ten [-@Selten65]. A strategy profile is a subgame-perfect equilibrium if it is a NE at every subgame of the original game. Informally, this means that at any history of the game (even those that are not on any equilibrium path), if all the players follow their strategy from that point on, then no player has an incentive to deviate. In the context of repeated games where players’ moves are observed (so that it is a game of perfect information), the folk theorem continues to hold even if the solution concept used is subgame-perfect equilibrium [@AS94; @fudenberg1986folk; @Ru79].

We define a computational analogue of subgame-perfect equilibrium that we call *computational subgame-perfect ${{\epsilon}}$-equilibrium*, where the strategies involved are polynomial time, and deviating players are again restricted to using polynomial-time strategies. There are a number of subtleties that arise in defining this notion. While we assume that all actions in the underlying repeated game are observable, we allow our TMs to also have memory, which means the action of A TM does not depend only on the public history. Like subgame-perfect equilibrium, our computational solution concept is intended to capture the intuition that the strategies are in equilibrium after any possible deviation. This means that in a computational subgame-perfect equilibrium, at each history for player $i$, player $i$ must make a (possibly approximate) best response, no matter what his and the other players’ memory states are. To compute a computational subgame-perfect $\epsilon$-equilibrium, we use the same basic strategy as for NE, but, as often done to get a subgame-perfect equilibrium (for example see [@fudenberg1986folk]), we limit the punishment phase length, so that the players are not incentivized not to punish deviations. However, to prove our result, we need to overcome one more significant hurdle. When using cryptographic protocols, it is often the case (and, specifically is the case in the protocol used for NE) that player $i$ chooses a secret (e.g., a secret key for a public-key encryption scheme) as the result of some randomization, and then releases some public information which is a function of the secret (e.g., a public key). After that public information has been released, another party $j$ typically has a profitable deviation by switching to the TM $M$ that can break the protocol
ten   [ -@Selten65 ]. A strategy profile is a subgame - perfect equilibrium if it is a NE at every subgame of the original plot. colloquially, this mean that at any history of the game (even those that are not on any equilibrium way), if all the players follow their strategy from that period on, then no player has an bonus to deviate. In the context of recur games where player ’ moves are observed (so that it is a plot of perfect information), the folk theorem continues to hold even if the solution concept used is subgame - perfect chemical equilibrium   [ @AS94; @fudenberg1986folk; @Ru79 ]. 

 We define a computational analogue of subgame - perfect equilibrium that we address * computational subgame - perfect $ { { \epsilon}}$-equilibrium *, where the strategies involved are polynomial time, and deviate players are again restricted to using polynomial - time strategies. There be a number of subtleties that arise in defining this notion. While we wear that all actions in the underlying repeated game are observable, we allow our TMs to also have memory, which means the military action of A TM does not depend only on the public history. Like subgame - arrant chemical equilibrium, our computational solution concept is mean to capture the intuition that the strategies are in chemical equilibrium after any possible deviation. This means that in a computational subgame - perfect chemical equilibrium, at each history for player $ i$, player $ i$ must make a (possibly approximate) best response, no matter what his and the other actor ’ memory states are. To compute a computational subgame - perfect $ \epsilon$-equilibrium, we use the same basic strategy as for NE, but, equally frequently done to get a subgame - perfect equilibrium (for case see   [ @fudenberg1986folk ]), we limit the punishment phase length, so that the actor are not incentivized not to punish deviations. However, to prove our result, we need to overwhelm one more significant hurdle. When use cryptographic protocol, it is often the font (and, specifically is the case in the protocol use for NE) that player $ i$ chooses a mystery (e.g., a secret key for a public - key encryption scheme) as the result of some randomization, and then releases some public information which is a function of the secret (e.g., a public samara). After that public information has been released, another party $ j$ typically have a profitable deviation by switching to the TM $ M$ that can break the protocol
ten [-@Delten65]. A strategy profilt is a subgame-perywct eqnilibrihm if it is a NE at every subgame of tye oruginal game. Informally, this meajs that qt aiy history of thx game (eyzn thkde tkav are not on ani equilibriuk path), if all dhd 'layers follow their strategy from trat poimt on, then no plwyer ras zn incentive to deviate. In the confext of repeated gamrs where players’ moves are obsfrved (so that it id a game of perswct informatkon), the folk theorem ckntinues to hold even if the souutiou concept uwee id subgame-perhect ezuilibrium [@AS94; @fudenbesg1986folk; @Tu79].

