arXiv subjects

Tuomas Sandholm

Publications and source records attributed to Tuomas Sandholm.

At least 163 records · Page 9Linked to original sources

arXiv2016

Hardness of the Pricing Problem for Chains in Barter Exchanges

Kidney exchange is a barter market where patients trade willing but medically incompatible donors. These trades occur via cycles, where each patient-donor pair both gives and receives a kidney, and via chains, which begin with an altruistic donor who does not require a kidney in return. For logistical reasons, the maximum length of a cycle is typically limited to a small constant, while chains can be much longer. Given a compatibility graph of patient-donor pairs, altruists, and feasible potential transplants between them, finding even a maximum-cardinality set of vertex-disjoint cycles and chains is NP-hard. There has been much work on developing provably optimal solvers that are efficient in practice. One of the leading techniques has been branch and price, where column generation is used to incrementally bring cycles and chains into the optimization model on an as-needed basis. In particular, only positive-price columns need to be brought into the model. We prove that finding a positive-price chain is NP-complete. This shows incorrectness of two leading branch-and-price solvers that suggested polynomial-time chain pricing algorithms.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2015

Ignorance is Almost Bliss: Near-Optimal Stochastic Matching With Few Queries

The stochastic matching problem deals with finding a maximum matching in a graph whose edges are unknown but can be accessed via queries. This is a special case of stochastic $k$-set packing, where the problem is to find a maximum packing of sets, each of which exists with some probability. In this paper, we provide edge and set query algorithms for these two problems, respectively, that provably achieve some fraction of the omniscient optimal solution. Our main theoretical result for the stochastic matching (i.e., $2$-set packing) problem is the design of an \emph{adaptive} algorithm that queries only a constant number of edges per vertex and achieves a $(1-ε)$ fraction of the omniscient optimal solution, for an arbitrarily small $ε>0$. Moreover, this adaptive algorithm performs the queries in only a constant number of rounds. We complement this result with a \emph{non-adaptive} (i.e., one round of queries) algorithm that achieves a $(0.5 - ε)$ fraction of the omniscient optimum. We also extend both our results to stochastic $k$-set packing by designing an adaptive algorithm that achieves a $(\frac{2}{k} - ε)$ fraction of the omniscient optimal solution, again with only $O(1)$ queries per element. This guarantee is close to the best known polynomial-time approximation ratio of $\frac{3}{k+1} -ε$ for the \emph{deterministic} $k$-set packing problem [Furer and Yu, 2013] We empirically explore the application of (adaptations of) these algorithms to the kidney exchange problem, where patients with end-stage renal failure swap willing but incompatible donors. We show on both generated data and on real data from the first 169 match runs of the UNOS nationwide kidney exchange that even a very small number of non-adaptive edge queries per vertex results in large gains in expected successful matches.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2015

Strong Nash equilibria and mixed strategies

In this paper we consider strong Nash equilibria, in mixed strategies, for finite games. Any strong Nash equilibrium outcome is Pareto efficient for each coalition. First, we analyze the two--player setting. Our main result, in its simplest form, states that if a game has a strong Nash equilibrium with full support (that is, both players randomize among all pure strategies), then the game is strictly competitive. In order to get our result we use the indifference principle fulfilled by any Nash equilibrium, and the classical KKT conditions (in the vector setting), that are necessary conditions for Pareto efficiency. Our characterization enables us to design a strong-Nash-equilibrium-finding algorithm with complexity in Smoothed-$\mathcal{P}$. So, this problem---that Conitzer and Sandholm [Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T., 2008. New complexity results about Nash equilibria. Games Econ. Behav. 63, 621--641] proved to be computationally hard in the worst case---is generically easy. Hence, although the worst case complexity of finding a strong Nash equilibrium is harder than that of finding a Nash equilibrium, once small perturbations are applied, finding a strong Nash is easier than finding a Nash equilibrium. Next we switch to the setting with more than two players. We demonstrate that a strong Nash equilibrium can exist in which an outcome that is strictly Pareto dominated by a Nash equilibrium occurs with positive probability. Finally, we prove that games that have a strong Nash equilibrium where at least one player puts positive probability on at least two pure strategies are extremely rare: they are of zero measure.

math.OC↗

arXiv2014

Complexity of Mechanism Design

The aggregation of conflicting preferences is a central problem in multiagent systems. The key difficulty is that the agents may report their preferences insincerely. Mechanism design is the art of designing the rules of the game so that the agents are motivated to report their preferences truthfully and a (socially) desirable outcome is chosen. We propose an approach where a mechanism is automatically created for the preference aggregation setting at hand. This has several advantages, but the downside is that the mechanism design optimization problem needs to be solved anew each time. Focusing on settings where side payments are not possible, we show that the mechanism design problem is NP-complete for deterministic mechanisms. This holds both for dominant-strategy implementation and for Bayes-Nash implementation. We then show that if we allow randomized mechanisms, the mechanism design problem becomes tractable. In other words, the coordinator can tackle the computational complexity introduced by its uncertainty about the agents preferences BY making the agents face additional uncertainty.This comes at no loss, AND IN SOME cases at a gain, IN the(social) objective.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2014

