mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Learning in Matrix Games can be Arbitrarily Complex

arXiv 2103.03405 ↗First posted 5 Mar 2021cs.LG cs.GT math.DScited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

A growing number of machine learning architectures, such as Generative Adversarial Networks, rely on the design of games which implement a desired functionality via a Nash equilibrium. In practice these games have an implicit complexity (e.g. from underlying datasets and the deep networks used) that makes directly computing a Nash equilibrium impractical or impossible. For this reason, numerous learning algorithms have been developed with the goal of iteratively converging to a Nash equilibrium. Unfortunately, the dynamics generated by the learning process can be very intricate and instances of training failure hard to interpret. In this paper we show that, in a strong sense, this dynamic complexity is inherent to games. Specifically, we prove that replicator dynamics, the continuous-time analogue of Multiplicative Weights Update, even when applied in a very restricted class of games -- known as finite matrix games -- is rich enough to be able to approximate arbitrary dynamical systems. Our results are positive in the sense that they show the nearly boundless dynamic modelling capabilities of current machine learning practices, but also negative in implying that these capabilities may come at the cost of interpretability. As a concrete example, we show how replicator dynamics can effectively reproduce the well-known strange attractor of Lonrenz dynamics (the "butterfly effect") while achieving no regret.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 29 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Mar 2021.

Builds on

29 of 60 references.

References · 29

  1. 2018Which Training Methods for GANs do actually Converge?cited by 679
  2. 2017Training GANs with Optimismcited by 217
  3. 2018A Variational Inequality Perspective on Generative Adversarial Networkscited by 144
  4. 2018Optimistic mirror descent in saddle-point problems: Going the extra (gradient) milecited by 136
  5. 2017Cycles in adversarial regularized learningcited by 124
  6. 2018The Mechanics of n-Player Differentiable Gamescited by 118
  7. 2018The Limit Points of (Optimistic) Gradient Descent in Min-Max Optimizationcited by 101
  8. 2018The Unusual Effectiveness of Averaging in GAN Trainingcited by 73
  9. 2019Autocurricula and the Emergence of Innovation from Social Interaction: A Manifesto for Multi-Agent Intelligence Researchcited by 61
  10. 2020From Poincar'e Recurrence to Convergence in Imperfect Information Games: Finding Equilibrium via Regularizationcited by 61
  11. 2019α-Rank: Multi-Agent Evaluation by Evolutioncited by 51
  12. 2020The limits of min-max optimization algorithms: convergence to spurious non-critical setscited by 50
17 more
  1. 2020No-regret learning and mixed Nash equilibria: They do not mixcited by 50
  2. 2018On Gradient-Based Learning in Continuous Gamescited by 48
  3. 2019Differentiable Game Mechanicscited by 43
  4. 2017Multiplicative Weights Update with Constant Step-Size in Congestion Games: Convergence, Limit Cycles and Chaoscited by 29
  5. 2019Finite Regret and Cycles with Fixed Step-Size via Alternating Gradient Descent-Ascentcited by 29
  6. 2018Local Saddle Point Optimization: A Curvature Exploitation Approachcited by 28
  7. 2019Vortices Instead of Equilibria in MinMax Optimization: Chaos and Butterfly Effects of Online Learning in Zero-Sum Gamescited by 25
  8. 2020On the Impossibility of Global Convergence in Multi-Loss Optimizationcited by 16
  9. 2020Chaos, Extremism and Optimism: Volume Analysis of Learning in Gamescited by 16
  10. 2019The route to chaos in routing games: When is Price of Anarchy too optimistic?cited by 15
  11. 2019Poincar'e Recurrence, Cycles and Spurious Equilibria in Gradient-Descent-Ascent for Non-Convex Non-Concave Zero-Sum Gamescited by 15
  12. 2020Decentralized Reinforcement Learning: Global Decision-Making via Local Economic Transactionscited by 15
  13. 2019Multi-Agent Learning in Network Zero-Sum Games is a Hamiltonian Systemcited by 13
  14. 2019Multiagent Evaluation under Incomplete Informationcited by 13
  15. 2019From Darwin to Poincar'e and von Neumann: Recurrence and Cycles in Evolutionary and Algorithmic Game Theorycited by 5
  16. 2020Evolutionary Game Theory Squared: Evolving Agents in Endogenously Evolving Zero-Sum Gamescited by 5
  17. 2020Smooth markets: A basic mechanism for organizing gradient-based learnerscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 5; 2023: 3; 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

11 papers.