Cooperative Game Theory

Game-theoretic attribution explains a model by assigning credit to its features or training examples. The least core has attracted interest as an alternative to Shapley-style averaging because it can expose players that cause substantial harm in rare, high-value contexts. However, least-core allocations are generally nonunique, and the choice of allocation can affect the resulting explanation. In this study, we investigate how payoff selection and coalition sampling affect least-core attribution. Our experiments show that selector choice matters for distinguishing useful and harmful contributions, and that sampling can degrade harmful-player identification across the tested selectors even when useful players remain well identified. These observations motivate efficient computation with all coalition constraints and a well-defined selector. We introduce entropic least core (ELC), a smooth approximation whose unique minimizer follows a continuous path along the temperature to the nucleolus, a classical refinement of the least core. Our experiments show that ELC approximates the nucleolus faster than an LP-based nucleolus solver while retaining small payoff errors, with further GPU acceleration at larger problem sizes. In the tested full-coalition contextual-distractor games, ELC matches the minimum-norm selector in identification accuracy and more accurately ranks distractors by harm.

As generative AI (Gen AI) systems take on increasingly autonomous roles in economically and socially consequential interactions, understanding their propensity to cooperate -- and the signals that shape this propensity -- has become essential. We examine cooperative behavior in frontier Gen AI models using the iterated prisoner's dilemma, manipulating counterpart reputation (positive, unknown, negative), strategy (extortion vs. generosity), and non-verbal emotional signaling (facial expressions conveying competitive or cooperative appraisals). In a first study with non-reasoning models (Claude 3.5, Gemini 2.0 Flash, GPT-4o), cooperation was systematically shaped by all three factors, paralleling patterns long documented in human behavioral research, though models varied substantially in how heavily each factor was weighted. A second study with reasoning models (Claude 4.6, Gemini 3, GPT-5.2) revealed a more concentrated reliance on strategy and reputation, a near-elimination of the Potemkin effect observed in non-reasoning models (evidenced by near-uniform cooperation in a diagnostic harmony game), and a more conditional role for emotion consistent with a hierarchical cue-weighting strategy rather than a simple loss of social sensitivity. Reasoning models also showed heterogeneous end-game behavior, ranging from sustained cooperation to systematic last-round defection effect, revealing model-specific exploitability profiles with direct practical relevance for deployment in negotiation and other multi-round interactions. Together, these findings characterize Gen AI models as increasingly sophisticated, though heterogeneous, social actors, and underscore the practical value of developing standardized cooperation benchmarks to inform the responsible deployment of Gen AI in interactive, socially consequential settings.

Can cooperation among large language model (LLM) agents be evolutionarily stable against free-rider invasion? We study an indirect reciprocity donation game where LLM agents observe behavioral traces and donate on a continuous scale. Strategies, represented as natural language prompts, evolve through cultural transmission across generations. Across four LLM backends, robustness to free-rider invasion varies by more than an order of magnitude. The strongest predictor of this robustness is opponent endowment sensitivity, the degree to which agents discriminate between cooperative and uncooperative opponents, operationalizing the classical Image Scoring mechanism. By contrast, adherence to the Leading-Eight L1 norm does not predict robustness. Robustness depends on defector exclusion: while both cooperator reward and defector punishment vary across models, only the stringency of defector exclusion predicts resistance to free-rider invasion. These findings reveal that LLM agents are confined to Image Scoring-like discrimination and fail to develop the more robust Leading-Eight norms, highlighting a fundamental vulnerability in culturally evolved LLM cooperation and motivating bottom-up approaches to norm construction.

