Paper detail

The complexity of computing a (quasi-)perfect equilibrium for an n-player extensive form game of perfect recall

We study the complexity of computing or approximating refinements of Nash equilibrium for a given finite n-player extensive form game of perfect recall (EFGPR), where n >= 3. Our results apply to a number of well-studied refinements, including sequential (SE), extensive-form perfect (PE), and quasi-perfect equilibrium (QPE). These refine Nash and subgame-perfect equilibrium. Of these, the most refined notions are PE and QPE. By classic results, all these equilibria exist in any EFGPR. We show that, for all these notions of equilibrium, approximating an equilibrium for a given EFGPR, to within a given desired precision, is FIXP_a-complete. We also consider the complexity of corresponding "almost" equilibrium notions, and show that they are PPAD-complete. In particular, we define "delta-almost epsilon-(quasi-)perfect" equilibrium, and show computing one is PPAD-complete. We show these notions refine "delta-almost subgame-perfect equilibrium" for EFGPRs, which is PPAD-complete. Thus, approximating one such (delta-almost) equilibrium for n-player EFGPRs, n >= 3, is P-time equivalent to approximating a (delta-almost) NE for a normal form game (NFG) with 3 or more players. NFGs are trivially encodable as EFGPRs without blowup in size. Thus our results extend the celebrated complexity results for NFGs to refinements of equilibrium in the more general setting of EFGPRs. For 2-player EFGPRs, analogous complexity results follow from the algorithms of Koller, Megiddo, and von Stengel (1996), von Stengel, van den Elzen, and Talman (2002), and Miltersen and Soerensen (2010). For n-player EFGPRs, an analogous result for Nash and subgame-perfect equilibrium was given by Daskalakis, Fabrikant, and Papadimitriou (2006). However, no analogous results were known for the more refined notions of equilibrium for EFGPRs with 3 or more players.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

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 map preview

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.