Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 0809.4326

Algorithms for Game Metrics

Abstract

Simulation and bisimulation metrics for stochastic systems provide a quantitative generalization of the classical simulation and bisimulation relations. These metrics capture the similarity of states with respect to quantitative specifications written in the quantitative μ-calculus and related probabilistic logics. We first show that the metrics provide a bound for the difference in long-run average and discounted average behavior across states, indicating that the metrics can be used both in system verification, and in performance evaluation. For turn-based games and MDPs, we provide a polynomial-time algorithm for the computation of the one-step metric distance between states. The algorithm is based on linear programming; it improves on the previous known exponential-time algorithm based on a reduction to the theory of reals. We then present PSPACE algorithms for both the decision problem and the problem of approximating the metric distance between two states, matching the best known algorithms for Markov chains. For the bisimulation kernel of the metric our algorithm works in time O(n^4) for both turn-based games and MDPs; improving the previously best known O(n^9\cdot log(n)) time algorithm for MDPs. For a concurrent game G, we show that computing the exact distance between states is at least as hard as computing the value of concurrent reachability games and the square-root-sum problem in computational geometry. We show that checking whether the metric distance is bounded by a rational r, can be done via a reduction to the theory of real closed fields, involving a formula with three quantifier alternations, yielding O(|G|^O(|G|^5)) time complexity, improving the previously known reduction, which yielded O(|G|^O(|G|^7)) time complexity. These algorithms can be iterated to approximate the metrics using binary search.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Krishnendu Chatterjee, Luca de Alfaro, Rupak Majumdar, Vishwanath Raman. 2010-09-01. Algorithms for Game Metrics. https://doi.org/10.2168/lmcs-6(3%3A13)2010

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Ascending Auctions for Combinatorial Markets with Frictions: A Unified Framework via Discrete Convex Analysis

We develop a unified ascending-auction framework for computing Walrasian equilibria in combinatorial markets with strong substitutes valuations and piecewise-linear payment functions. Our auction extends the celebrated ascending auctions of Gul and Stacchetti (2000) and Ausubel (2006) to accommodate payment frictions (e.g., transaction taxes or commission fees). This is achieved by incorporating directional price updates that reflect heterogeneous payment structures. Our framework also generalizes the unit-demand imperfectly transferable utility models of Alkan (1989, 1992) to a fully combinatorial setting, thereby unifying these paradigms. Furthermore, this is the first study to compute the minimum -- also known as the buyer-optimal -- equilibrium in combinatorial markets with such frictions. Our analysis builds upon discrete convex analysis. Our main technical contribution is a characterization of valid price-update directions, together with a strongly polynomial-time algorithm for computing them. Notably, the algorithm uses only demand- and exchange-oracle queries and never requires handling information of exponential size. To compute such a direction, we formulate a lexicographic extension of the polymatroid sum problem and characterize its dual solution via a reduction to a convex flow problem. Exploiting the $\text{L}^\natural$-convexity of the dual objective, we show that the desired direction can be constructed from the minimal dual solution. This convexity also yields transparent economic and potential-based interpretations of the auction dynamics, strengthening the connection between ascending auctions and discrete optimization.

cs.GT

Mechanism Design Is Not Enough: Prosocial Agents for Cooperative AI

Ensuring that AI agents behave safely and beneficially when interacting with other parties has emerged as one of the central challenges of modern AI safety. While mechanism design, as the theory of designing rules to align individual and collective objectives, can incentivize cooperative behavior, it is still an open question whether it alone is sufficient to maximize LLM agents' social welfare. This work proves that the answer is negative: drawing from incomplete contract theory, we formally show that when contracts cannot distinguish all relevant future contingencies, there is a strictly positive welfare loss that no realistic mechanism can eliminate. We show that prosocial agents, who weigh others' welfare alongside their own, can close this gap and achieve outcomes that are socially superior and individually beneficial. Experimentally, we show that in multi-agent resource-allocation environments and canonical social dilemmas where agents are powered by large language models, prosociality is beneficial. The implication for AI safety is clear: to enable cooperative interactions at scale, designing adequate mechanisms is not sufficient; agents must be built to be intrinsically prosocial.

cs.GT

Efficient Nash Equilibrium Computation for Cybersecurity Games

Game-theoretic analyses of cyber defence often compute equilibria of games whose payoffs exist only as the output of a simulator. Iterative equilibrium-finding methods grow a set of attacker and defender policies and need the payoff of every attacker--defender pair, so they are bottlenecked by payoff estimation: each payoff costs many simulator runs. We introduce Regret-Weighted Payoff Sampling (RWPS), which spends a fixed simulation budget on the payoffs the equilibrium actually depends on and predicts the rest with a model trained on every payoff measured so far. Standard error bounds for estimated games are driven by the worst-estimated payoff, so they cannot credit an estimator that is inaccurate only where accuracy does not matter. We prove a bound that weights payoff errors by the opponent's equilibrium strategy, a certificate that can be computed from simulated payoffs alone, and a condition under which errors in the predicted payoffs cannot change either player's regret. On three synthetic general-sum games, one of them a Colonel Blotto game of military resource allocation, the new bounds are four to six times tighter than the standard one, and RWPS finds less exploitable equilibria than minimum-regret-first search, information-gain search and progressive sampling at the same budget. On two cyber-defence simulators, CyGym and a new game whose hosts are LLM agents exposed to prompt injection, it gives the least exploitable equilibria at the smallest budgets.

cs.GT