Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Is Learning Effective in Dynamic Strategic Interactions? Evidence from Stackelberg Games

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In random Bayesian Stackelberg games with many follower types, a leader who can credibly commit to a history-dependent policy can typically learn and exploit the follower's private type, beating the static Bayesian Stackelberg equilibrium.

desk verdict A genuine new sufficient condition and a flawed headline prevalence claim; Corollary 1 needs repair before the average-case result can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15568 v1 pith:XXEYWOQG submitted 2025-04-22 cs.GT

Michael Albert , Quinlan Dawkins , Minbiao Han , Haifeng Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GT MSC 91A6591A26
keywords BayesianStackelberggameseffectivelearningNoTheoremdynamicpricingaverage-caseanalysisstochasticgeometrymixed-integerlinearprogramstrategicfollower
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether a leader who faces the same privately informed follower over many rounds can do better than simply replaying the optimal one-shot strategy, when the follower is fully strategic and anticipates the leader's learning. In dynamic pricing, the answer is no, because the No Learning Theorem says no pricing policy beats the static optimal price, a negative result that has shaped the learning-in-games literature. The paper shows that the pricing conclusion does not transfer to general Bayesian Stackelberg games: for a random game with many follower types and non-degenerate follower payoffs, with probability $1-O(1/|\Theta|)$ the leader can commit to a screening policy that conditions on the follower's history and strictly beats the static Bayesian Stackelberg equilibrium. It further shows that this gain is not merely a substitute for communication, because the optimal dynamic policy nearly matches, and sometimes beats, the best static menu with direct type reports. The paper also gives an exact mixed-integer linear program for the optimal dynamic policy and two faster heuristics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the best-response region $BR_\theta(j)=\{x\in\Delta^m : j\in\arg\max_{j'}V_\theta(x,j')\}$, the set of leader mixed strategies for which follower type $\theta$ would respond with action $j$. The paper's sufficient condition Assumption 1 requires that at the static equilibrium strategy $x^*$ there is a subgroup $\Theta'\subset\Theta$ whose union of best-response regions is disjoint from the union for the remaining types; the constructed policy then runs the static BSE for $T-1$ rounds and, if the follower's responses stay inside the subgroup's region, switches to $BSE(\Theta')$ on the final round, which the leader strictly prefers exactly when $BSE(\Theta')\neq x^*$. The average-case result is carried by a stochastic-geometry argument on the indifference hyperplanes $H^\theta_{i,j}=\{x: x\cdot(C^\theta_{\cdot,i}-C^\theta_{\cdot,j})=0\}$: when the generating distribution satisfies Assumption 2, these hyperplanes are in general position, and a generalized spherical quermassintegral, a measure of how often a random linear subspace intersects a cone, shows that the probability any single follower action is a best response for every type decays as $O(1/|\Theta|)$, yielding the disjoint-subgroup condition with high probability.

