Papers for

game theory programmers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Sharper bounds improve understanding of optimal strategies in stochastic games

Sharper bounds on the thresholds for sensitive and Blackwell optimality

Abstract: In perfect-information two-player stochastic games, the notions of Blackwell and sensitive optimality provide generalizations of the classical mean-payoff optimality and discount optimality criteria to account for more farsighted preferences. We provide bounds on the Blackwell threshold $α_{\sf bw}$ and the $d$-sensitive thresholds $α_{\sf d}$, defined as the smallest discount factors above which discount optimal policies coincide with Blackwell optimal policies and $d$-sensitive optimal policies respectively. Our refined bounds improve upon prior work by focusing on ``reduced'' families of polynomials and, crucially, our bounds are tight in terms of controlling the degrees and heights of the minimal polynomials of the Blackwell thresholds. We apply classical root separation based on Mahler's and Cauchy's bounds to our reduced families to derive the strongest upper and lower bounds on $α_{\sf bw}$ in the literature, and we are the first to obtain bounds on $α_{\sf d}$ in the multichain stochastic setting.

Wed 7 OctComputer Science and Game Theory
The gist
This paper looks at special kinds of two-player games where players see everything that happens and can make decisions with some randomness involved. The authors focus on how to measure when certain decision strategies become the best as players care more about the future. They find better mathematical limits for when these strategies match up, improving on earlier work. Their results apply even to more complicated game situations that weren't studied before.
Open → 2610.10295v1

Socially best groupings can be unstable to coalitions in graph games

Social Optimality Does Not Imply Coalitional Stability in Unweighted Max-k-Cut Games

Abstract: In Max-$k$-Cut games, optimal colorings maximize social welfare, but are they stable against coordinated deviations that strictly benefit every participating player? A recurring conjecture in the literature asserts that, for unweighted graphs, every optimal coloring has this stability property, known as strong equilibrium. We disprove the conjecture for every $k\ge3$ by exhibiting a finite, simple, connected, unweighted graph with an optimal coloring that is not a strong equilibrium. The profitable coalitional deviation leads to another optimal coloring: every coalition member gains, while players outside the coalition bear the corresponding losses and social welfare remains unchanged. We also give an exact identity relating coalitional gains, changes in cut value, and internal conflicts, recovering the known stability guarantee for optimal colorings when the maximum degree is at most $2k-1$. For strong deviations from general Nash equilibria, we establish a sharp upper bound on the number of monochromatic edges remaining within the coalition and show that this number can exceed the coalition size.

Sun 4 OctComputer Science and Game Theory
The gist
Max-k-Cut games involve coloring nodes in a network to maximize connections between different colors, which is good for everyone overall. It was believed that these best possible colorings are stable, meaning no group of players can switch colors together to all benefit at once. The paper shows that this is not always true for unweighted graphs when there are three or more colors. They provide examples where groups can jointly change colors to improve their own outcomes without improving the overall benefit, revealing a surprising weakness in group stability.
Open → 2610.04948v1