Existence of Multiagent Equilibria with Limited Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiagent learning is a necessary yet challenging problem as multiagent systems become more prevalent and environments become more dynamic. Much of the groundbreaking work in this area draws on notable results from game theory, in particular, the concept of Nash equilibria. Learners that directly learn an equilibrium obviously rely on their existence. Learners that instead seek to play optimally with respect to the other players also depend upon equilibria since equilibria are fixed points for learning. From another perspective, agents with limitations are real and common. These may be undesired physical limitations as well as self-imposed rational limitations, such as abstraction and approximation techniques, used to make learning tractable. This article explores the interactions of these two important concepts: equilibria and limitations in learning. We introduce the question of whether equilibria continue to exist when agents have limitations. We look at the general effects limitations can have on agent behavior, and define a natural extension of equilibria that accounts for these limitations. Using this formalization, we make three major contributions: (i) a counterexample for the general existence of equilibria with limitations, (ii) sufficient conditions on limitations that preserve their existence, (iii) three general classes of games and limitations that satisfy these conditions. We then present empirical results from a specific multiagent learning algorithm applied to a specific instance of limited agents. These results demonstrate that learning with limitations is feasible, when the conditions outlined by our theoretical analysis hold.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".