What would settle it

Fix $m=n=3$, draw each $C^\theta_{i,j}$ independently from a continuous distribution satisfying Assumption 2, such as uniform on $[0,1]$, take the prior uniform over $\Theta$ with $|\Theta|=100$, and check numerically whether any leader action is a best response for every follower type simultaneously; Theorem 3 predicts this happens for at most an $O(1/100)$ fraction of draws, and if the empirical fraction does not shrink toward zero as $|\Theta|$ grows, the average-case claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that effective learning, defined as the leader's history-contingent policy attaining strictly higher utility than the repeated Bayesian Stackelberg equilibrium (BSE), is the typical outcome in dynamic Bayesian Stackelberg games, not the exceptional one. The proof route is an average-case analysis: under Assumption 2, which says the follower payoff columns are drawn from an even distribution that gives zero mass to linear subspaces so that indifference hyperplanes are in general position, and with no dominant leader action, the probability that the sufficient condition Assumption 1 fails is $O(1/|\Theta|)$ (Corollary 1). Assumption 1 asks only that at the BSE strategy there is a subgroup of types whose set of best responses is disjoint from the best responses of the complementary types; Theorem 2 converts this into a concrete $T$-round screening policy that plays the BSE for $T-1$ rounds and switches to the subgroup-optimal strategy in the last round only if the observed history is consistent with the subgroup. The paper also establishes that learning is not a stand-in for communication: the dynamic equilibrium utility is at least $U^{\mathrm{RME}}-O(\sqrt{\log|\Theta|/(T\delta^2)})$, where $\delta$ is the inducibility gap, and there are instances in which the dynamic policy beats the communication benchmark by an $\Omega(1)$ gap.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the leader can credibly promise, before the first round, what she will do after every possible history of the follower's responses, and the follower trusts that promise; if commitment is absent or non-credible, the constructed screening policies and the positive learning results do not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any game satisfying Assumption 1 there is a horizon $T^*$ such that, for all $T\ge T^*$, the leader has a dynamic policy that strictly outscores the repeated BSE while only changing her strategy at the final round.
  • For random games with many follower types and no dominant leader action, effective learning is not a rare phenomenon: the probability that the sufficient condition fails is $O(1/|\Theta|)$, so screening typically becomes possible as the type space grows.
  • The optimal dynamic policy nearly closes the gap to the best static communication benchmark: with a positive inducibility gap $\delta$ and $T$ sufficiently large relative to $\log(|\Theta|n)$, the dynamic equilibrium utility is within $O(\sqrt{\log|\Theta|/(T\delta^2)})$ of the randomized-menu equilibrium utility.
  • There are Bayesian Stackelberg games where the dynamic screening policy beats the randomized-menu benchmark by an $\Omega(1)$ gap, so learning through repeated play can be strictly more powerful than a direct type report under commitment.
  • The exact dynamic equilibrium can be formulated as a mixed-integer linear program with $O(T|\Theta|mn^T)$ continuous variables and $T|\Theta|n$ integer variables, and the First-$k$ heuristic approximates it in time independent of the horizon for fixed $k$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The pricing game is a knife-edge case rather than a representative one: because the No Learning Theorem is tied to the indifference structure of posted prices, perturbing the leader's feasible action set slightly, as in Example 3, already restores effective learning, which suggests that no-learning failures occupy a measure-zero locus under generic payoff perturbations.
  • A testable extension is to compute, for fixed $m$ and $n$, the empirical frequency with which Assumption 1 holds as $|\Theta|$ grows under different continuous distributions satisfying Assumption 2, and to check whether the convergence rate matches the $O(1/|\Theta|)$ bound or depends measurably on $m$ and $n$.
  • The Theorem 2 construction suggests that a dynamic policy can act as a distributed implementation of a randomized menu: instead of reporting a type, the follower's accumulated response history selects the relevant submenu, which may be useful in settings where direct messages are unavailable but actions are observable.
  • A necessary-and-sufficient characterization of effective learning would likely replace Assumption 1's disjoint-region condition with a gap condition on dynamic incentive compatibility, since Example 3 is learnable without satisfying Assumption 1.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies repeated Bayesian Stackelberg games in which a leader repeatedly interacts with a fully strategic follower of unknown, fixed type. The central claim is that, contrary to the dynamic-pricing folk theorem, the leader can 'learn effectively': by conditioning her strategy on the follower's observed history, she can strictly improve over the static BSE policy. The authors prove a sufficient condition (Assumption 1) for effective learning and then argue that this condition holds with probability 1 - O(1/|Theta|) under a generic random model of follower payoffs (Corollary 1). They also compare the dynamic equilibrium to a communication benchmark (RME), provide MILP-based algorithms for computing or approximating the DSE, and present experiments on structured and random games.

