Game Theory with Simulation in the Presence of Unpredictable Randomisation

Vojtech Kovarik,Nathaniel Sauerberg,Lewis Hammond,Vincent Conitzer
2024-10-18
Abstract:AI agents will be predictable in certain ways that traditional agents are not. Where and how can we leverage this predictability in order to improve social welfare? We study this question in a game-theoretic setting where one agent can pay a fixed cost to simulate the other in order to learn its mixed strategy. As a negative result, we prove that, in contrast to prior work on pure-strategy simulation, enabling mixed-strategy simulation may no longer lead to improved outcomes for both players in all so-called "generalised trust games". In fact, mixed-strategy simulation does not help in any game where the simulatee's action can depend on that of the simulator. We also show that, in general, deciding whether simulation introduces Pareto-improving Nash equilibria in a given game is NP-hard. As positive results, we establish that mixed-strategy simulation can improve social welfare if the simulator has the option to scale their level of trust, if the players face challenges with both trust and coordination, or if maintaining some level of privacy is essential for enabling cooperation.
Computer Science and Game Theory,Artificial Intelligence
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
### Problems the Paper Attempts to Solve This paper explores how to use simulation techniques from game theory to improve social welfare in the presence of unpredictable randomness. Specifically, it examines the impact on outcomes for both parties when one agent can pay a certain cost to simulate the behavior of another agent. ### Main Research Content 1. **Background and Motivation**: - With the development of AI, more significant interactions occur not only between humans but also between AI agents. - Understanding the differences between AI agents and humans helps design interventions that promote socially desirable outcomes. - The behavior of AI agents is determined by their source code, which can be reliably predicted in certain situations. 2. **Simulation Capability**: - Simulation refers to predicting an agent's strategy by analyzing its behavior patterns before interacting with it. - This prediction requires non-trivial effort and incurs a certain cost. 3. **Research Method**: - Using a game theory framework, the study investigates whether the ability to simulate another agent's mixed strategy by paying a fixed cost can improve outcomes for both parties. - Through a specific example of the Trust Game, the study demonstrates the differences and impacts of pure-strategy simulation and mixed-strategy simulation. 4. **Main Findings**: - **Negative Results**: - In some cases, mixed-strategy simulation does not improve outcomes for both parties and may even lead to worse results. - For example, in the Trust Game, if the cost of simulation is low but not zero, mixed-strategy simulation may prevent cooperation. - **Positive Results**: - If the simulator can choose to adjust its trust level, or players face trust and coordination challenges, or maintaining a certain degree of privacy is crucial for promoting cooperation, then mixed-strategy simulation can improve social welfare. - In partially trust-extended Trust Games, mixed-strategy simulation can help players achieve higher payoffs. 5. **Computational Complexity**: - The study examines the computational complexity of finding Nash Equilibrium in mixed-strategy simulation games. - It proves that, in general, determining whether mixed-strategy simulation introduces a Pareto-improving Nash Equilibrium is an NP-hard problem. ### Conclusion Through theoretical analysis and specific examples, this paper explores the impact of mixed-strategy simulation on social welfare in the presence of unpredictable randomness. The research findings indicate that while mixed-strategy simulation may be unhelpful or even harmful in some cases, it can still significantly improve outcomes for both parties under certain conditions.