2026-08-19 | | Total: 7
Learning algorithms are often used to make decisions in repeated multi-agent environments. When another player understands how a learner adapts from past experience, that player can plan strategically across rounds to influence the learner's future behavior. Recent work shows that optimizing against Replicator Dynamics, the continuous-time analogue of Multiplicative Weights Update, is tractable in zero-sum games but can be hard in unrestricted general-sum games. We study the first structured class beyond zero sum: bimatrix games satisfying $\text{rank}(A+B)=1$, for which Nash equilibria can be computed in polynomial time. Our main result shows that this equilibrium tractability does not extend to planning against learning dynamics. Unless $\mathsf{P}=\mathsf{NP}$, approximating the optimizer's optimal continuous-time reward within a fixed additive constant is NP-hard even when $\text{rank}(A+B)=1$, the learner starts from the uniform state, and the optimizer is restricted to constant strategies. The hardness persists for bounded payoff matrices and polynomially bounded horizons. We complement this result with structural characterizations of several tractable special cases. Thus rank-one games already separate efficient equilibrium computation from strategic planning against a learning opponent.
We propose a randomized social choice rule called Mixed Integrated Veto (MIV) with metric distortion of $5/2$, improving the previous best upper bound of $2.75271$. MIV is the equal mixture of Maximal Lotteries and Integrated Veto, a new rule built on the Simultaneous Veto process of Kizilkaya and Kempe. Rather than returning the candidate surviving longest, Integrated Veto assigns each candidate probability proportional to its average score over the whole process.
Regret matching+ (RM+) is parameter free, scale invariant, and central to large game solving, but its only general individual-regret guarantee grows as $\sqrt{T}$. A recent ICLR result used this envelope to prove that RM+ reaches an $ε$-stationary point of a smooth objective over a product of simplices in $O(ε^{-4})$ iterations, or $O(ε^{-8})$ from the standard zero initialization. We give an exact one-step conservation law for RM+. It states that forward utility gain pays for both squared state motion and growth of the regret-state norm. Norm growth is at most $\sqrt{m-1}$ times forward gain for $m$ actions, and the coefficient is sharp. This yields four results for unmodified RM+. Its regret on any utility path is controlled by centered temporal variation. Its regret is uniformly bounded under alternating play in every finite exact potential game, resolving an open question and making squared activation gaps summable. Both certified lazy and ordinary cyclic play attain an $ε^{-2}$ exponent. On any smooth, possibly nonconcave simplex objective, RM+ finds an $ε$-KKT point in $O(ε^{-2})$ iterations. Most broadly, for a smooth objective over an arbitrary product of simplices, cyclic block RM+ attains the same $O(ε^{-2})$ exponent from arbitrary initialization, with an explicit trajectory-dependent constant. The proof controls the finite objective loss caused by low-state blocks and then self-bounds every block state and the total squared path length. Complete proofs cover zero states, sharpness, common-profile stationarity, and robust gain dominance. Oracle-normalized diagnostics compare RM+ with predictive and smooth extra-gradient variants on graphical potential games and dense nonconvex objectives.
We study the trade-off between firm-side fairness and coalition stability in many-to-one matching markets with transferable payments. For a fixed matching $X$, we characterize the largest supportable core factor by a bottleneck financing problem: $α(X)=1/Φ(X)$, where $Φ(X)=\min_{z\ge0}\max_i R_i(X,z)$. This yields a polynomial-time linear program and local sensitivity formulas for one-worker reallocations. We then develop a maximum-edge round algorithm and a broader class of mutual-top safe choices. Every safe execution is EF1 and, with $t=δ(A)$ denoting the minimum positive-edge quality, guarantees $α(X)\ge\max\{t,1/[m-(m-1)t]\}$ and $SW(X)/OPT\geq t+(1-t)/m$. These bounds give finite-firm lower and upper bounds for the EF1--core minimax frontier, with exact results for two firms and for three firms when $δ\le1/2$; as the number of firms grows, the tight scale-free stability rate is $δ$. We also extend the financing formulation to stronger $EFX^+$ fairness and capacity-constrained markets.
We give a two-player zero-sum repeated game between a learner and nature whose value identity generates Bayesian updating and an exact accounting of exponential-weights regret at once, and supplies the comparator-class variational form that a wide class of concentration phenomena share. The terminal payoff is the most a comparator can gain at fixed relative entropy from the prior, and the one-step constraint is an information budget on nature's move under the learner's mixed action. With the learner's move otherwise unrestricted, Gibbs/Bayes weights emerge as its unique Bellman equalizer -- the mixed action that makes the per-round loss independent of which direction nature moves -- with log-partition functions playing the role of value functions. The regret decomposes exactly into three parts: a per-round information loss reflecting the variation in observed outcomes, an additive retempering drift that accounts exactly for any change of measurement scale between rounds, and the information the comparator carries relative to the prior. The variance and bounded-range proxies that drive standard regret bounds are looser relaxations of this decomposition, which holds generally and governs them all. Both players' strategies are read off from the decomposition term by term, and repeated play yields an information-theoretic ledger of self-play in place of the usual quadratic-variation surrogate. The same comparator-class geometry accounts for the classical large-deviation bounds, and methods across bandits, posterior sampling, aggregation, and boosting are specializations of the one regret decomposition.
We study a dynamic coalition-formation process in the tradition of Konishi and Ray (2003): players repeatedly form and dissolve binding agreements, evaluate states by discounted long-term expected payoffs, and hold self-confirming beliefs about the process. States and payoff sharing follow Heitzig and Kornek (2018): a state is a hierarchy of nested agreements; agreements are formed by merging existing top-level coalitions, and are terminated together with all agreements containing them; and the members of a new agreement share the surplus it generates, measured against the state without that agreement. All payoff assumptions are structural. We prove that every grand state ever reached is absorbing, and that every absorbing state is grand, for every discount factor. A grand state is actually reached, almost surely, in three cases: small discount factors; three players; and, for any number of players and all discount factors, whenever every player prefers every grand state to every non-grand state in static payoffs, as when distributional stakes are smaller than each player's share of the efficiency gain. Otherwise the process can fail only by cycling for ever among non-grand states. We give exact necessary conditions on such a cycle, and show that for a fixed candidate cycle they reduce to a finite system of linear inequalities in the static payoffs, so the question is decidable. Solving it yields a counterexample: with four players and discount factor one half, under either termination rule, there is an equilibrium that cycles for ever, so the grand coalition need not form. The example survives a far-sighted variant of the sharing rule under which merging raises every player's discounted long-term payoff, not only the static one; there the merge is blocked purely by a better move available to a subgroup. Whether arrival can fail as the discount factor tends to one remains open.
Reinforcement learning (RL) theory fundamentally depends on probability theory through the Markov chain. There is a deep connection between probability theory and potential theory. This paper reviews that connection and explores the potential-theoretic viewpoint for core reinforcement learning representations and algorithms under a fixed-policy assumption. This viewpoint may offer a path for improved sample efficiency and formal constraints that can be applied to RL. When the fixed-policy assumption is relaxed, the linear potential theory framework can be naturally extended to the nonlinear case.