Downloads provided by UsageCounts
doi: 10.1613/jair.1.12542 , 10.5281/zenodo.4585629 , 10.48550/arxiv.2006.06566 , 10.5281/zenodo.4585630
arXiv: 2006.06566
handle: 11573/1627658 , 11573/1504557
doi: 10.1613/jair.1.12542 , 10.5281/zenodo.4585629 , 10.48550/arxiv.2006.06566 , 10.5281/zenodo.4585630
arXiv: 2006.06566
handle: 11573/1627658 , 11573/1504557
Recent results have shown that algorithms for learning the optimal commitment in a Stackelberg game are susceptible to manipulation by the follower. These learning algorithms operate by querying the best responses of the follower, who consequently can deceive the algorithm by using fake best responses, typically by responding according to fake payoffs that are different from the actual ones. For this strategic behavior to be successful, the main challenge faced by the follower is to pinpoint the fake payoffs that would make the learning algorithm output a commitment that benefits them the most. While this problem has been considered before, the related literature has only focused on a simple setting where the follower can only choose from a finite set of payoff matrices, thus leaving the general version of the problem unanswered. In this paper, we fill this gap by showing that it is always possible for the follower to efficiently compute (near-)optimal fake payoffs, for various scenarios of learning interaction between the leader and the follower. Our results also establish an interesting connection between the follower’s deception and the leader’s maximin utility: through deception, the follower can induce almost any (fake) Stackelberg equilibrium if and only if the leader obtains at least their maximin utility in this equilibrium.
game theory, FOS: Computer and information sciences, Computer Science - Machine Learning, 330, HB, Q1, Stackelberg Games, Strong Stackelberg Equilibrium, QA76, Machine Learning (cs.LG), stackelberg games; strong stackelberg equilibrium;, Computer Science - Computer Science and Game Theory, Computer Science - Data Structures and Algorithms, Hierarchical games (including Stackelberg games), game theory; autonomous agents, Data Structures and Algorithms (cs.DS), autonomous agents, QA, Computer Science and Game Theory (cs.GT)
game theory, FOS: Computer and information sciences, Computer Science - Machine Learning, 330, HB, Q1, Stackelberg Games, Strong Stackelberg Equilibrium, QA76, Machine Learning (cs.LG), stackelberg games; strong stackelberg equilibrium;, Computer Science - Computer Science and Game Theory, Computer Science - Data Structures and Algorithms, Hierarchical games (including Stackelberg games), game theory; autonomous agents, Data Structures and Algorithms (cs.DS), autonomous agents, QA, Computer Science and Game Theory (cs.GT)
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 7 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
| views | 4 | |
| downloads | 3 |

Views provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts