Constant Rank Bimatrix Games are PPAD-hard

The rank of a bimatrix game (A,B) is defined as rank(A+B). Computing a Nash equilibrium (NE) of a rank-$0$, i.e., zero-sum game is equivalent to linear programming (von Neumann'28, Dantzig'51). In 2005, Kannan and Theobald gave an FPTAS for constant rank games, and asked if there exists a polynomial time algorithm to compute an exact NE. Adsul et al. (2011) answered this question affirmatively for rank-$1$ games, leaving rank-2 and beyond unresolved. In this paper we show that NE computation in games with rank $\ge 3$, is PPAD-hard, settling a decade long open problem. Interestingly, this is the first instance that a problem with an FPTAS turns out to be PPAD-hard. Our reduction bypasses graphical games and game gadgets, and provides a simpler proof of PPAD-hardness for NE computation in bimatrix games. In addition, we get: * An equivalence between 2D-Linear-FIXP and PPAD, improving a result by Etessami and Yannakakis (2007) on equivalence between Linear-FIXP and PPAD. * NE computation in a bimatrix game with convex set of Nash equilibria is as hard as solving a simple stochastic game. * Computing a symmetric NE of a symmetric bimatrix game with rank $\ge 6$ is PPAD-hard. * Computing a (1/poly(n))-approximate fixed-point of a (Linear-FIXP) piecewise-linear function is PPAD-hard. The status of rank-$2$ games remains unresolved

Equilibria, Fixed Points, and Complexity Classes

Many models from a variety of areas involve the computation of an equilibrium or fixed point of some kind. Examples include Nash equilibria in games; market equilibria; computing optimal strategies and the values of competitive games (stochastic and other games); stable configurations of neural networks; analysing basic stochastic models for evolution like branching processes and for language like stochastic context-free grammars; and models that incorporate the basic primitives of probability and recursion like recursive Markov chains. It is not known whether these problems can be solved in polynomial time. There are certain common computational principles underlying different types of equilibria, which are captured by the complexity classes PLS, PPAD, and FIXP. Representative complete problems for these classes are respectively, pure Nash equilibria in games where they are guaranteed to exist, (mixed) Nash equilibria in 2-player normal form games, and (mixed) Nash equilibria in normal form games with 3 (or more) players. This paper reviews the underlying computational principles and the corresponding classes

The Complexity of the Homotopy Method, Equilibrium Selection, and Lemke-Howson Solutions

We show that the widely used homotopy method for solving fixpoint problems, as well as the Harsanyi-Selten equilibrium selection process for games, are PSPACE-complete to implement. Extending our result for the Harsanyi-Selten process, we show that several other homotopy-based algorithms for finding equilibria of games are also PSPACE-complete to implement. A further application of our techniques yields the result that it is PSPACE-complete to compute any of the equilibria that could be found via the classical Lemke-Howson algorithm, a complexity-theoretic strengthening of the result in [Savani and von Stengel]. These results show that our techniques can be widely applied and suggest that the PSPACE-completeness of implementing homotopy methods is a general principle.Comment: 23 pages, 1 figure; to appear in FOCS 2011 conferenc

Regression Depth and Center Points

We show that, for any set of n points in d dimensions, there exists a hyperplane with regression depth at least ceiling(n/(d+1)). as had been conjectured by Rousseeuw and Hubert. Dually, for any arrangement of n hyperplanes in d dimensions there exists a point that cannot escape to infinity without crossing at least ceiling(n/(d+1)) hyperplanes. We also apply our approach to related questions on the existence of partitions of the data into subsets such that a common plane has nonzero regression depth in each subset, and to the computational complexity of regression depth problems.Comment: 14 pages, 3 figure

Complexity Theory, Game Theory, and Economics: The Barbados Lectures

This document collects the lecture notes from my mini-course "Complexity Theory, Game Theory, and Economics," taught at the Bellairs Research Institute of McGill University, Holetown, Barbados, February 19--23, 2017, as the 29th McGill Invitational Workshop on Computational Complexity. The goal of this mini-course is twofold: (i) to explain how complexity theory has helped illuminate several barriers in economics and game theory; and (ii) to illustrate how game-theoretic questions have led to new and interesting complexity theory, including recent several breakthroughs. It consists of two five-lecture sequences: the Solar Lectures, focusing on the communication and computational complexity of computing equilibria; and the Lunar Lectures, focusing on applications of complexity theory in game theory and economics. No background in game theory is assumed.Comment: Revised v2 from December 2019 corrects some errors in and adds some recent citations to v1 Revised v3 corrects a few typos in v