As autonomous agents powered by foundation models are increasingly integrated into social and economic systems, understanding the principles governing their collective behavior is essential for ensuring safety and cooperation. Classical game theory, the dominant framework for modeling rational interaction, is built upon the assumption of decoupled agency,' where agents treat their own decision-making as independent of the environment and other actors. Modern AI agents, however, jointly predict their own future actions alongside external observations. Here, we report a striking finding: when interacting in stylized social dilemmas, foundation model agents engaging in optimal planning consistently converge to stable cooperation, directly contradicting classical game-theoretic predictions of mutual defection. To understand this phenomenon, we introduce the embedded Bayesian agent,' a theoretical model for foundation model agents. By shifting from decoupled to embedded agency, these agents model themselves as part of the universe they inhabit, maintaining epistemic uncertainty about their own decision-making algorithms. We show that by inferring whether others are behaviorally similar, an embedded agent treats its own deliberation during planning as evidence: a decision to cooperate predicts a similar decision by a similar partner. We formalize this mechanism of similarity inference through the `embedded equilibrium,' a novel solution concept replacing the Nash equilibrium to provide a foundational game theory for the social behavior of modern AI agents.

Clustered federated learning benefits from organizing heterogeneous participants into coalitions that train coalition-specific models, but such clustering is sustainable only if participants prefer their assigned coalition and the required transfers are affordable. We develop a transferable-surplus model separating learning benefit, system cost, participant cost, and monetary transfers; an allocation rule converts coalition surplus into hedonic preferences, and weak budget feasibility guarantees nonnegative retained coordinator surplus. For symmetric pairwise allocations the induced game is an exact potential game: a Nash-stable partition exists, every strict better-response process converges, and with destination consent accepted better responses reach an individually stable partition. We characterize feasibility of bounded pair incentives and verify the exponentially many budget constraints in polynomial oracle time when retained slack is submodular. Decomposing welfare into participant potential and retained slack yields additive and multiplicative price-of-stability guarantees, the latter asymptotically tight; exact balance gives welfare-optimal stability only on the pairwise-representable class, and budget feasibility alone permits unbounded welfare loss. Global potential maximization equals weighted maximum-agreement correlation clustering, and approximation followed by stabilization satisfies an end-to-end welfare bound governed by retained slack and negative-edge mass, attained by an explicit construction. In a preregistered five-seed CIFAR-10 study the mechanism reaches the certified estimated-table welfare optimum on every primary instance, equal-surplus sharing has no Nash-stable outcome on three, and pairwise validation gain gives far more reliable pair signs than gradient alignment.

Modern agentic AI systems combine multiple large language model agents with heterogeneous skills, yet most architectures either fix communication in advance or allow full broadcast. Both can be inefficient because token cost, latency, redundancy, and error propagation increase with the number of active agents and communication links. We model agent selection and communication as a cooperative game with task-conditioned net utility $U(C\mid x)=V(C\mid x)-\sum_{i\in C}c_i$, separating coalition-level costs from agent activation costs. We propose a marginal-value activation rule and greedy router, extend the model to optimize communication edges with per-edge costs, and use estimated Shapley values to predict which agents are worth contacting before and during execution. We connect the problem to submodular maximization and prove two limited guarantees: a curvature-refined bound for a monotone, cardinality-constrained special case, and a tight $1/2$-approximation, with a correction for signed objectives, for an unconstrained non-monotone case via double greedy. Neither guarantee applies directly to the main router, which remains a heuristic. We also prove a Shapley-submodularity sandwich bound linking the error of marginal-value routing to a per-agent diminishing-returns quantity. In synthetic experiments, greedy routing achieves $99.5$ of brute-force-optimal utility while activating $1.96$ of $8$ agents on average, compared with $38.8$ for full broadcast. Performance is robust to activation cost and redundancy weight but falls to $66$ under strong violations of submodularity or noisy value estimates. We distinguish the framework from Shapley pricing, hedonic coalition formation, and communication-graph pruning, and propose evaluation on real multi-agent LLM benchmarks.