Algorithms for Closed Under Rational Behavior (CURB) Sets

We provide a series of algorithms demonstrating that solutions according to the fundamental game-theoretic solution concept of closed under rational behavior (CURB) sets in two-player, normal-form games can be computed in polynomial time (we also discuss extensions to n-player games). First, we describe an algorithm that identifies all of a player's best responses conditioned on the belief that the other player will play from within a given subset of its strategy space. This algorithm serves as a subroutine in a series of polynomial-time algorithms for finding all minimal CURB sets, one minimal CURB set, and the smallest minimal CURB set in a game. We then show that the complexity of finding a Nash equilibrium can be exponential only in the size of a game's smallest CURB set. Related to this, we show that the smallest CURB set can be an arbitrarily small portion of the game, but it can also be arbitrarily larger than the supports of its only enclosed Nash equilibrium. We test our algorithms empirically and find that most commonly studied academic games tend to have either very large or very small minimal CURB sets.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2013

On the complexity of strong Nash equilibrium: Hard-to-solve instances and smoothed complexity

The computational characterization of game-theoretic solution concepts is a central topic in artificial intelligence, with the aim of developing computationally efficient tools for finding optimal ways to behave in strategic interactions. The central solution concept in game theory is Nash equilibrium (NE). However, it fails to capture the possibility that agents can form coalitions (even in the 2-agent case). Strong Nash equilibrium (SNE) refines NE to this setting. It is known that finding an SNE is NP-complete when the number of agents is constant. This hardness is solely due to the existence of mixed-strategy SNEs, given that the problem of enumerating all pure-strategy SNEs is trivially in P. Our central result is that, in order for a game to have at least one non-pure-strategy SNE, the agents' payoffs restricted to the agents' supports must, in the case of 2 agents, lie on the same line, and, in the case of n agents, lie on an (n - 1)-dimensional hyperplane. Leveraging this result, we provide two contributions. First, we develop worst-case instances for support-enumeration algorithms. These instances have only one SNE and the support size can be chosen to be of any size-in particular, arbitrarily large. Second, we prove that, unlike NE, finding an SNE is in smoothed polynomial time: generic game instances (i.e., all instances except knife-edge cases) have only pure-strategy SNEs.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2012

Combining local search techniques and path following for bimatrix games

Computing a Nash equilibrium (NE) is a central task in computer science. An NE is a particularly appropriate solution concept for two-agent settings because coalitional deviations are not an issue. However, even in this case, finding an NE is PPAD-complete. In this paper, we combine path following algorithms with local search techniques to design new algorithms for finding exact and approximate NEs. We show that our algorithms largely outperform the state of the art and that almost all the known benchmark game classes are easily solvable or approximable (except for the GAMUT CovariantGameRand class).

cs.GT↗

arXiv2012

Common Voting Rules as Maximum Likelihood Estimators

Voting is a very general method of preference aggregation. A voting rule takes as input every voter's vote (typically, a ranking of the alternatives), and produces as output either just the winning alternative or a ranking of the alternatives. One potential view of voting is the following. There exists a 'correct' outcome (winner/ranking), and each voter's vote corresponds to a noisy perception of this correct outcome. If we are given the noise model, then for any vector of votes, we can

cs.GT↗

arXiv2003

Complexity of Determining Nonemptiness of the Core

Coalition formation is a key problem in automated negotiation among self-interested agents, and other multiagent applications. A coalition of agents can sometimes accomplish things that the individual agents cannot, or can do things more efficiently. However, motivating the agents to abide to a solution requires careful analysis: only some of the solutions are stable in the sense that no group of agents is motivated to break off and form a new coalition. This constraint has been studied extensively in cooperative game theory. However, the computational questions around this constraint have received less attention. When it comes to coalition formation among software agents (that represent real-world parties), these questions become increasingly explicit. In this paper we define a concise general representation for games in characteristic form that relies on superadditivity, and show that it allows for efficient checking of whether a given outcome is in the core. We then show that determining whether the core is nonempty is $\mathcal{NP}$-complete both with and without transferable utility. We demonstrate that what makes the problem hard in both cases is determining the collaborative possibilities (the set of outcomes possible for the grand coalition), by showing that if these are given, the problem becomes tractable in both cases. However, we then demonstrate that for a hybrid version of the problem, where utility transfer is possible only within the grand coalition, the problem remains $\mathcal{NP}$-complete even when the collaborative possibilities are given.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2003