Significance. If the main claim is correct, the paper would be an important counterpoint to the No Learning Theorem, showing that dynamic pricing is an anomaly and that learning can be effective against a fully strategic follower when the leader can commit. The sufficient condition and the constructive policy in Theorem 2 are a valuable conceptual contribution, as are the MILP formulations and the RME comparison. However, the average-case prevalence result is the headline contribution of the abstract, and it rests on Corollary 1. Since the proof of Corollary 1 contains a genuinely invalid inference, the central prevalence claim is currently unsupported. The remaining results (Theorem 2, the RME bound, and the algorithms) are likely salvageable and interesting on their own, which is why the manuscript merits revision rather than outright rejection.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, Appendix B.2, Corollary 1] The proof of Corollary 1 does not establish that Theorem 3 implies the existence of a subgroup with disjoint best-response sets. Theorem 3 bounds the probability that some action i is a best response for every type at some leader strategy x. The proof then asserts that, at the BSE x*, there is a subgroup Θ′ with BR(Θ′,x*) ∩ BR(Θ\Θ′,x*) = ∅ and BSE(Θ′) ≠ x*. This implication is not valid: with m=n=2 and |Θ|=3, take BR(θ1,x*)={a}, BR(θ2,x*)={a,b}, BR(θ3,x*)={b}. No action is a best response for all types, yet every subgroup has a best-response set intersecting that of its complement, so Assumption 1 fails. The subsequent argument that removing a tied type makes BSE(Θ′)≠x* is also incomplete, since deleting the hyperplane on which θ* is indifferent does not by itself show that x* ceases to be a BSE. Additionally, the vertex case of the proof bounds the wrong event: the event that, at a vertex x_i, all types share a single best response has probability n^{1-|Θ|}, whereas the proof bounds the event that there is an action j that is no type's best response. These flaws leave the O(1/|Θ|) claim unsupported.
  2. [Appendix B.1, proof of Theorem 2] The constructive proof of Theorem 2 contains an incorrect derivation of the threshold T*. For constraint (10), which prevents types outside Θ′ from mimicking the subgroup, the relevant margin is V_θ(x*, j*_θ(x*)) − max_{j∈BR(Θ′)} V_θ(x*, j), but the displayed T* and the surrounding sufficient condition use max_{j∉BR(Θ′)} V_θ(x*, j). With the displayed expression, the margin can be zero for a type outside Θ′, so the claimed T* need not exist. Similarly, the sufficient condition stated for constraint (9), namely (T−1)(V* − max) ≥ 1, does not follow from constraint (9); the inequality actually requires (T−2)(V* − max) + V(\hat{x}, j*_θ(\hat{x})) − max ≥ 0. While the theorem may still be true with a corrected bound, the proof as written does not establish the claimed threshold.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'converges to one linearly with the number of follower types' is imprecise; the proved (and intended) rate is 1 − O(1/|Θ|), i.e., a linear rate of decrease in the failure probability, not a linear rate of convergence of the success probability.
  2. [Example 4, Section 4] The claim that the set of RMEs consists only of the two menus {1,(1,0)} and {1,(0,1)} is not fully justified, since the menu assigning (1,0) to type C0 and (0,1) to type C1 is not incentive compatible. The example would benefit from a short derivation of the RME value.
  3. [Table 4 and Appendix B.3] The tables report only 100 samples per configuration; stating the standard error or a confidence interval would help interpret the trends, especially in the cells with values near 50/100.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central learning results are proved from explicitly stated geometric and constructive assumptions; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. Theorem 2 is a constructive sufficiency result: Assumption 1 (existence of a learnable subgroup with disjoint best-response sets and BSE(Θ′) ≠ x*) is used to build an explicit screening policy, and the proof verifies the leader and follower incentive constraints (equations (8)–(10)); Assumption 1 is not defined in terms of effective learning. Theorem 3 is an independent stochastic-geometry bound on the probability that some action is a best response for all types, and Corollary 1 combines it with the no-dominant-action assumption; the paper's own equations, not fitted parameters, carry the argument. The RME benchmark and the inducibility gap are cited from the authors' prior work [26,27,62], but Theorem 4 is proved in Appendix C with the external Althöfer lemma, so those citations are not load-bearing for the main claim. No parameter is fitted and renamed a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported to forbid alternatives, and no known result is merely renamed. The only concern found is a possible logical gap in Corollary 1's proof (the step from absence of a universal best response to existence of a disjoint subgroup at the BSE is not fully justified), but that is a correctness issue, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central average-case claim rests on the commitment and fixed-type assumptions, plus the distributional Assumption 2 and the stochastic geometry of [35]. No free parameters are fitted to data.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The leader can commit to a dynamic policy π before the game, and the follower observes the policy and trusts the commitment.
    Stated in Section 2.1.2; without it, the DSE concept and the constructed policies in Theorem 2 lose force.
  • domain assumption The follower's type θ is fixed for all T rounds and is drawn once from the prior µ.
    Stated in Section 2.1.2; if types evolve, the optimal contract is not static, so the model and results would change.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 2: the distribution f over follower payoff matrices is such that for each action j there is a j' with an even difference distribution that assigns zero measure to linear subspaces.
    Introduced by the authors to ensure hyperplanes are in general position; it excludes degenerate cases like pricing games where learning fails.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: there exists a subgroup Θ' with BSE(Θ') ≠ x* and BR(Θ',x*) ∩ BR(Θ\Θ',x*) = ∅.
    Sufficient condition for Theorem 2; the theorem proves that if this holds, effective learning is possible.
  • standard math Stochastic geometry results of Hug and Schneider [35], used via Corollary 5 and Lemma 1.
    Used in Appendix B.2 to bound probabilities of hyperplane intersections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Is Learning Effective in Dynamic Strategic Interactions? Evidence from Stackelberg Games." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XXEYWOQG