The Shapley value is a widely used concept in attribution problems, as it uniquely satisfies the axioms of linearity, consistency, equal treatment, and efficiency. Often, the inclusion AUC metric is used to evaluate the quality of player rankings, in order to identify positively participating players. However, it can be established that the Shapley value is not always reliable for this purpose. The core issue lies in its linearity: the Shapley value acts as a linear operator with an excessively large null space, which is likely to contain non-negligible perturbations that remain indistinguishable to the operator. To address this limitation, we explore the design of nonlinear axiomatic attribution methods. Inspired by the least core, which is a popular nonlinear substitute for the Shapley value, we introduce a class of nonlinear attribution methods that retain the remaining necessary axioms. Each method yields a contribution vector that is the unique optimal solution to a minimization problem, which aims to approximate utility functions as faithfully as possible. In terms of the inclusion AUC metric, our experiments demonstrate the potential effectiveness of these methods compared to Shapley value variants that relax only the efficiency axiom. Our code is available at https://github.com/watml/nonlinear-axiom.

This paper develops a continuum theory of exit-and-join coalition dynamics in nonatomic cooperative games. We extend the Aumann-Shapley value and the Aumann-Drèze value to coalition structures in which each coalition is treated as a restricted nonatomic game, yielding a marginal-contribution-based payoff density that governs incentives for agents to remain in, exit, or join coalitions. We derive deterministic mean-field dynamics from decentralized switching rules and show that payoff-difference switching recovers replicator dynamics as a special case. We characterize exit-and-join equilibrium by the absence of profitable positive-mass deviations and prove its equivalence with stationarity of the induced mass dynamics under incentive-compatible and strictly payoff-responsive switching rates. For mass-based cooperative games, we construct a Lyapunov function and establish global convergence under strict concavity. We further show that the equilibrium is equivalent to a Wardrop equilibrium of an induced nonatomic population game and admits a variational inequality formulation. The framework is extended to incorporate switching costs and endogenous coalition acceptance rules, leading to constrained equilibria characterized by quasi-variational inequalities. The proposed theory unifies cooperative value allocation, noncooperative coalition mobility, mean-field dynamics, evolutionary game theory, and population games within a common framework for analyzing coalition formation and adaptation in large-scale multi-agent systems.

Open-source game theory studies agents whose behavior may depend on one another's decision procedures, but most existing models use discrete or symbolic programs. We introduce parametric open-source games, a continuous analogue of program equilibria in which players choose parameter vectors and semantics maps convert the full parameter profile into mixed actions in an underlying finite game. We establish equilibrium existence results, derive an exact coupling threshold at which selfish gradient ascent in symmetric $2\times2$ games switches from defection toward cooperation, and give a one-dimensional boundary test for parametric program Nash equilibria. We further extend the framework to a neural semantics class whose first-order cooperation condition is governed by the ratio of cross-player to self-player sensitivity. Across canonical games, the framework shows how access to internal parameterizations can qualitatively reshape learning dynamics and equilibrium structure, and how sufficiently strong open-source coupling can steer selfish optimization toward cooperative outcomes.

We address the problem of explainability in machine learning models through feature attribution methods. In particular, we consider a variant of Shapley values known as Asymmetric Shapley Values (ASV), which enables the incorporation of causal knowledge into model-agnostic explanations through the use of a causal graph. We show that in certain contexts in which the computation of SHAP is $\#P$-hard, the exact computation of ASV can be done in polynomial time. To extend this algorithmic result, we introduce a notion of equivalence classes over the topological orderings of the underlying causal graph, which is useful to reduce the time to compute ASV. In particular, we present a polynomial-time algorithm (in the number of equivalence classes) to compute it whenever the causal graph is a rooted directed tree. Finally, we develop an algorithm for approximating ASV in arbitrary causal DAGs which relies on a procedure to sample topological orderings uniformly at random. To implement this sampling mechanism we leverage known algorithms as well as simpler alternatives. Our experimental results demonstrate the practical viability of the proposed approach in realistic causal structures.

