The benefit of law-making power
Anshul Gupta, Sven Schewe

TL;DR
This paper explores a broader class of equilibria called political equilibria, which can be more optimal for a designated player than traditional Nash equilibria, especially in multi-player mean-payoff games.
Contribution
It introduces political equilibria as a new concept, proves their existence, compares them with Nash equilibria, and analyzes the computational complexity of constructing them.
Findings
Political equilibria always exist in multi-player mean-payoff games.
Constructing political and Nash equilibria is NP-complete.
For fixed number of players, solving two-player mean-payoff games is polynomial-time with an oracle.
Abstract
We study optimal equilibria in multi-player games. An equilibrium is optimal for a player, if her payoff is maximal. A tempting approach to solving this problem is to seek optimal Nash equilibria, the standard form of equilibria where no player has an incentive to deviate from her strategy. We argue that a player with the power to define an equilibrium is in a position, where she should not be interested in the symmetry of a Nash equilibrium, and ignore the question of whether or not her outcome can be improved if the other strategies are fixed. That is, she would only have to make sure that the other players have no incentive to deviate. This defines a greater class of equilibria, which may have better (and cannot have worse) optimal equilibria for the designated powerful player. We apply this strategy to concurrent bimatrix games and to turn based multi-player mean-payoff games. For…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsGame Theory and Applications · Game Theory and Voting Systems · Auction Theory and Applications