@misc{pith2026250415568,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Is Learning Effective in Dynamic Strategic Interactions? Evidence from Stackelberg Games},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XXEYWOQG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15568}
}
read the original abstract

In many settings of interest, a policy is set by one party, the leader, in order to influence the action of another party, the follower, where the follower's response is determined by some private information. A natural question to ask is, can the leader improve their strategy by learning about the unknown follower through repeated interactions? A well known folk theorem from dynamic pricing, a special case of this leader-follower setting, would suggest that the leader cannot learn effectively from the follower when the follower is fully strategic, leading to a large literature on learning in strategic settings that relies on limiting the strategic space of the follower in order to provide positive results. In this paper, we study dynamic Bayesian Stackelberg games, where a leader and a \emph{fully strategic} follower interact repeatedly, with the follower's type unknown. Contrary to existing results, we show that the leader can improve their utility through learning in repeated play. Using a novel average-case analysis, we demonstrate that learning is effective in these settings, without needing to weaken the follower's strategic space. Importantly, this improvement is not solely due to the leader's ability to commit, nor does learning simply substitute for communication between the parties. We provide an algorithm, based on a mixed-integer linear program, to compute the optimal leader policy in these games and develop heuristic algorithms to approximate the optimal dynamic policy more efficiently. Through simulations, we compare the efficiency and runtime of these algorithms against static policies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15568 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Utility Matrices for the Game of Chicken. A leader-follower variant of the game of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A Stackelberg Security Game with two follower types. The average utility per round for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Utility Matrices for a Modified Battle of the Sexes Game. A Stackelberg variant of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the Sequence of Leader Strategies. The leader first plays a strategy for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Utility Matrices for a Dynamic Pricing Game. A pricing game with three buyer types, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Efficient Online Proportional Sampling with Applications to Smoothed Online Learning

    cs.LG 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Hierarchical interval trees with lazy insertion and vector-encoded rewards enable efficient proportional sampling under σ-smoothed adversaries, with tight O(√(σT)) depth and sublinear-regret online learning.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Gagan Aggarwal, Ashish Goel, and Rajeev Motwani. 2006. Truthful auctions for pricing search keywords. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce . 1–7

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Tal Alon, Paul D¨ utting, and Inbal Talgam-Cohen. 2021. Contracts with Private Cost per Unit-of-Effort. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation . 52–69

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Ingo Alth¨ ofer. 1994. On sparse approximations to randomized strategies and convex combina- tions. Linear Algebra Appl. 199 (1994), 339–355

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    Kareem Amin, Afshin Rostamizadeh, and Umar Syed. 2013. Learning prices for repeated auctions with strategic buyers. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . 1169– 1177

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Kareem Amin, Afshin Rostamizadeh, and Umar Syed. 2014. Repeated contextual auctions with strategic buyers. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . 622–630

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Nivasini Ananthakrishnan, Nika Haghtalab, Chara Podimata, and Kunhe Yang. 2024. Is Knowledge Power? On the (Im)Possibility of Learning from Strategic Interaction. https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.08272 arXiv:2408.08272 [cs]

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.08272 2024

  7. [7]

    Maria-Florina Balcan, Amit Daniely, Ruta Mehta, Ruth Urner, and Vijay V Vazirani. 2014. Learning economic parameters from revealed preferences. In International Conference on Web and Internet Economics . Springer, 338–353

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Balseiro, Anthony Kim, and Daniel Russo