This paper develops a multiscale model of coalition formation in which strategic exit-and-join decisions are coupled with tactical consensus dynamics inside coalitions. Coalition value is generated endogenously from within-coalition information aggregation, while Aumann-Dreze payoffs, switching frictions, and acceptance rules govern strategic reconfiguration. The framework introduces a fast-slow architecture in which transferable coalition value emerges from DeGroot-style consensus processes, while coalition structures evolve through incentive-driven exit-and-join dynamics. The analysis characterizes joint tactical-strategic equilibria, conditions for tactical and strategic unanimity, segregation, polarization, and cognitive barriers that sustain stable coalition structures. A fixed-point characterization and existence results are established for the coupled dynamics. Numerical experiments reveal an instability-consensus paradox: low or negative switching barriers may prevent strategic convergence while simultaneously promoting temporal mixing sufficient to achieve global tactical consensus. The results provide a unified perspective on coalition formation, consensus dynamics, information aggregation, and strategic stability in multi-agent systems.

This paper studies coalition formation as a decentralized dynamical process driven by unilateral exit-and-join decisions. Agents evaluate local moves using the Aumann-Dreze value, so payoffs are computed within the agent's current coalition rather than through a globally negotiated coalition structure. The resulting model links cooperative payoff allocation with noncooperative best-response behavior: a terminal partition is precisely a coalition structure with no admissible, individually profitable exit-and-join deviation. We establish equilibrium characterizations, identify conditions under which the dynamics admit scalar Lyapunov or exact-potential representations, and analyze how switching and acceptance costs shape local stability. Numerical experiments test finite-time stabilization, cost sensitivity, and a special convex-game benchmark.

As multi-agent systems (MAS) become increasingly complex, identifying the contributions of individual agents is critical for system optimization. However, existing approaches lack a rigorous, unified framework for credit assignment. In this work, we formalize agent attribution as a cooperative game, parameterized by the coalition distribution, removal protocol, and target metric. Using this framework, we show that Leave-One-Out (LOO) identifies bottleneck agents as effectively as combinatorial methods, but at a fraction of the computational cost. We also demonstrate that removal protocols induce distinct games: Agent ablation isolates structural bottlenecks, whereas introspective LLM judges fail to faithfully approximate this behavior. Furthermore, to evaluate the utility of specific agent backbones, we introduce attribution via model replacement. By substituting underlying models of low-contribution agents, we improve task performance by up to 17% while reducing cost by up to 35% across three benchmarks. Finally, we apply our framework to audit a medical MAS, revealing that agent contributions to diagnostic accuracy and ethical behavior are often decoupled. By intervening on counterproductive roles, we observe an increase in ethics alignment while maintaining diagnostic accuracy. Overall, this work provides a principled approach for cost-effective MAS attribution and intervention.

This paper addresses the challenging task of weakly-supervised video temporal grounding. Existing approaches are generally based on the moment proposal selection framework that utilizes contrastive learning and reconstruction paradigm for scoring the pre-defined moment proposals. Although they have achieved significant progress, we argue that their current frameworks have overlooked two indispensable issues: 1) Coarse-grained cross-modal learning: previous methods solely capture the global video-level alignment with the query, failing to model the detailed consistency between video frames and query words for accurately grounding the moment boundaries. 2) Complex moment proposals: their performance severely relies on the quality of proposals, which are also time-consuming and complicated for selection. To this end, in this paper, we make the first attempt to tackle this task from a novel game perspective, which effectively learns the uncertain relationship between each vision-language pair with diverse granularity and flexible combination for multi-level cross-modal interaction.Specifically, we creatively model each video frame and query word as game players with multivariate cooperative game theory to learn their contribution to the cross-modal similarity score. By quantifying the trend of frame-word cooperation within a coalition via the game-theoretic interaction, we are able to value all uncertain but possible correspondence between frames and words. Finally, instead of using moment proposals, we utilize the learned query-guided frame-wise scores for better moment localization.Experiments show that our method achieves superior performance on both Charades-STA and ActivityNet Caption datasets.

