We present a novel approach for explaining Gaussian processes (GPs) that can utilize the full analytical covariance structure present in GPs.

To thrive in those environments, the agent needs to influence other agents so their actions become more helpful and less harmful. Research in computational economics distills two ways to influence others directly: by providing tangible goods ( mechanism design) and by providing information ( information design). This work investigates information design problems for a group of RL agents. The main challenges are two-fold. One is the information provided will immediately affect the transition of the agent trajectories, which introduces additional non-stationarity. The other is the information can be ignored, so the sender must provide information that the receiver is willing to respect.

The combination of the Bayesian game and learning has a rich history, with the idea of controlling a single agent in a system composed of multiple agents with unknown behaviors given a set of types, each specifying a possible behavior for the other agents. The idea is to plan an agent's own actions with respect to those types which it believes are most likely to maximize the payoff. However, the type beliefs are often learned from past actions and likely to be incorrect. With this perspective in mind, we consider an agent in a game with type predictions of other components, and investigate the impact of incorrect beliefs to the agent's payoff. In particular, we formally define a tradeoff between risk and opportunity by comparing the payoff obtained against the optimal payoff, which is represented by a gap caused by trusting or distrusting the learned beliefs.Our main results characterize the tradeoff by establishing upper and lower bounds on the Pareto front for both normal-form and stochastic Bayesian games, with numerical results provided.

Recent results in the ML community have revealed that learning algorithms used to compute the optimal strategy for the leader to commit to in a Stackelberg game, are susceptible to manipulation by the follower. Such a learning algorithm operates by querying the best responses or the payoffs of the follower, who consequently can deceive the algorithm by responding as if their payoffs were much different than what they actually are. For this strategic behavior to be successful, the main challenge faced by the follower is to pinpoint the payoffs that would make the learning algorithm compute a commitment so that best responding to it maximizes the follower's utility, according to the true payoffs. While this problem has been considered before, the related literature only focused on the simplified scenario in which the payoff space is finite, thus leaving the general version of the problem unanswered. In this paper, we fill this gap by showing that it is always possible for the follower to efficiently compute (near-)optimal payoffs for various scenarios of learning interaction between the leader and the follower.

We study a sequential matching problem faced by large centralized platforms where jobs must be matched to workers subject to uncertainty about worker skill proficiencies. Jobs arrive at discrete times with job-types observable upon arrival. To capture the choice overload phenomenon, we posit an unlimited supply of workers where each worker is characterized by a vector of attributes (aka worker-types) drawn from an underlying population-level distribution. The distribution as well as mean payoffs for possible worker-job type-pairs are unobservables and the platform's goal is to sequentially match incoming jobs to workers in a way that maximizes its cumulative payoffs over the planning horizon. We establish lower bounds on the regret of any matching algorithm in this setting and propose a novel rate-optimal learning algorithm that adapts to aforementioned primitives online. Our learning guarantees highlight a distinctive characteristic of the problem: achievable performance only has a second-order dependence on worker-type distributions; we believe this finding may be of interest more broadly.

Recent extensions to dynamic games of the well known fictitious play learning procedure in static games were proved to globally converge to stationary Nash equilibria in two important classes of dynamic games (zero-sum and identical-interest discounted stochastic games). However, those decentralized algorithms need the players to know exactly the model (the transition probabilities and their payoffs at every stage). To overcome these strong assumptions, our paper introduces regularizations of the recent algorithms which are moreover, model-free (players don't know the transitions and their payoffs are perturbed at every stage). Our novel procedures can be interpreted as extensions to stochastic games of the classical smooth fictitious play learning procedures in static games (where players best responses are regularized, thanks to a smooth perturbation of their payoff functions). We prove the convergence of our family of procedures to stationary regularized Nash equilibria in the same classes of dynamic games (zero-sum and identical interests discounted stochastic games). The proof uses the continuous smooth best-response dynamics counterparts, and stochastic approximation methods.

