it comes to reinforcement learning (RL) as it is one of the few cooperative card games where you have incomplete knowledge of the entire environment, thus presenting a challenge for a RL agent. We explored different tabular and deep reinforcement learning algorithms to see which had the best performance both against an agent of the same type and also against other types of agents. We establish that certain agents played their highest scoring games against specific agents while others exhibited higher scores on average by adapting to the opposing agent's behavior. We attempted to quantify the conditions under which each algorithm provides the best advantage and identified the most interesting interactions between agents of different types. In the end, we found that temporal difference (TD) algorithms had better overall performance and balancing of play types compared to tabular agents. Specifically, tabular Expected SARSA and deep Q-Learning agents showed the best performance.

Real-life contractual relations typically involve repeated interactions between the principal and agent, where, despite theoretical appeal, players rarely use complex dynamic strategies and instead manage uncertainty through learning algorithms.In this paper, we initiate the study of repeated contracts with learning agents, focusing on those achieving no-regret outcomes. For the canonical setting where the agent's actions result in success or failure, we present a simple, optimal solution for the principal: Initially provide a linear contract with scalar \alpha 0, then switch to a zero-scalar contract. This shift causes the agent to "free-fall" through their action space, yielding non-zero rewards for the principal at zero cost. Interestingly, despite the apparent exploitation, there are instances where our dynamic contract can make \emph{both} players better off compared to the best static contract. We then broaden the scope of our results to general linearly-scaled contracts, and, finally, to the best of our knowledge, we provide the first analysis of optimization against learning agents with uncertainty about the time horizon.

We study a setting where agents use no-regret learning algorithms to participate in repeated auctions. Recently, Kolumbus and Nisan [2022a] showed, rather surprisingly, that when bidders participate in second-price auctions using no-regret bidding algorithms, no matter how large the number of interactions T is, the runner-up bidder may not converge to bidding truthfully. Our first result shows that this holds forall deterministictruthful auctions. We also show that the ratio of the learning rates of different bidders can qualitatively affect the convergence of the bidders. Next, we consider the problem of revenue maximization in this environment. In the setting with fully rational bidders, the seminal result of Myerson [1981] showed that revenue can be maximized by using a second-price auction with reserves.

Weaknesses: I have two concerns on (1) baselines and (2) scalability. IA is a good one and it is nice to see that LIO outperforms IA, but I do think the results can be more convincing if more benchmark algorithms can be included. Mutual information can be also viewed as an approximation of accounting other agents' future policy change and has shown great performances in harvest/cleanup with a large number of agents. Can we simply learn a value function conditioned on the received rewards of different agents (in the same spirit of DDPG) so that we can avoid performing second-order gradient? These are the questions raised when I read the paper and I believe a more in-depth discussion/experiments will further consolidate the contribution of this work.

The usage of automated learning agents is becoming increasingly prevalent in many online economic applications such as online auctions and automated trading. Motivated by such applications, this paper is dedicated to fundamental modeling and analysis of the strategic situations that the users of automated learning agents are facing. We consider strategic settings where several users engage in a repeated online interaction, assisted by regret-minimizing learning agents that repeatedly play a "game" on their behalf. We propose to view the outcomes of the agents' dynamics as inducing a "meta-game" between the users. Our main focus is on whether users can benefit in this meta-game from "manipulating" their own agents by misreporting their parameters to them.

Peer prediction refers to a collection of mechanisms for eliciting information from human agents when direct verification of the obtained information is unavailable. They are designed to have a game-theoretic equilibrium where everyone reveals their private information truthfully. This result holds under the assumption that agents are Bayesian and they each adopt a fixed strategy across all tasks. Human agents however are observed in many domains to exhibit learning behavior in sequential settings. In this paper, we explore the dynamics of sequential peer prediction mechanisms when participants are learning agents.

The challenge of developing powerful and general Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents has received increasing attention in recent years. Much of this effort has focused on the single-agent setting, in which an agent maximizes a predefined extrinsic reward function. However, a long-term question inevitably arises: how will such independent agents cooperate when they are continually learning and acting in a shared multi-agent environment? Observing that humans often provide incentives to influence others' behavior, we propose to equip each RL agent in a multi-agent environment with the ability to give rewards directly to other agents, using a learned incentive function. Each agent learns its own incentive function by explicitly accounting for its impact on the learning of recipients and, through them, the impact on its own extrinsic objective. We demonstrate in experiments that such agents significantly outperform standard RL and opponent-shaping agents in challenging general-sum Markov games, often by finding a near-optimal division of labor.