Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
133 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Coordination in Noncooperative Multiplayer Matrix Games via Reduced Rank Correlated Equilibria (2403.10384v2)

Published 15 Mar 2024 in cs.GT, cs.MA, cs.SY, and eess.SY

Abstract: Coordination in multiplayer games enables players to avoid the lose-lose outcome that often arises at Nash equilibria. However, designing a coordination mechanism typically requires the consideration of the joint actions of all players, which becomes intractable in large-scale games. We develop a novel coordination mechanism, termed reduced rank correlated equilibria, which reduces the number of joint actions to be considered and thereby mitigates computational complexity. The idea is to approximate the set of all joint actions with the actions used in a set of pre-computed Nash equilibria via a convex hull operation. In a game with n players and each player having m actions, the proposed mechanism reduces the number of joint actions considered from O(mn) to O(mn). We demonstrate the application of the proposed mechanism to an air traffic queue management problem. Compared with the correlated equilibrium-a popular benchmark coordination mechanism-the proposed approach is capable of solving a problem involving four thousand times more joint actions while yielding similar or better performance in terms of a fairness indicator and showing a maximum optimality gap of 0.066% in terms of the average delay cost. In the meantime, it yields a solution that shows up to 99.5% improvement in a fairness indicator and up to 50.4% reduction in average delay cost compared to the Nash solution, which does not involve coordination.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (21)
  1. C. Papadimitrioiu, “Computing correlated equilibria in multi-player games,” Proc. of the Annu. ACM Symp. on Theory of Comput., pp. 49–56, 01 2005.
  2. R. J. Aumann, “Subjectivity and correlation in randomized strategies,” J. of Math. Econ., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 67–96, 1974.
  3. J. Bone, M. Droiuvelis, and I. Ray, “Coordination in 2 x 2 games by following recommendations from correlated equilibria,” 2013.
  4. J. Duffy, E. K. Lai, and W. Lim, “Coordination via correlation: an experimental study,” Econ. Theory, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 265–304, Aug 2017.
  5. A. Cavaliere, “Coordination and the provision of discrete public goods by correlated equilibria,” J. of Public Economic Theory, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 235–255, 2001.
  6. D. Wu, Y. Cai, L. Zhou, Z. Zheng, and B. Zheng, “Cooperative strategies for energy-aware ad hoc networks: A correlated-equilibrium game-theoretical approach,” IEEE Trans. on Veh. Technol., vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 2303–2314, 2013.
  7. Y. Babichenko, S. Barman, and R. Peretz, “Simple approximate equilibria in large games,” in Proc. of the Fifteenth ACM Conf. on Econ. and Comput., ser. EC ’14.   New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2014, p. 753–770.
  8. S. Hart and A. Mas-Colell, “A simple adaptive procedure leading to correlated equilibrium,” Econometrica, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 1127–1150, 2024/02/19/ 2000, full publication date: Sep., 2000.
  9. J. Lenzo and T. Sarver, “Correlated equilibrium in evolutionary models with subpopulations,” Games and Econ. Behav., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 271–284, 2006.
  10. J. Arifovic, J. F. Boitnott, and J. Duffy, “Learning correlated equilibria: An evolutionary approach,” Journal of Econ. Behav. & Org., vol. 157, pp. 171–190, 2019.
  11. J. R. Marden, “Selecting efficient correlated equilibria through distributed learning,” Games and Econ. Behav., vol. 106, pp. 114–133, 2017.
  12. H. P. Borowski, J. R. Marden, and J. S. Shamma, “Learning efficient correlated equilibria,” in 53rd IEEE Conf. on Decis. and Control, 2014, pp. 6836–6841.
  13. S. G. Park and P. K. Menon, “Game-theoretic trajectory-negotiation mechanism for merging air traffic management,” J. of Guid., Control, and Dyn., vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 3061–3074, 2017.
  14. D. Pisarski and C. Canudas-de Wit, “Nash game-based distributed control design for balancing traffic density over freeway networks,” IEEE Trans. on Control of Netw. Syst., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 149–161, 2016.
  15. L. Yu, E. Masabo, and C. Mutimukwe, “Nash equilibrium: Better strategy for agents coordination,” in 2008 IEEE Asia-Pacific Services Comput. Conf., 2008, pp. 795–800.
  16. D. A. Braun, P. A. Ortega, and D. M. Wolpert, “Nash equilibria in multi-agent motor interactions,” PLoS Comput. biol., vol. 5, no. 8, p. e1000468, 2009.
  17. R. Nau, S. G. Canovas, and P. Hansen, “On the geometry of nash equilibria and correlated equilibria,” Int. J. of Game Theory, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 443–453, Aug 2004.
  18. M. Juvekar and A. Nadjimzadah, “Notions of tensor rank,” arXiv:2210.01183, 2022.
  19. S. P. Dirkse and M. C. Ferris, “The path solver: a nommonotone stabilization scheme for mixed complementarity problems,” Optim. Methods and Softw., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 123–156, 1995.
  20. L. Peters, “ParametricMCPs.jl,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/lassepe/ParametricMCPs.jl
  21. V. Xinying Chen and J. N. Hooker, “A guide to formulating fairness in an optimization model,” Ann. of Oper Res., vol. 326, no. 1, pp. 581–619, Jul 2023.
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com