An exploration strategy for non-stationary opponents

The success or failure of any learning algorithm is partially due to the exploration strategy it exerts. However, most exploration strategies assume that the environment is stationary and non-strategic. In this work we shed light on how to design exploration strategies in non-stationary and adversarial environments. Our proposed adversarial drift exploration (DE) is able to efficiently explore the state space while keeping track of regions of the environment that have changed. This proposed exploration is general enough to be applied in single agent non-stationary environments as well as in multiagent settings where the opponent changes its strategy in time. We use a two agent strategic interaction setting to test this new type of exploration, where the opponent switches between different behavioral patterns to emulate a non-deterministic, stochastic and adversarial environment. The agent’s objective is to learn a model of the opponent’s strategy to act optimally. Our contribution is twofold. First, we present DE as a strategy for switch detection. Second, we propose a new algorithm called R-max# for learning and planning against non-stationary opponent. To handle such opponents, R-max# reasons and acts in terms of two objectives: (1) to maximize utilities in the short term while learning and (2) eventually explore opponent behavioral changes. We provide theoretical results showing that R-max# is guaranteed to detect the opponent’s switch and learn a new model in terms of finite sample complexity. R-max# makes efficient use of exploration experiences, which results in rapid adaptation and efficient DE, to deal with the non-stationary nature of the opponent. We show experimentally how using DE outperforms the state of the art algorithms that were explicitly designed for modeling opponents (in terms average rewards) in two complimentary domains

Near-Optimal Adversarial Policy Switching for Decentralized Asynchronous Multi-Agent Systems

A key challenge in multi-robot and multi-agent systems is generating solutions that are robust to other self-interested or even adversarial parties who actively try to prevent the agents from achieving their goals. The practicality of existing works addressing this challenge is limited to only small-scale synchronous decision-making scenarios or a single agent planning its best response against a single adversary with fixed, procedurally characterized strategies. In contrast this paper considers a more realistic class of problems where a team of asynchronous agents with limited observation and communication capabilities need to compete against multiple strategic adversaries with changing strategies. This problem necessitates agents that can coordinate to detect changes in adversary strategies and plan the best response accordingly. Our approach first optimizes a set of stratagems that represent these best responses. These optimized stratagems are then integrated into a unified policy that can detect and respond when the adversaries change their strategies. The near-optimality of the proposed framework is established theoretically as well as demonstrated empirically in simulation and hardware

A semantical approach to equilibria and rationality

Game theoretic equilibria are mathematical expressions of rationality. Rational agents are used to model not only humans and their software representatives, but also organisms, populations, species and genes, interacting with each other and with the environment. Rational behaviors are achieved not only through conscious reasoning, but also through spontaneous stabilization at equilibrium points. Formal theories of rationality are usually guided by informal intuitions, which are acquired by observing some concrete economic, biological, or network processes. Treating such processes as instances of computation, we reconstruct and refine some basic notions of equilibrium and rationality from the some basic structures of computation. It is, of course, well known that equilibria arise as fixed points; the point is that semantics of computation of fixed points seems to be providing novel methods, algebraic and coalgebraic, for reasoning about them.Comment: 18 pages; Proceedings of CALCO 200