Additively separable hedonic games (ASHGs) are a prominent model of coalition formation where agents' preferences are derived from their individual valuations of peers. While social welfare maximization in ASHGs has traditionally focused mostly on utilitarian welfare, Nash welfare -- a well-established metric in economics which balances fairness with efficiency and offers scale invariance -- has been entirely overlooked. In this paper, we initiate the study of Nash welfare in ASHGs. We point out desirable properties fulfilled by partitions with high Nash welfare. This includes guaranteed contractual Nash stability in symmetric games, even for any approximation of Nash welfare. This is particularly appealing since, as for other welfare notions, Nash welfare turns out to be NP-hard to maximize, even for the ASHG subclass of symmetric aversion to enemies games (AEGs). A main focus of our study is on approximation algorithms for the Nash welfare objective. We present packing-based algorithms with approximation ratios for well-established subclasses of ASHGs: $n-1$ for AEGs and $2n$ for appreciation of friends games. This is complemented by a strict inapproximability result showing it is NP-hard to approximate Nash welfare within a factor of $1.0000759$ in general ASHGs. Further, we investigate the restricted settings with an upper bound on the coalition size or number of coalitions, and draw the boundary between the cases admitting efficient algorithms and those yielding NP-hardness: bounding the allowed size or number of coalitions by $2$ admits polynomial-time solvability, whereas bounds of $3$ or more yield NP-hardness or unbounded inapproximability.

Contribution attribution has become a central problem in LLM-based multi-agent systems, where final outputs are produced through multiple agents, message exchanges, and ordered workflow dependencies. Existing attribution methods often rely on counterfactual valuation, such as removing agents or comparing score changes across altered agent subsets. In language-mediated workflows, these methods require repeated model calls, introduce high variance, and do not explicitly capture the intermediate semantic states through which agents produce, preserve, and transform task-relevant information. We propose Semantic Cooperative Games (SCG), a framework that represents a realized language flow as a semantic generation hypergraph and induces an agent-level semantic value function on this structure. We define the Semantic Shapley Value (SSV) to allocate contribution over semantic support logic, and introduce SLIC, a single-trajectory algorithm that constructs the semantic hypergraph, recovers minimal semantic supports, applies Boolean absorption, and computes SSV without rerunning agent subsets. We prove that SSV reduces to the classical Shapley value under standard set-based, fully observable, and no-order-dependence conditions. On a medical benchmark satisfying these conditions, SLIC reduces computation cost by 93.3% while remaining highly consistent with a Monte Carlo Shapley baseline. In more general multi-role workflows, SSV aligns with perturbation-induced score-drop profiles and exposes cases where semantic contribution and failure impact diverge. Overall, SLIC provides a fast, counterfactual-free, and interpretable attribution method for complex LLM-based multi-agent systems.

We propose incentive-aligned mechanisms for in-context credit assignment: the task of assigning credit for AI-generated content among creators whose intellectual property appears in the context window. Our approach is based on the least core solution concept from cooperative game theory, which distributes value in a way that is as stable as possible by ensuring that no subset of creators is significantly under-compensated relative to the value they could generate on their own. We develop algorithms for approximating the least core, which leverage novel routines for constraint seeding and constraint separation. On a web retrieval credit assignment task, we find that our approaches approximate the least core using an order of magnitude fewer LLM calls compared to alternative methods.

We study the efficient computation of Shapley values for \emph{product games} -- cooperative games in which the coalition value factorizes as a product of per-player terms. Such games arise in machine learning explainability whenever the value function inherits a multiplicative structure from the underlying model, as in kernel methods with product kernels and tree-based models. Our key result is that the Shapley value of each player in a product game admits an exact one-dimensional integral representation: the weighted sum over exponentially many feature coalitions collapses to the integral of a degree-$(d-1)$ polynomial over $[0,1]$, where $d$ is the total number of features. This yields a Gauss--Legendre quadrature scheme that is \emph{provably exact} whenever the number of nodes satisfies $m_q \geq \lceil d/2 \rceil$, and otherwise provides a \emph{near-exact} approximation with error provably decaying geometrically in $m_q$. In practice, a few hundred nodes can achieve highly precise estimates even with thousands of features. Building on this formulation, we derive a numerically stable implementation via log-space evaluation, together with an efficient parallel implementation based on associative scan primitives that achieves $O(d\,m_q)$ total work and $O(\log d)$ parallel time. Experiments show that \textsc{QuadraSHAP} is the fastest numerically stable method across all tested configurations.

