Optimally Deceiving a Learning Leader in Stackelberg Games
Georgios Birmpas, Jiarui Gan, Alexandros Hollender, Francisco J. Marmolejo Cossío, Ninad Rajgopal, Alexandros A. Voudouris
Abstract
Recent results have shown that algorithms for learning the optimal commitment in a Stackelberg game are susceptible to manipulation by the follower. These learning algorithms operate by querying the best responses of the follower, who consequently can deceive the algorithm by using fake best responses, typically by responding according to fake payoffs that are different from the actual ones. For this strategic behavior to be successful, the main challenge faced by the follower is to pinpoint the fake payoffs that would make the learning algorithm output a commitment that benefits them the most. While this problem has been considered before, the related literature has only focused on a simple setting where the follower can only choose from a finite set of payoff matrices, thus leaving the general version of the problem unanswered. In this paper, we fill this gap by showing that it is always possible for the follower to efficiently compute (near-)optimal fake payoffs, for various scenarios of learning interaction between the leader and the follower. Our results also establish an interesting connection between the follower’s deception and the leader’s maximin utility: through deception, the follower can induce almost any (fake) Stackelberg equilibrium if and only if the leader obtains at least their maximin utility in this equilibrium.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 6b150c49-197d-49cf-8920-8791cfb24dc8Cited by top-tier papers6
- Auctions between Regret-Minimizing AgentsYoav Kolumbus, Noam NisanWWW 2022 · 47 citations
- How and Why to Manipulate Your Own Agent: On the Incentives of Users of Learning AgentsYoav Kolumbus, Noam NisanNeurIPS 2022 · 28 citations
- Online Learning for Load Balancing of Unknown Monotone Resource Allocation GamesIlai Bistritz, Nicholas BambosICML 2021 · 9 citations
- Is Knowledge Power? On the (Im)possibility of Learning from Strategic InteractionsNivasini Ananthakrishnan, Nika Haghtalab, Chara Podimata, Kunhe YangNeurIPS 2024 · 9 citations
- The Limits of Optimal Pricing in the DarkQuinlan Dawkins, Minbiao Han, Haifeng XuNeurIPS 2021 · 6 citations
Related papers
- Contract Design Under Approximate Best ResponsesFrancesco Bacchiocchi, Jiarui Gan, Matteo Castiglioni, Alberto Marchesi et al.ICML 2025
- Learning in Bayesian Stackelberg Games With Unknown Follower's TypesMatteo Bollini, Francesco Bacchiocchi, Samuel Coutts, Matteo Castiglioni et al.ICML 2026
- Learning to Steer Learners in GamesYizhou Zhang, Yian Ma, Eric MazumdarICML 2025
- When Can the Defender Effectively Deceive Attackers in Security Games?Thanh Nguyen, Haifeng XuAAAI 2022 · 4 citations
- Nearly-Optimal Bandit Learning in Stackelberg Games with Side InformationNina Balcan, Martino Bernasconi, Matteo Castiglioni, Andrea Celli et al.ICLR 2026 · 9 citations