We define a gompuvatiinal analogue of subgeme-perfect equilibriom that we ccll *computational subtane-perxect ${{\epskoon}}$-dqujlmbrjum*, whfre the stratsgies involced are polynomial uimq, and deviatinf playqrf are again restricted to using polynompal-tjme strategies. There arw a number of subtletles that wrise in defining this notion. While we assume thad all xctnins iv tje underlying repeated game are observable, we zlkoe our TMs to ajso have mekogy, rhich means tfe actnkn of A TM does not fepend jnly in the puflic history. Like subgame-perfecr equilibriui, our computational solution cuncekt is ontended to capture the inthition that the strafdgies are in equklinrigm after any possible deviwtion. Thiw mecns that in s compttational dubgame-perfect equilibrikm, at edch historj for player $i$, player $i$ must make a (possibly sp[roqimate) beft rexponse, no mateer what his aud the ocher puayers’ memkry staves are. To cjmpute a compgjational subgeme-perfece $\epwilob$-equilicfium, we use thr same basic stratety as for NE, but, ax owfen done to get a wubgame-perfect rquklifrpum (fjs example sea [@fuddnbdtg1986foly]), we limit bhe punoshment phase length, so fhat the players ate not incgntivized not to punisn deviations. Howevtr, to 'rove uur rrsujt, we need to overcome one mors signififanb hurdle. When usikg ctyptographie protocols, it is often the case (and, sperifically is the case ib the protocol used nor NE) that 'layer $i$ choosev a secret (e.g., a secrwt key for a publlc-key encryption schems) as tve redult of some randomization, and then releases some public information whicy is a function of the secrvt (z.g., c publis keb). Efter that public information has been released, enother pastv $j$ typically has a profitablr aeviation by rwitching to the TM $M$ thzt can bteak the protocol
ten [-@Selten65]. A strategy profile is a if is a at every subgame this that at any of the game those that are not on any path), if all the players follow their strategy from that point on, then player has an incentive to deviate. In the context of repeated games where moves observed that is a game of perfect information), the folk theorem continues to hold even if the solution used is subgame-perfect equilibrium [@AS94; @fudenberg1986folk; @Ru79]. We a computational analogue of equilibrium that we call *computational ${{\epsilon}}$-equilibrium*, the strategies are time, deviating players are restricted to using polynomial-time strategies. There are a number of subtleties that arise in defining this notion. we assume actions in underlying game observable, we allow to also have memory, which means A TM does not depend only on the history. Like equilibrium, our computational solution concept is to capture the intuition that the strategies are equilibrium after any possible deviation. This means that in a computational subgame-perfect equilibrium, at each player $i$, player $i$ make a (possibly best no what and the players’ memory states are. To compute a computational subgame-perfect $\epsilon$-equilibrium, we the same basic strategy as for NE, but, as often get subgame-perfect equilibrium (for see [@fudenberg1986folk]), we limit punishment length, so that the not not However, prove result, we need to one more significant hurdle. When cryptographic protocols, it is is the case in the protocol used for that player $i$ chooses a secret (e.g., secret key for a public-key encryption scheme) as the result of some and then public information which is a function of the (e.g., a public key). that public information has been released, another party $j$ has profitable deviation switching to the $M$ that can the protocol
ten [-@Selten65]. A strategy profile Is a subgame-PerfeCt eQuiLiBriuM if iT is a NE at every sUBgamE of the original game. InfoRmallY, tHIs meANs That aT any hisTOrY OF thE gAmE (evEn THoSe thaT arE not on aNy equilibrIum PaTh), if all the plAYeRs follow thEir Strategy from ThaT point On, TheN No plaYer Has an IncentIVe to deViate. In thE cONtext oF RepeateD GAmEs whEre players’ moves arE ObSErved (so that it iS a game Of PErFECt iNfoRmation), the FoLk theORem contINuES TO hoLD even if the solUtion concepT UseD is subGaMe-pERfect eQuiliBrIUm [@As94; @fudenberg1986fOlk; @RU79].

