Intermittent Strategic Cooperation of Two Selfish Agents on Graphs

We introduce and study the multi-agent stochastic shortest path (MSSP) problem, in which $k$ agents strive to reach a target state, aiming to minimize the expected time to reach the target by any agent. We analyze the computational and strategy-complexity of the problem in both autonomous and coordinated settings, and we design efficient strategy-synthesis algorithms. The algorithms are experimentally evaluated on instances of increasing size against natural baselines.

Concurrent games are a standard model for multi-agent systems, with Nash equilibrium as their central solution concept. The associated \emph{constrained existence problem}---does a game admit a Nash equilibrium whose expected payoff lies within a prescribed interval for every player?---is undecidable, and remains so even for 10-player \emph{stopping} games, in which a terminal state is reached almost surely under every strategy profile. We give two routes to tractability. We first relax exactness and consider the problem of approximate constrained existence problem, parametrised by $\varepsilon$-NE, which decides whether an $\varepsilon$-Nash equilibrium with the prescribed payoffs exists. The algorithm runs in exponential time, and only polynomially in the bit-size of $\varepsilon$. We complement it with a \PSPACE-hardness lower bound that holds already for turn-based games, and for pure equilibria as well. We then relax the solution concept, turning to \emph{extreme risk-sensitive equilibria} (XRSE), recently introduced for turn-based stochastic games. Here the players are partitioned into optimists and pessimists, who evaluate a strategy profile by the best, respectively the worst, payoff attainable with positive probability, instead of the expected payoff. We prove that the constrained existence problem for XRSE is \NP-complete on concurrent games, as for turn-based games.

To verify the robustness of a program or protocol, it is common in the computer science community to rely on the theoretical framework of game theory. In particular, if one seeks to enforce a desired property, or specification, despite an unpredictable environment, a useful abstraction is to model the situation as a two-player zero-sum game. The goal is then to find a strategy for the system that guarantees the specification against any strategy of the environment. However, to model more complex situations, such as multiple systems with different objectives or an environment composed of various agents, the richer framework of multiplayer games must be considered. In this setting, a natural question is to identify equilibria, i.e., strategy profiles that are robust in the sense that no player has an incentive to deviate. The most well-known equilibrium concept is the Nash equilibrium, but several alternatives exist. We study five such notions and, for each of them, we provide complexity results for the constrained existence problem, which consists of deciding whether a given game contains an equilibrium that ensures each player a payoff within a specified interval.