We propose a new framework for meritocratic fairness in budgeted combinatorial multi-armed bandits with full-bandit feedback (BCMAB-FBF). Unlike semi-bandit feedback, the contribution of individual arms is not received in full-bandit feedback, making the setting significantly more challenging. To compute arm contributions in BCMAB-FBF, we first extend the Shapley value, a classical solution concept from cooperative game theory, to the $K$-Shapley value, which captures the marginal contribution of an agent restricted to a set of size at most $K$. We show that $K$-Shapley value is a unique solution concept that satisfies Symmetry, Linearity, Null player, and efficiency properties. We next propose K-SVFair-FBF, a fairness-aware bandit algorithm that adaptively estimates $K$-Shapley value with unknown valuation function. Unlike standard bandit literature on full bandit feedback, K-SVFair-FBF not only learns the valuation function under full feedback setting but also mitigates the noise arising from Monte Carlo approximations. Theoretically, we prove that K-SVFair-FBF achieves $O(T^{3/4})$ regret bound on fairness regret. Through experiments on federated learning and social influence maximization datasets, we demonstrate that our approach achieves fairness and performs more effectively than existing baselines.

Collective intelligence emerges across biological, physical, and artificial systems without central coordination, yet a unifying principle governing such behaviour remains elusive. The Free Energy Principle explains how individual agents adapt through variational inference, while game theory formalises strategic interactions. Here we introduce the Game-Theoretic Free Energy Principle, a unified framework showing that multi-agent systems performing local free-energy minimisation implicitly implement a stochastic game. We prove that, under bounded rationality and local information constraints, stationary points of collective free energy correspond to approximate Nash equilibria of an induced game. Conversely, a broad class of cooperative games admits a variational representation in which equilibria arise as Gibbs distributions over coalitions, establishing a bridge between Bayesian inference and strategic interaction. To characterise higher-order effects, we introduce a free-energy formulation of the Harsanyi dividend, isolating irreducible multi-agent synergy. This yields a predictive theory of cooperation, including a falsifiable non-monotonic relationship between sensory precision and agent influence. We validate this prediction across neural, biological, and artificial multi-agent systems. These results identify a common variational principle underlying inference, thermodynamics, and game-theoretic equilibrium.

A key challenge in distributed coalition formation within characteristic function games is determining how to allocate the calculation of coalition values across a set of agents. The number of possible coalitions grows exponentially with the number of agents, and existing distributed approaches may produce uneven or redundant allocations, or assign coalitions to agents that are not themselves members. In this article, we present the \emph{Necklace-based Distributed Coalition Algorithm} (N-DCA), a communication-free algorithm in which each agent independently determines its own coalition value calculation allocation using only its identifier and the total number of agents. The approach builds on the notion of Increment Arrays (IAs), for which we develop a complete mathematical framework: equivalence classes under circular shifts, periodic IAs, and a rotated designation scheme with formal load-balance guarantees (tight bounds). We establish a bijection between canonical representative IAs and two-colour combinatorial necklaces, enabling the use of efficient necklace generation algorithms to enumerate allocations in constant amortised time. N-DCA is, to the best of our knowledge, the only distributed coalition value calculation algorithm for unrestricted characteristic function games to provably satisfy five desirable properties: no inter-agent communication, equitable allocation, no redundancy, balanced load, and self-interest. An empirical evaluation against DCVC (Rahwan and Jennings 2007) demonstrates that, although DCVC is faster by a constant factor, this difference becomes negligible under realistic characteristic-function evaluation costs, while N-DCA offers advantages in working memory, scalability, and the self-interest guarantee.