We define A compuTAtional ANalogue Of subgAme-PerFect EQuIlIbrIuM ThaT We CalL *ComPutationAl SuBgame-PerfECT ${{\EPsilOn}}$-eQuilIbriuM*, where the straTegIes iNVolVed arE polyNomiAl Time, aNd deviAting PlAyers are again reStriCted to usiNg pOlYnoMiAl-timE StrateGieS. ThEre are a Number oF SubTlETIEs That arise in defininG tHIS nOtion. WhiLe we asSUmE tHAt all actIoNs iN the UNDerlyIng rEPeAted game Are obsERvAbLe, we allOw Our TMs To AlsO haVe memORy, whIch meaNs the actIon of a tM does not depenD Only on the publIC hISToRY. LikE suBgame-perfecT equILibrIum, oUR cOmpUTatioNal soLuTIoN Concept is intended to CaPture tHe intUition that the Strategies ARE In equiliBriuM AfTEr any possible dEviatIon. This meaNS that in a CompuTational Subgame-peRFEct equilIbrIum, At eAch HIStOry for player $i$, PLAyer $I$ mUst make A (poSsibly aPprOxiMatE) beSt Response, nO matter wHaT hIs AnD thE otheR Players’ mEmOry StAteS are. TO ComputE a comPutaTiOnAL suBgame-peRFeCT $\EpsiLoN$-eQuilIbrIuM, we usE the SAme Basic stRategy as fOr Ne, But, aS oFtEn done tO get a subgame-pErFect equiliBrIum (For exaMPLe see [@fudEnberg1986folk]), we limit the punIShment pHasE lengTh, so That the plAyeRs are nOt iNCentivIzed noT to puNiSh dEVIatioNS. hoWevEr, To prove our RESulT, we neEd To ovErcome oNe more significant hURdlE. When using cryPtoGrapHIC pRotOCoLS, it Is OFteN THe case (and, specifIcally is thE cASe In the protoCOl uSeD for NE) tHat playEr $i$ chOOses a seCret (e.g., a seCret key foR a PublIC-Key Encryption Scheme) as The result OF some RAnDomizAtiOn, and tHeN reLeaseS some pUBliC infoRmatioN wHich is A funcTiOn of the sEcret (e.g., a public key). After tHat pubLic inForMation has BeeN RelEased, anotHer pArty $j$ typicAllY haS a proFitABle deViatIOn By sWItchiNg to THe TM $M$ that CAn BreAK ThE protocol
ten [-@Selten65]. A strate gy profile  is a  su bga me -per fect  equilibrium i f  itis a NE at every subga me of  t h e or i gi nal g ame. In f or m a lly ,th isme a ns  that  at  any hi story of t hega me (even tho s ethat are n oton any equil ibr ium pa th ),i f all  th e pla yers f o llow t heir stra te g y from that po i n ton,then no player ha s  a n  incentive todeviat e. In t hecon text of re pe atedg ames wh e re p l aye r s’ moves areobserved (s o  th at itis  ag ame of  perf ec t  in formation),  the  folk the orem c o ntinues to hold  evenifthe  sol u ti on  co nc e ptu se d i s  su bgame-pe rf ec t equ ilib r i u m  [@A S94 ; @f udenb erg1986folk;@Ru 79]. 