Definition and Complexity of Some Basic Metareasoning Problems

In most real-world settings, due to limited time or other resources, an agent cannot perform all potentially useful deliberation and information gathering actions. This leads to the metareasoning problem of selecting such actions. Decision-theoretic methods for metareasoning have been studied in AI, but there are few theoretical results on the complexity of metareasoning. We derive hardness results for three settings which most real metareasoning systems would have to encompass as special cases. In the first, the agent has to decide how to allocate its deliberation time across anytime algorithms running on different problem instances. We show this to be $\mathcal{NP}$-complete. In the second, the agent has to (dynamically) allocate its deliberation or information gathering resources across multiple actions that it has to choose among. We show this to be $\mathcal{NP}$-hard even when evaluating each individual action is extremely simple. In the third, the agent has to (dynamically) choose a limited number of deliberation or information gathering actions to disambiguate the state of the world. We show that this is $\mathcal{NP}$-hard under a natural restriction, and $\mathcal{PSPACE}$-hard in general.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2003

Universal Voting Protocol Tweaks to Make Manipulation Hard

Voting is a general method for preference aggregation in multiagent settings, but seminal results have shown that all (nondictatorial) voting protocols are manipulable. One could try to avoid manipulation by using voting protocols where determining a beneficial manipulation is hard computationally. A number of recent papers study the complexity of manipulating existing protocols. This paper is the first work to take the next step of designing new protocols that are especially hard to manipulate. Rather than designing these new protocols from scratch, we instead show how to tweak existing protocols to make manipulation hard, while leaving much of the original nature of the protocol intact. The tweak studied consists of adding one elimination preround to the election. Surprisingly, this extremely simple and universal tweak makes typical protocols hard to manipulate! The protocols become NP-hard, #P-hard, or PSPACE-hard to manipulate, depending on whether the schedule of the preround is determined before the votes are collected, after the votes are collected, or the scheduling and the vote collecting are interleaved, respectively. We prove general sufficient conditions on the protocols for this tweak to introduce the hardness, and show that the most common voting protocols satisfy those conditions. These are the first results in voting settings where manipulation is in a higher complexity class than NP (presuming PSPACE $\neq$ NP).

cs.GT↗

arXiv2003

BL-WoLF: A Framework For Loss-Bounded Learnability In Zero-Sum Games

We present BL-WoLF, a framework for learnability in repeated zero-sum games where the cost of learning is measured by the losses the learning agent accrues (rather than the number of rounds). The game is adversarially chosen from some family that the learner knows. The opponent knows the game and the learner's learning strategy. The learner tries to either not accrue losses, or to quickly learn about the game so as to avoid future losses (this is consistent with the Win or Learn Fast (WoLF) principle; BL stands for ``bounded loss''). Our framework allows for both probabilistic and approximate learning. The resultant notion of {\em BL-WoLF}-learnability can be applied to any class of games, and allows us to measure the inherent disadvantage to a player that does not know which game in the class it is in. We present {\em guaranteed BL-WoLF-learnability} results for families of games with deterministic payoffs and families of games with stochastic payoffs. We demonstrate that these families are {\em guaranteed approximately BL-WoLF-learnable} with lower cost. We then demonstrate families of games (both stochastic and deterministic) that are not guaranteed BL-WoLF-learnable. We show that those families, nevertheless, are {\em BL-WoLF-learnable}. To prove these results, we use a key lemma which we derive.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2003

How many candidates are needed to make elections hard to manipulate?

In multiagent settings where the agents have different preferences, preference aggregation is a central issue. Voting is a general method for preference aggregation, but seminal results have shown that all general voting protocols are manipulable. One could try to avoid manipulation by using voting protocols where determining a beneficial manipulation is hard computationally. The complexity of manipulating realistic elections where the number of candidates is a small constant was recently studied (Conitzer 2002), but the emphasis was on the question of whether or not a protocol becomes hard to manipulate for some constant number of candidates. That work, in many cases, left open the question: How many candidates are needed to make elections hard to manipulate? This is a crucial question when comparing the relative manipulability of different voting protocols. In this paper we answer that question for the voting protocols of the earlier study: plurality, Borda, STV, Copeland, maximin, regular cup, and randomized cup. We also answer that question for two voting protocols for which no results on the complexity of manipulation have been derived before: veto and plurality with runoff. It turns out that the voting protocols under study become hard to manipulate at 3 candidates, 4 candidates, 7 candidates, or never.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2003

AWESOME: A General Multiagent Learning Algorithm that Converges in Self-Play and Learns a Best Response Against Stationary Opponents