    Santiago R. Balseiro, Anthony Kim, and Daniel Russo. 2021. On the Futility of Dynamics in Robust Mechanism Design. Operations Research 69, 6 (Nov. 2021), 1767–1783. https: //doi.org/10.1287/opre.2021.2122

    work page arXiv 2021

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    David P Baron and David Besanko. 1984. Regulation and information in a continuing relation- ship. Information Economics and policy 1, 3 (1984), 267–302. 21

    1984

  2. [10]

    Marco Battaglini. 2005. Long-term contracting with Markovian consumers. American Economic Review 95, 3 (2005), 637–658

    2005

  3. [11]

    Eyal Beigman and Rakesh Vohra. 2006. Learning from revealed preference. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce . 36–42

    2006

  4. [12]

    Alain Bensoussan, Shaokuan Chen, and Suresh P Sethi. 2015. The maximum principle for global solutions of stochastic Stackelberg differential games. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 53, 4 (2015), 1956–1981

    2015

  5. [13]

    Patrick Bolton and Mathias Dewatripont. 2004. Contract theory. MIT press

    2004

  6. [14]

    Matteo Castiglioni, Alberto Marchesi, and Nicola Gatti. 2021. Bayesian agency: Linear versus tractable contracts. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 285–286

    2021

  7. [15]

    Matteo Castiglioni, Alberto Marchesi, and Nicola Gatti. 2022. Designing Menus of Contracts Efficiently: The Power of Randomization. In EC ’22: The 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. ACM, 705–735. https://doi.org/10.1145/3490486.3538270

    2022

  8. [16]

    Yanling Chang, Alan L Erera, and Chelsea C White. 2015. A leader–follower partially observed, multiobjective Markov game. Annals of Operations Research 235, 1 (2015), 103–128

    2015

  9. [17]

    Alon Cohen, Argyrios Deligkas, and Moran Koren. 2022. Learning Approximately Optimal Con- tracts. In Algorithmic Game Theory: 15th International Symposium, SAGT 2022, Colchester, UK, September 12–15, 2022, Proceedings. Springer, 331–346

    2022

  10. [18]

    Vincent Conitzer and Tuomas Sandholm. 2006. Computing the optimal strategy to commit to. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Electronic commerce . 82–90

    2006

  11. [19]

    Pascal Courty and Li Hao. 2000. Sequential screening. The Review of Economic Studies 67, 4 (2000), 697–717

    2000

  12. [20]

    Quinlan Dawkins, Minbiao Han, and Haifeng Xu. 2021. The Limits of Optimal Pricing in the Dark. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021), 26649–26660

    2021

  13. [21]

    Quinlan Dawkins, Minbiao Han, and Haifeng Xu. 2022. First-Order Convex Fitting and Its Application to Economics and Optimization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 36. 6480–6487

    2022

  14. [22]

    Yuan Deng, Jon Schneider, and Balasubramanian Sivan. 2019. Strategizing against No-regret Learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . 1577–1585

    2019

  15. [23]

    Nikhil R Devanur, Yuval Peres, and Balasubramanian Sivan. 2014. Perfect bayesian equilibria in repeated sales. In Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms. SIAM, 983–1002

    2014

  16. [24]

    Paul D¨ utting, Tim Roughgarden, and Inbal Talgam-Cohen. 2019. Simple versus optimal contracts. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation . 369– 387. 22

    2019

  17. [25]

    Xavier Freixas, Roger Guesnerie, and Jean Tirole. 1985. Planning under incomplete information and the ratchet effect. The review of economic studies 52, 2 (1985), 173–191

    1985

  18. [26]

    Jiarui Gan, Minbiao Han, Jibang Wu, and Haifeng Xu. 2022. Optimal Coordination in Gener- alized Principal-Agent Problems: A Revisit and Extensions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.01146 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Jiarui Gan, Minbiao Han, Jibang Wu, and Haifeng Xu. 2023. Robust Stackelberg Equilibria. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation

    2023

  20. [28]

    Denizalp Goktas, Jiayi Zhao, and Amy Greenwald. 2022. Zero-Sum Stochastic Stackelberg Games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.13847 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Negin Golrezaei, Adel Javanmard, and Vahab Mirrokni. 2021. Dynamic Incentive-Aware Learning: Robust Pricing in Contextual Auctions. Operations Research 69, 1 (Jan. 2021), 297–314. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2020.1991

