Nikolaos Al. Papadopoulos

Nikolaos Al. Papadopoulos

A plethora real-world environments require agents to compete repeatedly for the same limited resource, calling for a temporal notion of fairness judged across entire interaction histories. This paper advances the theory of temporal fair division by introducing Rotational Periodicity (RP), a family of lightweight metrics, alongside the ALT family of sliding-window measures, within a unified framework for repeated multi-agent resource competition. We formalise the Multi-Agent Battle of the Exes (MBoE) as a repeated fair division instance and establish Perfect Alternation (PA) as its canonical temporally fair solution, drawing connections to proportionality, envy-freeness, and n-periodic round-robin allocation. RP decomposes temporal fairness into two complementary sub-measures: Rotational Score (RS) and Waiting Periods Evaluation (WPE), achieving O(nu+n) time complexity versus the O(nu*n) of ALT, where nu is the episode count and n the agent count. Empirical evaluation across n in {2,3,5,8,10} reveals three findings. First, both RP and ALT expose a coordination failure invisible to traditional metrics: Q-learning agents perform worse than random policies by 10-73% on RP and 7-35% on CALT, while Reward Fairness remains misleadingly high (above 0.92 for n>=3). Second, RP achieves 12-25x computational speedup over ALT, growing with n. Third, the two families are complementary: ALT provides richer discrimination for small populations; RP scales reliably where ALT becomes intractable. Together they form a diagnostic toolkit for temporal fair division.

Nikolaos Al. Papadopoulos, Konstantinos Psannis

Multi-agent coordination dilemmas expose a fundamental tension between individual optimization and collective welfare, yet characterizing such coordination requires metrics sensitive to temporal structure and collective dynamics. As a diagnostic testbed, we study a BoE-derived multi-agent variant of the Battle of the Exes, formalizing it as a Markov game in which turn-taking emerges as a periodic coordination regime. Conventional outcome-based metrics (e.g., efficiency and min/max fairness) are temporally blind -- they cannot distinguish structured alternation from monopolistic or random access patterns -- and fairness ratios lose discriminative power as n grows, obscuring inequities. To address this limitation, we introduce Perfect Alternation (PA) as a reference coordination regime and propose six novel Alternation (ALT) metrics designed as temporally sensitive observables of coordination quality. Using Q-learning agents as a minimal adaptive diagnostic baseline, and comparing against random-policy null processes, we uncover a clear measurement failure: despite exhibiting deceptively high traditional metrics (e.g., reward fairness often exceeding 0.9), learned policies perform up to 81% below random baselines under ALT-variant evaluation -- a deficit already present in the two-agent case and intensifying as n grows. These results demonstrate, in this setting, that high aggregate payoffs can coexist with poor temporal coordination, and that conventional metrics may severely mischaracterize emergent dynamics. Our findings underscore the necessity of temporally aware observables for analyzing coordination in multi-agent games and highlight random-policy baselines as essential null processes for interpreting coordination outcomes relative to chance-level behavior.

Nikolaos Al. Papadopoulos, Konstantinos E. Psannis

Information-theoretic (IT) measures are ubiquitous in artificial intelligence: entropy drives decision-tree splits and uncertainty quantification, cross-entropy is the default classification loss, mutual information underpins representation learning and feature selection, and transfer entropy reveals directed influence in dynamical systems. A second, less consolidated family of measures, integrated information (Phi), effective information (EI), and autonomy, has emerged for characterizing agent complexity. Despite wide adoption, measure selection is often decoupled from estimator assumptions, failure modes, and safe inferential claims. This paper provides a practical decision framework for all seven measures, organized around three prescriptive questions for each: (i) what question does the measure answer and in which AI context; (ii) which estimator is appropriate for the data type and dimensionality; and (iii) what is the most dangerous misuse. The framework is operationalized in two complementary artifacts: a measure-selection flowchart and a master decision table. We cover both AI/ML and decision-making agent application domains per measure, with standardized Bridge Boxes linking IT quantities to cognitive constructs. Three worked examples illustrate the framework on concrete practitioner scenarios spanning representation learning, temporal influence analysis, and evolved agent complexity.