Search

We consider {\em bidding games}, a class of two-player zero-sum {\em graph games}. The game proceeds as follows. Both players have bounded budgets. A token is placed on a vertex of a graph, in each turn the players simultaneously submit bids, and the higher bidder moves the token, where we break bidding ties in favor of Player 1. Player 1 wins the game iff the token visits a designated target vertex. We consider, for the first time, {\em poorman discrete-bidding} in which the granularity of the bids is restricted and the higher bid is paid to the bank. Previous work either did not impose granularity restrictions or considered {\em Richman} bidding (bids are paid to the opponent). While the latter mechanisms are technically more accessible, the former is more appealing from a practical standpoint. Our study focuses on {\em threshold budgets}, which is the necessary and sufficient initial budget required for Player 1 to ensure winning against a given Player 2 budget. We first show existence of thresholds. In DAGs, we show that threshold budgets can be approximated with error bounds by thresholds under continuous-bidding and that they exhibit a periodic behavior. We identify closed-form solutions in special cases. We implement and experiment with an algorithm to find threshold budgets., Comment: The full version of a paper published at ECAI 2023

In a two-player zero-sum graph game the players move a token throughout a graph to produce an infinite path, which determines the winner or payoff of the game. Traditionally, the players alternate turns in moving the token. In {\em bidding games}, however, the players have budgets, and in each turn, we hold an "auction" (bidding) to determine which player moves the token: both players simultaneously submit bids and the higher bidder moves the token. The bidding mechanisms differ in their payment schemes. Bidding games were largely studied with variants of {\em first-price} bidding in which only the higher bidder pays his bid. We focus on {\em all-pay} bidding, where both players pay their bids. Finite-duration all-pay bidding games were studied and shown to be technically more challenging than their first-price counterparts. We study for the first time, infinite-duration all-pay bidding games. Our most interesting results are for {\em mean-payoff} objectives: we portray a complete picture for games played on strongly-connected graphs. We study both pure (deterministic) and mixed (probabilistic) strategies and completely characterize the optimal sure and almost-sure (with probability $1$) payoffs that the players can respectively guarantee. We show that mean-payoff games under all-pay bidding exhibit the intriguing mathematical properties of their first-price counterparts; namely, an equivalence with {\em random-turn games} in which in each turn, the player who moves is selected according to a (biased) coin toss. The equivalences for all-pay bidding are more intricate and unexpected than for first-price bidding., Comment: The full version of a paper published in SODA 2021

In two-player games on graphs, the players move a token through a graph to produce an infinite path, which determines the winner or payoff of the game. We study {\em bidding games} in which the players bid for the right to move the token. Several bidding rules were studied previously. In {\em Richman} bidding, in each round, the players simultaneously submit bids, and the higher bidder moves the token and pays the other player. {\em Poorman} bidding is similar except that the winner of the bidding pays the "bank" rather than the other player. {\em Taxman} bidding spans the spectrum between Richman and poorman bidding. They are parameterized by a constant $\tau \in [0,1]$: portion $\tau$ of the winning bid is paid to the other player, and portion $1-\tau$ to the bank. We present, for the first time, results on {\em infinite-duration} taxman games. Our most interesting results concern quantitative taxman games, namely {\em mean-payoff} games, where poorman and Richman bidding differ. A central quantity in these games is the {\em ratio} between the two players' initial budgets. While in poorman mean-payoff games, the optimal payoff a player can guarantee depends on the initial ratio, in Richman bidding, the payoff depends only on the structure of the game. In both games the optimal payoffs can be found using (different) probabilistic connections with {\em random-turn based} games in which in each turn, a coin is tossed to determine which player moves. The payoff with Richman bidding equals the payoff of a random-turn based game with an un-biased coin, and with poorman bidding, the coin is biased according to the initial budget ratio. We give a complete classification of mean-payoff taxman games using a probabilistic connection. Our results show that Richman bidding is the exception; namely, for every $\tau <1$, the value of the game depends on the initial ratio.

A standard objective in partially-observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs) is to find a policy that maximizes the expected discounted-sum payoff. However, such policies may still permit unlikely but highly undesirable outcomes, which is problematic especially in safety-critical applications. Recently, there has been a surge of interest in POMDPs where the goal is to maximize the probability to ensure that the payoff is at least a given threshold, but these approaches do not consider any optimization beyond satisfying this threshold constraint. In this work we go beyond both the "expectation" and "threshold" approaches and consider a "guaranteed payoff optimization (GPO)" problem for POMDPs, where we are given a threshold $t$ and the objective is to find a policy $\sigma$ such that a) each possible outcome of $\sigma$ yields a discounted-sum payoff of at least $t$, and b) the expected discounted-sum payoff of $\sigma$ is optimal (or near-optimal) among all policies satisfying a). We present a practical approach to tackle the GPO problem and evaluate it on standard POMDP benchmarks.