arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2309.11991

Quantifying Feature Importance of Games and Strategies via Shapley Values

Satoru Fujii
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Recent advances in game informatics have enabled us to find strong strategies across a diverse range of games. However, these strategies are usually difficult for humans to interpret. On the other hand, research in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has seen a notable surge in scholarly activity. Interpreting strong or near-optimal strategies or the game itself can provide valuable insights. In this paper, we propose two methods to quantify the feature importance using Shapley values: one for the game itself and another for individual AIs. We empirically show that our proposed methods yield intuitive explanations that resonate with and augment human understanding.

Explore related subjects

cs.MA

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Satoru Fujii. 2023-12-03. Quantifying Feature Importance of Games and Strategies via Shapley Values. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54968-7_8

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Emergent Risks in Generative Multi-Agent Systems

Multi-agent systems composed of large generative models are rapidly moving from laboratory prototypes to real-world deployments, where they jointly plan, negotiate, and allocate shared resources to solve complex tasks. While such systems promise unprecedented scalability and autonomy, their collective interaction also gives rise to failure modes that cannot be reduced to individual agents. Understanding these emergent risks is therefore critical. Here, we present a pioneer study of such emergent multi-agent risk in workflows that involve competition over shared resources (e.g., computing resources or market share), sequential handoff collaboration (where downstream agents see only predecessor outputs), collective decision aggregation, and others. Across these settings, we observe that such group behaviors arise frequently across repeated trials and a wide range of interaction conditions, rather than as rare or pathological cases. In particular, phenomena such as collusion-like coordination and conformity emerge with non-trivial frequency under realistic resource constraints, communication protocols, and role assignments, mirroring well-known pathologies in human societies despite no explicit instruction. Moreover, these risks cannot be prevented by existing agent-level safeguards alone. These findings expose the dark side of intelligent multi-agent systems: a social intelligence risk where agent collectives, despite no instruction to do so, spontaneously reproduce familiar failure patterns from human societies.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

Stability and Convergence of Optimistic Exponential Weights with Asymmetric Step Sizes in Bimatrix Games

We study bimatrix two-player games and investigate the last-iterate convergence and stability of equilibria for the iterates generated by the optimistic exponential weights method. In contrast to prior work, we allow the step sizes $η_x$ and $η_y$ to differ. Our first main result establishes, under the assumption that the set of fixed points is finite, a sufficient condition for global last-iterate convergence in the special case of zero-sum games, which constrains only the product $η_xη_y$ of the step sizes. This condition is practically relevant and partially explains empirically observed behavior. Our second main result provides an almost-tight threshold for asymptotic stability and instability, again in terms of products of the step sizes, for general bimatrix games. This result is primarily of theoretical interest. We derive several known results and practically relevant step size bounds for special cases and illustrate our results by experiments.

cs.MA↗
arXiv2026

Same Game, Different Story: A Minimal Conservative Strategic Robustness Benchmark for Large Language Model Agents

Large language model agents are increasingly deployed in settings where the value of an action depends on what other agents do. This creates a strategic reliability problem: the same game may be described as a business negotiation, a friendly compromise, a diplomatic exchange, or an abstract payoff matrix, and the model may choose different actions even when the incentives are unchanged. This paper introduces \emph{Same Game, Different Story}, a benchmark for strategic robustness: invariance of model-induced action distributions under payoff-preserving language changes. The empirical analysis uses a deliberately narrow, literature-calibrated comparison from Lorè and Heydari's peer-reviewed study: business framing versus friend-sharing framing across GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and LLaMa-2 in four social-dilemma games, with 300 initializations per retained model-game-context cell. The retained design comprises 24 of the source study's 60 cells, representing 7,200 decisions. Because trial-level files were not available from the article, the analysis is presented as a secondary calibration based on reconstructed published rates, not as new model runs. As a conservative sensitivity analysis, effect magnitudes are attenuated by 30\% toward the null: action shifts are multiplied by 0.70, and non-robustness, defined as one minus the robustness score, is multiplied by 0.70. Under this attenuation, pooled strategic robustness is 0.783 with a 95\% bootstrap interval from 0.774 to 0.790, and friend-sharing framing raises cooperation by 0.307 with a 95\% bootstrap interval from 0.297 to 0.316 relative to business framing. The analysis supports the narrower claim that social-relational framing can change strategic choices even when incentives are held fixed, without extending the analysis to a broader suite of contextual or cross-benchmark comparisons.

cs.MA↗