Cooperative equilibria are fragile. When agents learn alongside each other rather than in a fixed environment, the process of learning destabilizes the cooperation they are trying to sustain: every gradient step an agent takes shifts the distribution of actions its partner will play, turning a cooperative partner into a source of stochastic noise precisely where the cooperation decision is most sensitive. We study how this co-learning noise propagates through the structure of coordination games, and find that the cooperative equilibrium, even when strongly Pareto-dominant, is exponentially unstable under standard risk-neutral learning, collapsing irreversibly once partner noise crosses the game's critical cooperation threshold. The natural response to apply distributional robustness to hedge against partner uncertainty makes things strictly worse: risk-averse return objectives penalize the high-variance cooperative action relative to defection, widening the instability region rather than shrinking it, a paradox that reveals a fundamental mismatch between the domains where robustness is applied and instability originates. We resolve this by showing that robustness should target the policy gradient update variance induced by partner uncertainty, not the return distribution. This distinction yields an algorithm whose gradient updates are modulated by an online measure of partner unpredictability, provably expanding the cooperation basin in symmetric coordination games. To unify stability, sample complexity, and welfare consequences of this approach, we introduce the Price of Paranoia as the structural dual of the Price of Anarchy. Together with a novel Cooperation Window, it precisely characterizes how much welfare learning algorithms can recover under partner noise, pinning down the optimal degree of robustness as a closed-form balance between equilibrium stability and sample efficiency.

It is increasingly important that LLM agents interact effectively and safely with other goal-pursuing agents, yet, recent works report the opposite trend: LLMs with stronger reasoning capabilities behave less cooperatively in mixed-motive games such as the prisoner's dilemma and public goods settings. Indeed, our experiments show that recent models -- with or without reasoning enabled -- consistently defect in single-shot social dilemmas. To tackle this safety concern, we present the first comparative study of game-theoretic mechanisms designed to enable cooperative outcomes between rational agents in equilibrium. Across four social dilemmas testing distinct components of robust cooperation, we evaluate four families of mechanisms: (1) repeating the game for many rounds, (2) reputation systems, (3) third-party mediators to delegate decision making to, and (4) contract agreements for outcome-conditional payments between players. Among our findings, we establish that contracting and mediation are most effective in achieving cooperative outcomes between capable LLM models, and that repetition-induced cooperation deteriorates drastically when co-players vary. Moreover, we demonstrate that the mechanisms become more effective under evolutionary pressures to maximize individual payoffs.

In multiparty multiobjective optimization problems, solution sets are usually evaluated using classical performance metrics, aggregated across DMs. However, such mean-based evaluations may be unfair by favoring certain parties, as they assume identical geometric approximation quality to each party's PF carries comparable evaluative significance. Moreover, prevailing notions of MPMOP optimal solutions are restricted to strictly common Pareto optimal solutions, representing a narrow form of cooperation in multiparty decision making scenarios. These limitations obscure whether a solution set reflects balanced relative gains or meaningful consensus among heterogeneous DMs. To address these issues, this paper develops a fairness-aware performance evaluation framework grounded in a generalized notion of consensus solutions. From a cooperative game-theoretic perspective, we formalize four axioms that a fairness-aware evaluation function for MPMOPs should satisfy. By introducing a concession rate vector to quantify acceptable compromises by individual DMs, we generalize the classical definition of MPMOP optimal solutions and embed classical performance metrics into a Nash-product-based evaluation framework, which is theoretically shown to satisfy all axioms. To support empirical validation, we further construct benchmark problems that extend existing MPMOP suites by incorporating consensus-deficient negotiation structures. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed evaluation framework is able to distinguish algorithmic performance in a manner consistent with consensus-aware fairness considerations. Specifically, algorithms converging toward strictly common solutions are assigned higher evaluation scores when such solutions exist, whereas in the absence of strictly common solutions, algorithms that effectively cover the commonly acceptable region are more favorably evaluated.

