Motivated by the fact that in many game-theoretic settings, the game analyzed is only an approximation to the game being played, in this work we analyze equilibrium computation for the broad and natural class of bimatrix games that are stable to perturbations. We specifically focus on games with the property that small changes in the payoff matrices do not cause the Nash equilibria of the game to fluctuate wildly. For such games we show how one can compute approximate Nash equilibria more efficiently than the general result of LMM03 , by an amount that depends on the degree of stability of the game and that reduces to their bound in the worst case. Furthermore, we show that for stable games the approximate equilibria found will be close in variation distance to true equilibria, and moreover this holds even if we are given as input only a perturbation of the actual underlying stable game. For uniformly-stable games, where the equilibria fluctuate at most quasi-linearly in the extent of the perturbation, we get a particularly dramatic improvement. Here, we achieve a fully quasi-polynomial-time approximation scheme: that is, we can find @math -approximate equilibria in quasi-polynomial time. This is in marked contrast to the general class of bimatrix games for which finding such approximate equilibria is PPAD-hard. In particular, under the (widely believed) assumption that PPAD is not contained in quasi-polynomial time, our results imply that such uniformly stable games are inherently easier for computation of approximate equilibria than general bimatrix games.
@cite_11 analyzed the question of finding an approximate Nash in equilibrium in games that satisfy stability with respect to approximation. However, their condition is quite restrictive in that it focuses only on games that have the property that all the Nash equilibria are close together, thus eliminating from consideration most common games. By contrast, our perturbation stability notion, which (as mentioned above) can be shown to be a generalization of their notion, captures many more realistic situations. Our upper bounds on approximate equilibria can be viewed as generalizing the corresponding result of @cite_11 and it is significantly more challenging technically. Moreover, our lower bounds also apply to the stability notion of @cite_11 and provide the first (nontrivial) results about the interesting range of parameters for that stability notion as well.
@cite_11
1857802886
One reason for wanting to compute an (approximate) Nash equilibrium of a game is to predict how players will play. However, if the game has multiple equilibria that are far apart, or e-equilibria that are far in variation distance from the true Nash equilibrium strategies, then this prediction may not be possible even in principle. Motivated by this consideration, in this paper we define the notion of games that are approximation stable, meaning that all e-approximate equilibria are contained inside a small ball of radius Δ around a true equilibrium, and investigate a number of their properties. Many natural small games such as matching pennies and rock-paper-scissors are indeed approximation stable. We show furthermore there exist 2-player n-by-n approximationstable games in which the Nash equilibrium and all approximate equilibria have support Ω(log n). On the other hand, we show all (e,Δ) approximation-stable games must have an e-equilibrium of support O(Δ2-o(1) e2 log n), yielding an immediate nO(Δ2-o(1) e2 log n) -time algorithm, improving over the bound of [11] for games satisfying this condition. We in addition give a polynomial-time algorithm for the case that Δ and e are sufficiently close together. We also consider an inverse property, namely that all non-approximate equilibria are far from some true equilibrium, and give an efficient algorithm for games satisfying that condition.