    2021

  22. [30]

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC. 2022. Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual. https://www.gurobi. com

    2022

  23. [31]

    Nika Haghtalab, Thodoris Lykouris, Sloan Nietert, and Alexander Wei. 2022. Learning in Stackelberg Games with Non-myopic Agents. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation . 917–918

    2022

  24. [32]

    Nika Haghtalab, Chara Podimata, and Kunhe Yang. 2024. Calibrated stackelberg games: Learning optimal commitments against calibrated agents. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Minbiao Han, Michael Albert, and Haifeng Xu. 2024. Learning in online principal-agent interactions: The power of menus. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 38. 17426–17434

    2024

  26. [34]

    Chien-Ju Ho, Aleksandrs Slivkins, and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. 2014. Adaptive contract design for crowdsourcing markets: Bandit algorithms for repeated principal-agent problems. In Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM conference on Economics and computation . 359–376

    2014

  27. [35]

    Daniel Hug and Rolf Schneider. 2016. Random Conical Tessellations. Discrete & Computational Geometry 56, 2 (Sept. 2016), 395–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00454-[]016-[]9788-[]0

    2016

  28. [36]

    Nicole Immorlica, Brendan Lucier, Emmanouil Pountourakis, and Samuel Taggart. 2017. Repeated Sales with Multiple Strategic Buyers. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) (EC ’17). Association for Computing Machine...

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Sham M Kakade, Ilan Lobel, and Hamid Nazerzadeh. 2013. Optimal dynamic mechanism design and the virtual-pivot mechanism. Operations Research 61, 4 (2013), 837–854

    2013

  30. [38]

    Jean-Jacques Laffont and Jean Tirole. 1988. The dynamics of incentive contracts. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society (1988), 1153–1175. 23

    1988

  31. [39]

    Niklas Lauffer, Mahsa Ghasemi, Abolfazl Hashemi, Yagiz Savas, and Ufuk Topcu. 2022. No- Regret Learning in Dynamic Stackelberg Games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.04786 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Joshua Letchford, Vincent Conitzer, and Kamesh Munagala. 2009. Learning and approximating the optimal strategy to commit to. In International symposium on algorithmic game theory . Springer, 250–262

    2009

  33. [41]

    Tao Li and Suresh P Sethi. 2017. A review of dynamic Stackelberg game models. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems-B 22, 1 (2017), 125

    2017

  34. [42]

    Vahab Mirrokni, Renato Paes Leme, Pingzhong Tang, and Song Zuo. 2020. Non-Clairvoyant Dynamic Mechanism Design. Econometrica 88, 5 (2020), 1939–1963

    2020

  35. [43]

    Mehryar Mohri and Andres Munoz. 2014. Optimal regret minimization in posted-price auctions with strategic buyers. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . 1871–1879

    2014

  36. [44]

    Mehryar Mohri and Andres Munoz. 2015. Revenue optimization against strategic buyers. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . 2530–2538

    2015

  37. [45]

    Roger B Myerson. 1981. Optimal auction design. Mathematics of operations research 6, 1 (1981), 58–73

    1981

  38. [46]

    Roger B Myerson. 1982. Optimal coordination mechanisms in generalized principal–agent problems. Journal of mathematical economics 10, 1 (1982), 67–81

    1982

  39. [47]

    Praveen Paruchuri, Jonathan P Pearce, Janusz Marecki, Milind Tambe, Fernando Ordonez, and Sarit Kraus. 2008. Playing games for security: An efficient exact algorithm for solving Bayesian Stackelberg games. In Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous ...

