No Arabic abstract
Function approximation is a powerful approach for structuring large decision problems that has facilitated great achievements in the areas of reinforcement learning and game playing. Regression counterfactual regret minimization (RCFR) is a simple algorithm for approximately solving imperfect information games with normalized rectified linear unit (ReLU) parameterized policies. In contrast, the more conventional softmax parameterization is standard in the field of reinforcement learning and yields a regret bound with a better dependence on the number of actions. We derive approximation error-aware regret bounds for $(Phi, f)$-regret matching, which applies to a general class of link functions and regret objectives. These bounds recover a tighter bound for RCFR and provide a theoretical justification for RCFR implementations with alternative policy parameterizations ($f$-RCFR), including softmax. We provide exploitability bounds for $f$-RCFR with the polynomial and exponential link functions in zero-sum imperfect information games and examine empirically how the link function interacts with the severity of the approximation. We find that the previously studied ReLU parameterization performs better when the approximation error is small while the softmax parameterization can perform better when the approximation error is large.
Securing networked infrastructures is important in the real world. The problem of deploying security resources to protect against an attacker in networked domains can be modeled as Network Security Games (NSGs). Unfortunately, existing approaches, including the deep learning-based approaches, are inefficient to solve large-scale extensive-form NSGs. In this paper, we propose a novel learning paradigm, NSG-NFSP, to solve large-scale extensive-form NSGs based on Neural Fictitious Self-Play (NFSP). Our main contributions include: i) reforming the best response (BR) policy network in NFSP to be a mapping from action-state pair to action-value, to make the calculation of BR possible in NSGs; ii) converting the average policy network of an NFSP agent into a metric-based classifier, helping the agent to assign distributions only on legal actions rather than all actions; iii) enabling NFSP with high-level actions, which can benefit training efficiency and stability in NSGs; and iv) leveraging information contained in graphs of NSGs by learning efficient graph node embeddings. Our algorithm significantly outperforms state-of-the-art algorithms in both scalability and solution quality.
The notion of emph{policy regret} in online learning is a well defined? performance measure for the common scenario of adaptive adversaries, which more traditional quantities such as external regret do not take into account. We revisit the notion of policy regret and first show that there are online learning settings in which policy regret and external regret are incompatible: any sequence of play that achieves a favorable regret with respect to one definition must do poorly with respect to the other. We then focus on the game-theoretic setting where the adversary is a self-interested agent. In that setting, we show that external regret and policy regret are not in conflict and, in fact, that a wide class of algorithms can ensure a favorable regret with respect to both definitions, so long as the adversary is also using such an algorithm. We also show that the sequence of play of no-policy regret algorithms converges to a emph{policy equilibrium}, a new notion of equilibrium that we introduce. Relating this back to external regret, we show that coarse correlated equilibria, which no-external regret players converge to, are a strict subset of policy equilibria. Thus, in game-theoretic settings, every sequence of play with no external regret also admits no policy regret, but the converse does not hold.
Regret has been established as a foundational concept in online learning, and likewise has important applications in the analysis of learning dynamics in games. Regret quantifies the difference between a learners performance against a baseline in hindsight. It is well-known that regret-minimizing algorithms converge to certain classes of equilibria in games; however, traditional forms of regret used in game theory predominantly consider baselines that permit deviations to deterministic actions or strategies. In this paper, we revisit our understanding of regret from the perspective of deviations over partitions of the full emph{mixed} strategy space (i.e., probability distributions over pure strategies), under the lens of the previously-established $Phi$-regret framework, which provides a continuum of stronger regret measures. Importantly, $Phi$-regret enables learning agents to consider deviations from and to mixed strategies, generalizing several existing notions of regret such as external, internal, and swap regret, and thus broadening the insights gained from regret-based analysis of learning algorithms. We prove here that the well-studied evolutionary learning algorithm of replicator dynamics (RD) seamlessly minimizes the strongest possible form of $Phi$-regret in generic $2 times 2$ games, without any modification of the underlying algorithm itself. We subsequently conduct experiments validating our theoretical results in a suite of 144 $2 times 2$ games wherein RD exhibits a diverse set of behaviors. We conclude by providing empirical evidence of $Phi$-regret minimization by RD in some larger games, hinting at further opportunity for $Phi$-regret based study of such algorithms from both a theoretical and empirical perspective.
We consider a scenario in which two reinforcement learning agents repeatedly play a matrix game against each other and update their parameters after each round. The agents decision-making is transparent to each other, which allows each agent to predict how their opponent will play against them. To prevent an infinite regress of both agents recursively predicting each other indefinitely, each agent is required to give an opponent-independent response with some probability at least epsilon. Transparency also allows each agent to anticipate and shape the other agents gradient step, i.e. to move to regions of parameter space in which the opponents gradient points in a direction favourable to them. We study the resulting dynamics experimentally, using two algorithms from previous literature (LOLA and SOS) for opponent-aware learning. We find that the combination of mutually transparent decision-making and opponent-aware learning robustly leads to mutual cooperation in a single-shot prisoners dilemma. In a game of chicken, in which both agents try to manoeuvre their opponent towards their preferred equilibrium, converging to a mutually beneficial outcome turns out to be much harder, and opponent-aware learning can even lead to worst-case outcomes for both agents. This highlights the need to develop opponent-aware learning algorithms that achieve acceptable outcomes in social dilemmas involving an equilibrium selection problem.
In this paper, we present exploitability descent, a new algorithm to compute approximate equilibria in two-player zero-sum extensive-form games with imperfect information, by direct policy optimization against worst-case opponents. We prove that when following this optimization, the exploitability of a players strategy converges asymptotically to zero, and hence when both players employ this optimization, the joint policies converge to a Nash equilibrium. Unlike fictitious play (XFP) and counterfactual regret minimization (CFR), our convergence result pertains to the policies being optimized rather than the average policies. Our experiments demonstrate convergence rates comparable to XFP and CFR in four benchmark games in the tabular case. Using function approximation, we find that our algorithm outperforms the tabular version in two of the games, which, to the best of our knowledge, is the first such result in imperfect information games among this class of algorithms.