Pseudo-games are a natural and well-known generalization of normal-form games, in which the actions taken by each player affect not only the other players' payoffs, as in games, but also the other players' strategy sets. The solution concept par excellence for pseudo-games is the generalized Nash equilibrium (GNE), i.e., a strategy profile at which each player's strategy is feasible and no player can improve their payoffs by unilaterally deviating to another strategy in the strategy set determined by the other players' strategies. The computation of GNE in pseudo-games has long been a problem of interest, due to applications in a wide variety of fields, from environmental protection to logistics to telecommunications. Although computing GNE is PPAD-hard in general, it is still of interest to try to compute them in restricted classes of pseudo-games. One approach is to search for a strategy profile that minimizes exploitability, i.e., the sum of the regrets across all players. As exploitability is nondifferentiable in general, developing efficient first-order methods that minimize it might not seem possible at first glance. We observe, however, that the exploitability-minimization problem can be recast as a min-max optimization problem, and thereby obtain polynomial-time first-order methods to compute a refinement of GNE, namely the variational equilibria (VE), in convex-concave cumulative regret pseudo-games with jointly convex constraints. More generally, we also show that our methods find the stationary points of the exploitability in polynomial time in Lipschitz-smooth pseudo-games with jointly convex constraints. Finally, we demonstrate in experiments that our methods not only outperform known algorithms, but that even in pseudo-games where they are not guaranteed to converge to a GNE, they may do so nonetheless, with proper initialization.

An oligopoly is a market in which the price of goods is controlled by a few firms. Cournot introduced the simplest game-theoretic model of oligopoly, where profit-maximizing behavior of each firm results in market failure. Furthermore, when the Cournot oligopoly game is infinitely repeated, firms can tacitly collude to monopolize the market. Such tacit collusion is realized by the same mechanism as direct reciprocity in the repeated prisoner's dilemma game, where mutual cooperation can be realized whereas defection is favorable for both prisoners in a one-shot game. Recently, in the repeated prisoner's dilemma game, a class of strategies called zero-determinant strategies attracts much attention in the context of direct reciprocity. Zero-determinant strategies are autocratic strategies which unilaterally control payoffs of players by enforcing linear relationships between payoffs. There were many attempts to find zero-determinant strategies in other games and to extend them so as to apply them to broader situations. In this paper, first, we show that zero-determinant strategies exist even in the repeated Cournot oligopoly game, and that they are quite different from those in the repeated prisoner's dilemma game. Especially, we prove that a fair zero-determinant strategy exists, which is guaranteed to obtain the average payoff of the opponents. Second, we numerically show that the fair zero-determinant strategy can be used to promote collusion when it is used against an adaptively learning player, whereas it cannot promote collusion when it is used against two adaptively learning players. Our findings elucidate some negative impact of zero-determinant strategies in the oligopoly market.

Shapley values, a gold standard for feature attribution in Explainable AI, face two primary challenges. First, the canonical Shapley framework assumes that the worth function is additive, yet real-world payoff constructions--driven by non-Gaussian distributions, heavy tails, feature dependence, or domain-specific loss scales--often violate this assumption, leading to distorted attributions. Secondly, achieving sparse explanations in high dimensions by computing dense Shapley values and then applying ad hoc thresholding is prohibitively costly and risks inconsistency. We introduce Sparse Isotonic Shapley Regression (SISR), a unified nonlinear explanation framework. SISR simultaneously learns a monotonic transformation to restore additivity--obviating the need for a closed-form specification--and enforces an L0 sparsity constraint on the Shapley vector, enhancing computational efficiency in large feature spaces. Its optimization algorithm leverages Pool-Adjacent-Violators for efficient isotonic regression and normalized hard-thresholding for support selection, yielding implementation ease and global convergence guarantees. Analysis shows that SISR recovers the true transformation in a wide range of scenarios and achieves strong support recovery even in high noise. Moreover, we are the first to demonstrate that irrelevant features and inter-feature dependencies can induce a true payoff transformation that deviates substantially from linearity. Experiments in regression, logistic regression, and tree ensembles demonstrate that SISR stabilizes attributions across payoff schemes, correctly filters irrelevant features while standard Shapley values suffer severe rank and sign distortions. By unifying nonlinear transformation estimation with sparsity pursuit, SISR advances the frontier of nonlinear explainability, providing a theoretically grounded and practical attribution framework.