915 research outputs found
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-, 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- games, leaving rank-2 and beyond unresolved.
In this paper we show that NE computation in games with rank , 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 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- games remains unresolved
Settling Some Open Problems on 2-Player Symmetric Nash Equilibria
Over the years, researchers have studied the complexity of several decision
versions of Nash equilibrium in (symmetric) two-player games (bimatrix games).
To the best of our knowledge, the last remaining open problem of this sort is
the following; it was stated by Papadimitriou in 2007: find a non-symmetric
Nash equilibrium (NE) in a symmetric game. We show that this problem is
NP-complete and the problem of counting the number of non-symmetric NE in a
symmetric game is #P-complete.
In 2005, Kannan and Theobald defined the "rank of a bimatrix game"
represented by matrices (A, B) to be rank(A+B) and asked whether a NE can be
computed in rank 1 games in polynomial time. Observe that the rank 0 case is
precisely the zero sum case, for which a polynomial time algorithm follows from
von Neumann's reduction of such games to linear programming. In 2011, Adsul et.
al. obtained an algorithm for rank 1 games; however, it does not solve the case
of symmetric rank 1 games. We resolve this problem
Decision Problems for Nash Equilibria in Stochastic Games
We analyse the computational complexity of finding Nash equilibria in
stochastic multiplayer games with -regular objectives. While the
existence of an equilibrium whose payoff falls into a certain interval may be
undecidable, we single out several decidable restrictions of the problem.
First, restricting the search space to stationary, or pure stationary,
equilibria results in problems that are typically contained in PSPACE and NP,
respectively. Second, we show that the existence of an equilibrium with a
binary payoff (i.e. an equilibrium where each player either wins or loses with
probability 1) is decidable. We also establish that the existence of a Nash
equilibrium with a certain binary payoff entails the existence of an
equilibrium with the same payoff in pure, finite-state strategies.Comment: 22 pages, revised versio
The Complexity of Nash Equilibria in Simple Stochastic Multiplayer Games
We analyse the computational complexity of finding Nash equilibria in simple
stochastic multiplayer games. We show that restricting the search space to
equilibria whose payoffs fall into a certain interval may lead to
undecidability. In particular, we prove that the following problem is
undecidable: Given a game G, does there exist a pure-strategy Nash equilibrium
of G where player 0 wins with probability 1. Moreover, this problem remains
undecidable if it is restricted to strategies with (unbounded) finite memory.
However, if mixed strategies are allowed, decidability remains an open problem.
One way to obtain a provably decidable variant of the problem is restricting
the strategies to be positional or stationary. For the complexity of these two
problems, we obtain a common lower bound of NP and upper bounds of NP and
PSPACE respectively.Comment: 23 pages; revised versio
- …