    2008

  40. [48]

    Alessandro Pavan, Ilya Segal, and Juuso Toikka. 2014. Dynamic mechanism design: A myersonian approach. Econometrica 82, 2 (2014), 601–653

    2014

  41. [49]

    Alessandro Pavan, Ilya Segal, and Juuso Toikka. 2014. Dynamic Mechanism Design: A Myersonian Approach. Econometrica 82, 2 (2014), 601–653. https://doi.org/10.3982/ ECTA10269

    2014

  42. [50]

    Binghui Peng, Weiran Shen, Pingzhong Tang, and Song Zuo. 2019. Learning optimal strategies to commit to. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 33. 2149–2156

    2019

  43. [51]

    Aaron Roth, Jonathan Ullman, and Zhiwei Steven Wu. 2016. Watch and learn: Optimizing from revealed preferences feedback. In Proceedings of the forty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing . 949–962

    2016

  44. [52]

    Rolf Schneider and Wolfgang Weil. 2008. Stochastic and Integral Geometry. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-[]3-[]540-[]78859-[]1

    2008 doi

  45. [53]

    Lloyd S Shapley. 1953. Stochastic games. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 39, 10 (1953), 1095–1100. 24

    1953

  46. [54]

    Arunesh Sinha, Fei Fang, Bo An, Christopher Kiekintveld, and Milind Tambe. 2018. Stackelberg security games: Looking beyond a decade of success. IJCAI

    2018

  47. [55]

    Aleksandrs Slivkins et al. 2019. Introduction to multi-armed bandits. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning 12, 1-2 (2019), 1–286

    2019

  48. [56]

    Heinrich von Stackelberg. 1934. Marktform und gleichgewicht. (1934)

    1934

  49. [57]

    Arsenii Vanunts and Alexey Drutsa. 2019. Optimal pricing in repeated posted-price auctions with different patience of the seller and the buyer. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Hal R Varian. 2009. Online ad auctions. American Economic Review 99, 2 (2009), 430–34

    2009

  51. [59]

    William Vickrey. 1961. Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. The Journal of finance 16, 1 (1961), 8–37

    1961

  52. [60]

    Yevgeniy Vorobeychik and Satinder Singh. 2012. Computing stackelberg equilibria in discounted stochastic games. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 26. 1478–1484

    2012

  53. [61]

    Quoc-Liem Vu, Zane Alumbaugh, Ryan Ching, Quanchen Ding, Arnav Mahajan, Benjamin Chasnov, Sam Burden, and Lillian J Ratliff. 2022. Stackelberg Policy Gradient: Evaluating the Performance of Leaders and Followers. In ICLR 2022 Workshop on Gamification and Multiagent Solutions

    2022

  54. [62]

    Jibang Wu, Weiran Shen, Fei Fang, and Haifeng Xu. 2022. Inverse Game Theory for Stackelberg Games: the Blessing of Bounded Rationality. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2022

  55. [63]

    Rong Yang, Benjamin J Ford, Milind Tambe, and Andrew Lemieux. 2014. Adaptive resource allocation for wildlife protection against illegal poachers.. In Aamas. 453–460

    2014

  56. [64]

    Banghua Zhu, Stephen Bates, Zhuoran Yang, Yixin Wang, Jiantao Jiao, and Michael I Jordan

  57. [66]

    If the hyperlanes H1,H 2,...,H n∈ G(m,m− 1) are in general position, they induce a coni- cal tessalation [ 35] of Rm into m-dimensional polyhedral cones, denoted by T

    and say that they are in general position if anyk≤m of them have an intersection of dimension m−k. If the hyperlanes H1,H 2,...,H n∈ G(m,m− 1) are in general position, they induce a coni- cal tessalation [ 35] of Rm into m-dimensional polyhedral cones, denoted by T . We will w...

  58. [67]

    χ \ θ′∈Θ′ Hθ′,+ i,j ∩H !# = Pm−2 i=0 |Θ′|−1 i Pm−1 i=0 |Θ′|−1 i For notational simplicity, we will denote k =|Θ′|. Then, simplifying E

    (see p. 406) and formally define Sn as the polyhedral cone with distribution given by: P(Sn∈B) = Z G(m,m−1)n 1 C(n,m )· X C∈F(Hn) 1 B(C)ϕn(d(Hn)) (14) Now, let L∈G(m,k ) be in general position with respect to H1,H 2,...,H n∈G(m,m− 1). Then L∩H1,...,L ∩Hn are (k− 1)-dimensional...

  59. [2022]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05732 (2022)

    The Sample Complexity of Online Contract Design. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05732 (2022). A Discussion of the No-Learning Theorem in Dynamic Pricing The key technique for proving the optimality of static constant pricing is an elegant reduction from dynamic pricing interactions...

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.