There has been significant recent progress in algorithms for approximation of Nash equilibrium in large two-player zero-sum imperfect-information games and exact computation of Nash equilibrium in multiplayer strategic-form games. While counterfactual regret minimization and fictitious play are scalable to large games and have convergence guarantees in two-player zero-sum games, they do not guarantee convergence to Nash equilibrium in multiplayer games. Recently, an approach has been presented for exact computation of Nash equilibrium in multiplayer imperfect-information games that solves a quadratically constrained program based on a nonlinear complementarity problem formulation derived from the sequence-form game representation. This formulation was solved using Gurobi's nonconvex quadratic solver, which employs spatial branch-and-bound to iteratively refine variable bounds by solving convex relaxations of bilinear terms. During presolve, Gurobi introduces auxiliary variables and, in some cases, binary variables, leading to an internal mixed-integer quadratically constrained program. This approach was demonstrated to outperform prior algorithms from the Gambit software suite and quickly solve three-player Kuhn poker after removal of dominated actions; however, the algorithm was not able to solve the full version of the game within 24 hours. In this paper, we derive finite bounds on slack and multiplier variables in the nonlinear complementarity formulation. These bounds can strengthen the convex relaxations used within spatial branch-and-bound. We compare uniform corollary bounds with finer proposition-based bounds on full three-player Kuhn poker. All eight bounded configurations return numerically verified equilibria in under 17 seconds, while the unbounded formulation finds no feasible solution within 300 seconds. The finest bounds do not consistently yield the fastest computation.
The standard game-theoretic solution concept, Nash equilibrium, assumes that all players behave rationally. If we follow a Nash equilibrium and opponents are irrational (or follow strategies from a different Nash equilibrium), then we may obtain an extremely low payoff. On the other hand, a maximin strategy assumes that all opposing agents are playing to minimize our payoff (even if it is not in their best interest), and ensures the maximal possible worst-case payoff, but results in exceedingly conservative play. We propose a new solution concept called safe equilibrium that models opponents as behaving rationally with a specified probability and behaving potentially arbitrarily with the remaining probability. We prove that a safe equilibrium exists in all strategic-form games (for all possible values of the rationality parameters), and prove that its computation is PPAD-hard. We present exact algorithms for computing a safe equilibrium in both 2 and $n$-player games, as well as scalable approximation algorithms.
While Nash equilibrium has emerged as the central game-theoretic solution concept, many important games contain several Nash equilibria and we must determine how to select between them in order to create real strategic agents. Several Nash equilibrium refinement concepts have been proposed and studied for sequential imperfect-information games, the most prominent being trembling-hand perfect equilibrium, quasi-perfect equilibrium, proper equilibrium, and recently one-sided quasi-perfect equilibrium. These concepts are robust to certain arbitrarily small mistakes, and are guaranteed to always exist; however, we argue that none of these is the correct concept for developing strong agents in sequential games of imperfect information. We define a new equilibrium refinement concept for extensive-form games called observable perfect equilibrium in which the solution is robust over trembles in publicly-observable action probabilities (not necessarily over all action probabilities that may not be observable by opposing players). Observable perfect equilibrium correctly captures the assumption that the opponent is playing as rationally as possible given mistakes that have been observed (while previous solution concepts do not). We prove that observable perfect equilibrium is always guaranteed to exist, and demonstrate that it selects a unique equilibrium in a simplified no-limit poker game where the prior extensive-form refinements retain a continuum of equilibria. We expect observable perfect equilibrium to be a useful equilibrium refinement concept for modeling many important imperfect-information games of interest in artificial intelligence.