Paper detail

Some Tractable Win-Lose Games

Determining a Nash equilibrium in a $2$-player non-zero sum game is known to be PPAD-hard (Chen and Deng (2006), Chen, Deng and Teng (2009)). The problem, even when restricted to win-lose bimatrix games, remains PPAD-hard (Abbott, Kane and Valiant (2005)). However, there do exist polynomial time tractable classes of win-lose bimatrix games - such as, very sparse games (Codenotti, Leoncini and Resta (2006)) and planar games (Addario-Berry, Olver and Vetta (2007)). We extend the results in the latter work to $K_{3,3}$ minor-free games and a subclass of $K_5$ minor-free games. Both these classes of games strictly contain planar games. Further, we sharpen the upper bound to unambiguous logspace, a small complexity class contained well within polynomial time. Apart from these classes of games, our results also extend to a class of games that contain both $K_{3,3}$ and $K_5$ as minors, thereby covering a large and non-trivial class of win-lose bimatrix games. For this class, we prove an upper bound of nondeterministic logspace, again a small complexity class within polynomial time. Our techniques are primarily graph theoretic and use structural characterizations of the considered minor-closed families.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.