A potentialization algorithm for games with applications to multi-agent learning in repeated games

Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) is increasingly used to design learning-enabled agents that interact in shared environments. However, training MARL algorithms in general-sum games remains challenging: learning dynamics can become unstable, and convergence guarantees typically hold only in restricted settings such as two-player zero-sum or fully cooperative games. Moreover, when agents have heterogeneous and potentially conflicting preferences, it is unclear what system-level objective should guide learning. In this paper, we propose a new MARL pipeline called Near-Potential Policy Optimization (NePPO) for computing approximate Nash equilibria in mixed cooperative--competitive environments. The core idea is to learn a player-independent potential function such that the Nash equilibrium of a cooperative game with this potential as the common utility approximates a Nash equilibrium of the original game. To this end, we introduce a novel MARL objective such that minimizing this objective yields the best possible potential function candidate and consequently an approximate Nash equilibrium of the original game. We develop an algorithmic pipeline that minimizes this objective using zeroth-order gradient descent and returns an approximate Nash equilibrium policy. We empirically show the superior performance of this approach compared to popular baselines such as IPPO and MAPPO.

We examine the interplay between ordinal, preference-based solution concepts in games and the long-run behavior of game dynamics, asking in particular to what extent the combinatorial data of a game -- its preference graph -- determine the outcomes of no-regret learning dynamics -- such as follow-the-regularized-leader (FTRL). In one direction, we show that the skeleton of every dynamically stable set (i.e. the set of pure profiles it contains) must also be preferentially stable, that is, it must be closed under profitable deviations. We then ask the converse question: when do preferences determine the long-run behavior of the players' learning dynamics? We begin by showing that preferences characterize asymptotic stability in the case of subgames -- i.e. subsets of pure profiles obtained by restricting players' action sets. Beyond this case however, the equivalence between dynamic and preferential stability collapses: concretely, we construct a three-player game with a preferentially stable set whose span is dynamically unstable, showing in this way that preferences do not suffice as a criterion of dynamic stability. We then bridge this gap via the notion of resilience under aggregate deviations, an easy-to-check payoff-based condition that guarantees asymptotic stability of arbitrary spans of pure strategies.

We study the problem of computing the tightest $α$-potential approximation of a general-sum game over continuous action spaces, within a prescribed class of potential functions and when each player has access only to its own utility function. The difficulty is twofold: the approximation error involves a worst-case search over an infinite set of unilateral deviations, and the required utility information is distributed across players. For a linear-in-parameters potential class, we use an exact finite-tuple reformulation that separates the problem into a global outer search over deviation tuples and distributed convex inner problems. We develop a primal--dual inner oracle tailored to this structure and establish a uniform one-sided accuracy guarantee. This oracle can be combined with global outer search to obtain an end-to-end guarantee on the outer optimization error. We also develop a projected zeroth-order outer method as a computationally lighter alternative for higher-dimensional problems. Numerical experiments illustrate the accuracy--computation tradeoff between the two outer-search methods and show that the proposed optimization framework can improve upon analytical $α$-potential constructions.