arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.13569

Limit-sure Winning in Team Games without Shared Randomness

Léonard Brice·Thomas A. Henzinger·Alipasha Montaseri·Ali Shafiee·K. S. Thejaswini
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We study concurrent stochastic games in which a team of agents plays against an adversarial environment. If the agents could access a shared source of randomness, then these games reduce to two-player games. Despite being common in the literature on coalition games, this assumption does not accurately model real-world systems. In this paper, we consider the setting where the agents only have access to individual sources of randomness, and must satisfy a given reachability or safety objective. The limit-sure problem asks whether the team can ensure that the objective is satisfied with probability at least $1-λ$ for every $λ>0$. For reachability objectives, we show that this problem is $\mathsf{NP}$-complete. For safety objectives, we show that limit-sure winning coincides with almost-sure winning, which is known to lie in $\mathsf{P}$. As a corollary of these results, we conclude that model checking of the qualitative fragment of the logic Individually Randomised ATL -- introduced in the recent work of Brice et al. -- is $\mathsf{P}^{\mathsf{NP}}$-complete.

Explore related subjects

cs.GTcs.FLcs.MA

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Léonard Brice, Thomas A. Henzinger, Alipasha Montaseri, Ali Shafiee, K. S. Thejaswini. 2026-10-09. Limit-sure Winning in Team Games without Shared Randomness. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.13569

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Co-opetition Equilibrium in Adversarial Team Games with Heterogeneous Utilities

The United Nations' 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development requires all countries to collaborate against adversarial factors, a scenario that can be formalized as an adversarial team game. However, existing solution concepts assume team players share identical utility functions---an assumption inconsistent with real-world settings where countries have divergent objectives. This paper argues that studying adversarial team games must account for heterogeneous utilities among team players. We show that ignoring utility differences can render computed equilibria unstable in the original game, and we formalize this degradation via the Price of Ignoring Heterogeneity, which can be unbounded. To address this, we introduce the Co-opetition Equilibrium (CoE), where team players with heterogeneous utilities correlate their strategies (cooperation) against an adversary (competition). We establish existence via reduction from Nash equilibrium, and prove that finding a CoE is PPAD-complete while computing a Team-Maximizing CoE (TMCoE) is NP-hard. Nevertheless, we identify a broad class of zero-sum adversarial team games---those satisfying a consistent-constraint condition that generalizes identical utilities---where TMCoEs are exchangeable and computable in polynomial time via linear programming. We outline directions for algorithm design, MARL, and extensions to extensive-form and multi-team games.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

Smart Lotteries in School Choice: Ex-ante Pareto-Improvement with Ex-post Stability

In school choice, students typically have strict preferences over the schools while the schools have coarse priorities over the students based on their distance and their enrolled siblings. The outcome of a centralized admission mechanism is then usually obtained by the Deferred Acceptance (DA) algorithm with random tie-breaking. Therefore, every outcome of this mechanism that occurs with a positive probability is a stable solution for the coarse priorities. This implies a probabilistic assignment, specifying the admission probability for each student-school pair. In this paper, we propose a new efficiency-improving stable 'smart lottery' mechanism. We aim to improve the probabilistic assignment ex-ante in a stochastic dominance sense, while ensuring that the improved random matching is still ex-post stable, meaning that it can be decomposed into stable matchings regarding the original coarse priorities. Therefore, this smart lottery mechanism can provide a clear Pareto-improvement in expectation for any cardinal utilities compared to the standard DA with lottery solution, without sacrificing the stability of the final outcome. We show that although the underlying computational problem is NP-hard, we can solve the problem in practice by using column generation. Our computational results show that the welfare gains by our mechanism are substantially larger than the expected gains by standard methods that realize efficiency improvements after ties have already been broken. Additionally, we illustrate for real-world school choice data of Ghent (Belgium) that, while not theoretically guaranteed, our mechanism can Pareto-improve upon methods that improve upon DA but violate ex-post stability, such as Efficiency-Adjusted Deferred Acceptance.

cs.GT↗
arXiv2026

The False Allure of "Security by Obscurity": A Game-Theoretic Approach

"Security by obscurity," or the idea that hiding how a system works helps protect it from adversaries, has long been poorly regarded in the security community. Yet its intuitive appeal persists, and it has resurfaced repeatedly in industry practices and public debates over the years. The logic, on the one hand, is that open scrutiny of systems is the best way to find and respond to problems; and on the other hand, that too much openness can increase risk by giving adversaries a roadmap for attack. This isn't purely a technical question, but a human one: it's about how attackers and good-faith security researchers respond to openness in the real world. As such, security experts base their stance on decades of community experience; however, the field lacks empirical or theoretical foundations to back up these long-standing beliefs. We provide the first rigorous modeling of "security by obscurity," aiming to capture how rational actors will respond to openness or obscurity in fallible systems. We prove that in equilibrium under realistic model conditions, "obscured" systems are more likely to suffer successful attacks than "open" systems --- establishing theoretical support for the longstanding received wisdom.

cs.GT↗