A satisfactory multiagent learning algorithm should, {\em at a minimum}, learn to play optimally against stationary opponents and converge to a Nash equilibrium in self-play. The algorithm that has come closest, WoLF-IGA, has been proven to have these two properties in 2-player 2-action repeated games--assuming that the opponent's (mixed) strategy is observable. In this paper we present AWESOME, the first algorithm that is guaranteed to have these two properties in {\em all} repeated (finite) games. It requires only that the other players' actual actions (not their strategies) can be observed at each step. It also learns to play optimally against opponents that {\em eventually become} stationary. The basic idea behind AWESOME ({\em Adapt When Everybody is Stationary, Otherwise Move to Equilibrium}) is to try to adapt to the others' strategies when they appear stationary, but otherwise to retreat to a precomputed equilibrium strategy. The techniques used to prove the properties of AWESOME are fundamentally different from those used for previous algorithms, and may help in analyzing other multiagent learning algorithms also.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2002

Vote Elicitation: Complexity and Strategy-Proofness

Preference elicitation is a central problem in AI, and has received significant attention in single-agent settings. It is also a key problem in multiagent systems, but has received little attention here so far. In this setting, the agents may have different preferences that often must be aggregated using voting. This leads to interesting issues because what, if any, information should be elicited from an agent depends on what other agents have revealed about their preferences so far. In this paper we study effective elicitation, and its impediments, for the most common voting protocols. It turns out that in the Single Transferable Vote protocol, even knowing when to terminate elicitation is mathcal NP-complete, while this is easy for all the other protocols under study. Even for these protocols, determining how to elicit effectively is NP-complete, even with perfect suspicions about how the agents will vote. The exception is the Plurality protocol where such effective elicitation is easy. We also show that elicitation introduces additional opportunities for strategic manipulation by the voters. We demonstrate how to curtail the space of elicitation schemes so that no such additional strategic issues arise.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2002

Complexity of Manipulating Elections with Few Candidates

In multiagent settings where the agents have different preferences, preference aggregation is a central issue. Voting is a general method for preference aggregation, but seminal results have shown that all general voting protocols are manipulable. One could try to avoid manipulation by using voting protocols where determining a beneficial manipulation is hard. Especially among computational agents, it is reasonable to measure this hardness by computational complexity. Some earlier work has been done in this area, but it was assumed that the number of voters and candidates is unbounded. We derive hardness results for practical multiagent settings where the number of candidates is small but the number of voters can be large. We show that with complete information about the others' votes, individual manipulation is easy, and coalitional manipulation is easy with unweighted voters. However, constructive coalitional manipulation with weighted voters is intractable for all of the voting protocols under study, except for the nonrandomized Cup. Destructive manipulation tends to be easier. Randomizing over instantiations of the protocols (such as schedules of the Cup protocol) can be used to make manipulation hard. Finally, we show that under weak assumptions, if weighted coalitional manipulation with complete information about the others' votes is hard in some voting protocol, then individual and unweighted manipulation is hard when there is uncertainty about the others' votes.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2002

Complexity Results about Nash Equilibria

Noncooperative game theory provides a normative framework for analyzing strategic interactions. However, for the toolbox to be operational, the solutions it defines will have to be computed. In this paper, we provide a single reduction that 1) demonstrates NP-hardness of determining whether Nash equilibria with certain natural properties exist, and 2) demonstrates the #P-hardness of counting Nash equilibria (or connected sets of Nash equilibria). We also show that 3) determining whether a pure-strategy Bayes-Nash equilibrium exists is NP-hard, and that 4) determining whether a pure-strategy Nash equilibrium exists in a stochastic (Markov) game is PSPACE-hard even if the game is invisible (this remains NP-hard if the game is finite). All of our hardness results hold even if there are only two players and the game is symmetric. Keywords: Nash equilibrium; game theory; computational complexity; noncooperative game theory; normal form game; stochastic game; Markov game; Bayes-Nash equilibrium; multiagent systems.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2002

Complexity of Mechanism Design

The aggregation of conflicting preferences is a central problem in multiagent systems. The key difficulty is that the agents may report their preferences insincerely. Mechanism design is the art of designing the rules of the game so that the agents are motivated to report their preferences truthfully and a (socially) desirable outcome is chosen. We propose an approach where a mechanism is automatically created for the preference aggregation setting at hand. This has several advantages, but the downside is that the mechanism design optimization problem needs to be solved anew each time. Focusing on settings where side payments are not possible, we show that the mechanism design problem is NP-complete for deterministic mechanisms. This holds both for dominant-strategy implementation and for Bayes-Nash implementation. We then show that if we allow randomized mechanisms, the mechanism design problem becomes tractable. In other words, the coordinator can tackle the computational complexity introduced by its uncertainty about the agents' preferences by making the agents face additional uncertainty. This comes at no loss, and in some cases at a gain, in the (social) objective.

cs.GT↗