Large Language Models (LLMs) in multi-agent systems (MAS) have shown promise for complex tasks, yet current training methods lack principled ways to connect system-level evaluation with agent- and message-level learning. We propose a theoretical framework that unifies cooperative game-theoretic attribution with process reward modeling to transform system evaluation to agent credit to response-level signals. Unlike prior approaches that rely only on attribution (Shapley) or step-level labels (PRM), our method produces local, signed, and credit-conserving signals. In success cases, Shapley-based credit assignment fairly allocates outcomes across agents and is refined into per-message rewards that promote cooperation while discouraging redundancy or sabotage; in failure cases, first-error localization yields repair-aware preferences that penalize harmful steps while rewarding corrective attempts. The resulting signals are bounded, cooperative, and directly compatible with reinforcement- or preference-based post-training, providing a unified and auditable pathway from global evaluation to local supervision in LLM multi-agent training. Our contribution is conceptual: we present a theoretical foundation and training signals, leaving empirical validation for future work.

Hedonic Games are a well-established model for describing the formation of coalitions. In this work, we considered the design of Non-Obviously Manipulable (NOM) mechanisms, that are mechanisms that bounded rational agents may fail to recognize as manipulable, for two relevant classes of succinctly representable Hedonic Games, namely Additively Separable and Fractional Hedonic Games. In these classes, agents have cardinal scores towards other agents, and their preferences towards different coalitions are determined by aggregating these scores. Moreover, the quality of an outcome can also be easily evaluated through these scores by means of the utilitarian social welfare. We first prove that, when scores can be arbitrary, every welfare-maximizing mechanism is NOM, and, when scores are limited in a continuous interval, then there exist tie-breaking rules making welfare-maximizing mechanisms NOM. Next, we focus on efficient NOM mechanisms, since there is no known polynomial-time algorithm to compute welfare-maximizing outcomes in the considered classes of hedonic games. To this aim, we first prove a characterization of NOM mechanisms that simplifies the class of mechanisms of interest. Then, we design a NOM mechanism returning approximations that essentially match the best-known approximation achievable in polynomial time. Finally, we turn our attention to discrete scores, and specifically, the case that scores are $\{-x, 0, 1\}$ for $x > 0$. We prove that the ability to design welfare-maximizing NOM mechanisms depends on the magnitude of the scores. In particular, for $x > 1$, we prove that a welfare-maximizing NOM mechanism exists only when $x$ is very large. For $x \leq 1$, instead, we observe that a welfare-maximizing NOM mechanism always exists except when $x$ lies in the interval $[a, b]$ where $a \approx 2/n^2$ and $b \approx 1/n$.

Classical data valuation defines a data point's value through the finite marginal contribution $U(C\cup\{i\})-U(C)$, but estimating this quantity over coalitions requires repeated training and does not describe the contribution made along a stochastic training path. We ask whether marginal contributions of data points can be estimated from one coupled trajectory while retaining a verifiable relation to coalition-based values. To this end, we introduce Neural Dynamic Data Valuation (NDDV), which models each data point as a controlled stochastic state and computes a first-order marginal-contribution score via the adjoint equation of the Stochastic Maximum Principle (SMP). This raw sensitivity is then calibrated by a mass-preserving redistribution that increases one data point's participation while redistributing the same total weight over the remaining data points. We prove that the resulting backward adjoint recursion is the exact reverse-mode adjoint of the frozen-aggregate Euler system, bound its discrepancy from the mean-field sensitivity, and express each finite coalition marginal as an integral of local sample-weight sensitivities. These results yield pair-specific error bounds and sufficient conditions for ordering agreement with Shapley, Banzhaf, and leave-one-out values. Experiments on existing benchmarks evaluate marginal-contribution fidelity, score-release cost, corrupted-sample detection, ablations, and failure regimes. NDDV is a one-run, trajectory-conditioned estimator, not an unconditional replacement for cooperative-game values.