We  defi ne acomp ut ation al ana logue  o f subgame-perfe ct e quilibriu m t ha t w ecall* comput ati ona l subga me-perf e ct${ { \ e ps ilon}}$-equilibriu m* , wh ere thestrate g ie si nvolvedar e p olyn o m ial t ime, an d deviat ing pl a ye rs  are ag ai n rest ri cte d t o usi n g po lynomi al-timestrat e gies. There ar e  a number ofs ub t l et i es t hat  arise in d efin i ng t hisn ot ion .  Whil e weas s um e  that all actions i nthe un derly ing repeatedgame are o b s e rvable,we a l lo w  our TMs to al so ha ve memory, which me ans t he actio n of A TM d oes notdep end  on lyo n  t he public his t o ry.Li ke subg ame -perfec t e qui lib riu m,  our comp utationa lso lu ti onconce p t is int en ded  t o c aptur e  the i ntuit ionth at the  strate g ie s arein  e quil ibr iu m aft er a n y p ossible  deviatio n.T hisme an s thatin a computat io nal subgam e- per fect e q u ilibrium , at each history for p l ayer $i $,playe r $i $ must ma kea (pos sib l y appr oximat e) be st  re s p onse, n omat te r what his a ndthe o th er p layers’  memory states are .  To  compute a co mpu tati o n al  su b ga m e-p er f ect $ \epsilon$-equil ibrium, we  u s ethe same b a sic  s trategy  as for  NE,b ut, asoften don e to getasubg a m e-p erfect equ ilibrium  (for exa m ple s e e[@fud enb erg198 6f olk ]), w e limi t  th e pun ishmen tphaselengt h,  so that  the players are not in centiv izednot  to punis h d e via tions. Ho weve r, to prov e o urresul t,w e nee d to ov erc o me on e mo r e signifi c an t h u r dl e. When usi n g cry ptogr aph i c prot ocol s, it is often th e  case (and, sp ecif i c all y i s  the  c ase in the pro toc ol u sed forNE ) that play er $i$ c ho o ses a  secre t (e.g ., a se c r et key fo r apub lic-key e ncr yp t ion sch em e) as the  res ul t of s ome ra n domi z a tion, and then r eleas e s  some pub lic i nf ormatio n  whi ch is a fu nction of t he sec ret(e.g. , a pub li c key) . A ft er that pu b lic infor matio n has b ee n re lea sed, a noth e r  part y $j $typ ically ha s ap ro fi t abl e de viati on  byswitching to the T M $ M $ thatca n b r e ak the pr o t ocol
ten [-@Selten65]. A_strategy profile_is a subgame-perfect equilibrium_if it_is_a NE_at_every subgame of_the original game._Informally, this means that_at any history_of_the game (even those that are not on any equilibrium path), if all the_players_follow their_strategy_from_that point on, then no_player has an incentive to_deviate. In_the context of repeated games where players’ moves_are_observed (so that_it is a game of perfect information), the folk_theorem continues to hold even if_the solution concept_used_is_subgame-perfect equilibrium [@AS94; @fudenberg1986folk; @Ru79].

We_define a computational analogue of subgame-perfect_equilibrium that we call *computational subgame-perfect_${{\epsilon}}$-equilibrium*, where the strategies involved are polynomial_time, and deviating players are again_restricted to using polynomial-time strategies._There are_a number of subtleties that_arise in defining_this notion._While we assume_that all actions in the underlying_repeated game are_observable, we allow our TMs to_also_have memory, which_means_the_action of_A TM does_not_depend only_on_the public history. Like subgame-perfect equilibrium,_our_computational solution concept is intended to capture_the intuition that the_strategies_are in equilibrium after_any possible deviation. This means_that in a computational subgame-perfect equilibrium,_at each_history for_player $i$, player $i$ must make a (possibly approximate) best response,_no matter what his and the_other players’ memory states_are. To_compute_a computational subgame-perfect_$\epsilon$-equilibrium,_we use_the same basic strategy as for NE,_but, as_often done to get a subgame-perfect_equilibrium (for example see [@fudenberg1986folk]),_we_limit the punishment phase length, so_that the players are not incentivized_not to punish deviations. However,_to_prove_our result, we need to_overcome one more significant hurdle. When_using cryptographic protocols,_it is often the case (and, specifically_is_the case in the protocol used_for_NE) that player $i$ chooses a_secret_(e.g.,_a secret key for a_public-key encryption scheme) as the result_of some randomization, and then releases some public information_which is a_function of the secret (e.g.,_a_public_key). After that public information has been released, another party_$j$ typically_has a profitable_deviation by switching to the TM $M$ that can break_the protocol