A Comparison of the Notions of Optimality in Soft Constraints and Graphical Games

The notion of optimality naturally arises in many areas of applied mathematics and computer science concerned with decision making. Here we consider this notion in the context of two formalisms used for different purposes and in different research areas: graphical games and soft constraints. We relate the notion of optimality used in the area of soft constraint satisfaction problems (SCSPs) to that used in graphical games, showing that for a large class of SCSPs that includes weighted constraints every optimal solution corresponds to a Nash equilibrium that is also a Pareto efficient joint strategy

Learning the Structure and Parameters of Large-Population Graphical Games from Behavioral Data

We consider learning, from strictly behavioral data, the structure and parameters of linear influence games (LIGs), a class of parametric graphical games introduced by Irfan and Ortiz (2014). LIGs facilitate causal strategic inference (CSI): Making inferences from causal interventions on stable behavior in strategic settings. Applications include the identification of the most influential individuals in large (social) networks. Such tasks can also support policy-making analysis. Motivated by the computational work on LIGs, we cast the learning problem as maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) of a generative model defined by pure-strategy Nash equilibria (PSNE). Our simple formulation uncovers the fundamental interplay between goodness-of-fit and model complexity: good models capture equilibrium behavior within the data while controlling the true number of equilibria, including those unobserved. We provide a generalization bound establishing the sample complexity for MLE in our framework. We propose several algorithms including convex loss minimization (CLM) and sigmoidal approximations. We prove that the number of exact PSNE in LIGs is small, with high probability; thus, CLM is sound. We illustrate our approach on synthetic data and real-world U.S. congressional voting records. We briefly discuss our learning framework's generality and potential applicability to general graphical games.Comment: Journal of Machine Learning Research. (accepted, pending publication.) Last conference version: submitted March 30, 2012 to UAI 2012. First conference version: entitled, Learning Influence Games, initially submitted on June 1, 2010 to NIPS 201

On Sparse Discretization for Graphical Games

This short paper concerns discretization schemes for representing and computing approximate Nash equilibria, with emphasis on graphical games, but briefly touching on normal-form and poly-matrix games. The main technical contribution is a representation theorem that informally states that to account for every exact Nash equilibrium using a nearby approximate Nash equilibrium on a grid over mixed strategies, a uniform discretization size linear on the inverse of the approximation quality and natural game-representation parameters suffices. For graphical games, under natural conditions, the discretization is logarithmic in the game-representation size, a substantial improvement over the linear dependency previously required. The paper has five other objectives: (1) given the venue, to highlight the important, but often ignored, role that work on constraint networks in AI has in simplifying the derivation and analysis of algorithms for computing approximate Nash equilibria; (2) to summarize the state-of-the-art on computing approximate Nash equilibria, with emphasis on relevance to graphical games; (3) to help clarify the distinction between sparse-discretization and sparse-support techniques; (4) to illustrate and advocate for the deliberate mathematical simplicity of the formal proof of the representation theorem; and (5) to list and discuss important open problems, emphasizing graphical-game generalizations, which the AI community is most suitable to solve.Comment: 30 pages. Original research note drafted in Dec. 2002 and posted online Spring'03 (http://www.cis.upenn. edu/~mkearns/teaching/cgt/revised_approx_bnd.pdf) as part of a course on computational game theory taught by Prof. Michael Kearns at the University of Pennsylvania; First major revision sent to WINE'10; Current version sent to JAIR on April 25, 201