Game Theory

Large language model agents deployed without a central controller are often assumed to require communication to coordinate their actions. We ask what remains possible without it: when independent instances of the same model cannot communicate, can they still reason about their counterparts well enough to exceed the standard game-theoretic baseline for uncoordinated play? We introduce a benchmark of one-shot, no-communication games in which each of thirteen language models is told only that its counterparts are running the same model and is evaluated against the Nash equilibrium of the underlying game. In two-player matrix games spanning seven archetypes and two to ten actions per player, two frontier-hosted models consistently exceed their Nash benchmark, approaching the optimal joint outcome in several archetypes, while most open-weight models achieve only partial gains that vary sharply by game structure. Performance degrades substantially in team-based games with four or more interchangeable agents, particularly as the action space grows, suggesting that whatever capability drives self-play gains in dyadic games does not transfer to larger multi-agent teams.

Inspired by possible future markets of autonomous routing and driving (ARAD), we introduce competitive mediator games and their equilibria which generalize the (coarse) correlated equilibria, which have become a popular research area recently as they not only can be more socially efficient than Nash equilibria but also are limits of algorithmic no-regret multi-agent learning dynamics. We discuss the basic properties of competitive mediator games and prove that in the generic setting of anonymous congestion(routing) games with market-share maximizing mediators all competitive mediator equilibria are monopolies whenever one of the mediators is weakly preferred to other mediators by all users. We apply and interpret these results in the context of new markets of competing ARAD service providers. We also provide a comprehensive overview of these markets and discuss the future mechanism design thereof.

LLMs are rapidly embedding themselves into daily life: drafting our emails, managing our schedules, and making decisions on our behalf. As they move from individual tools to participants in multi-agent organizations, an important question arises: do they reproduce the governance failures like free-riding, corruption, and entrenched leadership that plague human institutions? We introduce the Hierarchical Game (HG), a public goods game extended with managerial authority, democratic elections, and private communication. Testing six frontier models across twelve experiments that add institutions one at a time (speech, peers, government, wages, oversight, elections), we find distinct behavioral profiles: Qwen promises and lies (13.3% broken promises); Grok refuses to cooperate on its own but becomes fully cooperative once a manager can punish it (16%$\to$100%); Claude and GPT-4o cooperate reliably at baseline. But honesty proves fragile. When the manager role comes with a salary, all models except GPT-4o start cutting private deals to win or keep the position. When punishment is made anonymous, honest models begin to cheat. When all agents share the same model family, the first elected manager stays in power indefinitely. Leadership change only happens in groups that mix different families.

A bidder can quietly buy a stake in a company before making an offer for it. That stake, a toehold, is supposed to pay for itself twice: it makes the bidder willing to bid harder, and it frightens rivals into staying out of the fight. The first effect is arithmetic. The second is what would justify the cost and exposure of taking one at all. Yet toeholds are rare in practice, a standing puzzle. We ask whether that second effect is there once the contest is modelled as several rounds of escalating offers rather than the single exchange classical models assume. We turn it into a game a computer can solve, and certify the answers to an accuracy a referee can check. Three findings. The auction fixes what the toehold-holder earns but not how it bids: the same contest supports a bidder who opens aggressively against a rival who folds, and one who opens cheaply against a rival who does not, with the same profit either way. Aggressive preemptive bidding still appears when the toehold is removed entirely, so it comes from bidding in public and in turns, not from owning the stake. And the tidy "bigger toehold, more deterrence" relationship holds only in a contest cut short after one round; give it a real second round and it stops responding. So the two reasons to buy a toehold do not fare alike. The profit reason holds up; the deterrence reason does not, which suggests why toeholds may be rarer than theory predicts, alongside the procedural costs of disclosure and price impact that this model omits. A warning follows for anyone computing economics from a game solver: solve this auction once and it returns a confident figure for what a preemptive bid is worth; solve it again from a different start and it returns a different one, equally converged. We also report which solvers cope with contests of this shape, including versions too large to enumerate. Code is released.

As firms increasingly deploy machine learning for strategic decision-making, understanding algorithmic interactions has become central to operations research and economics. This paper studies learning in infinite-horizon, nonzero-sum linear-quadratic stochastic games under a radically uncoupled information structure, where players are either unaware of opponents or strategically oblivious, observing only a common state and their own action history. Under this minimal information, we analyze an asynchronous decentralized learning process in which each player independently runs a single-agent $ε$-greedy iterated least-squares algorithm. We prove that, despite being unable to identify the system parameters, players' learning dynamics converge almost surely to the complete-information Nash equilibrium and characterize the convergence rate. We then apply the framework to a dynamic Cournot competition with sticky prices. Numerical experiments validate the theoretical results and show that learning under limited information reduces firm profits under both low and high price stickiness, while total surplus declines and market concentration increases when price stickiness is high. Publicly revealing aggregate market output substantially accelerates convergence and mitigates these welfare losses.

A common assumption when designing an agent in a multi-agent system is that the other agents behave adversarially. This allows a designer to obtain the strongest guarantees when they have no control over nor knowledge about the other agents' behavior. However, when all agents are designed under this adversarial assumption, their actual interaction is not adversarial (e.g., when all players play defensively, no player actually attacks). In such settings, we would like to know what behavior arises in the multi-agent system. However, analyzing the interaction among agents is notoriously challenging, both mathematically and algorithmically. In this paper, we provide such an analysis, focusing on bidding games, played by two agents on a graph as follows. A token is placed on a vertex, and in each turn an auction (bidding) determines which agent moves the token, thus generating an infinite path that determines the agents' utilities. We consider mean-payoff objectives; each vertex is associated with a reward for each player, and the utility in an infinite play is the limit average of the rewards. We analyze the play that is generated when each agent follows a strategy that optimizes against an adversary, and consider the two known explicit constructions of optimal strategies. The technical challenge stems from the infinitely-many configurations of a bidding game and their complicated dynamics. We show that, under some restrictions, the generated play is ultimately periodic, and develop algorithms to compute the players' utilities in it.

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.

This paper studies feedback Nash equilibrium (FBNE) seeking for multi-agent trajectory planning in nonlinear dynamical systems with unknown agents' objectives and state-dependent inter-agent coupling. While dynamic game theory provides a principled framework for such problems, existing approaches typically assume fully rational agents with known objectives or rely on fixed regularization, limiting their ability to capture bounded rationality and spatially varying interaction intensity in safety-critical settings. To this end, we propose a KL-regularized dynamic game with a state-dependent weight that adaptively balances optimality and behavioral priors. To infer unknown cost parameters from demonstrated behaviors, we develop a context-aware inverse game module based on maximum-entropy inverse reinforcement learning with physics-informed regularization, ensuring structural consistency with the forward game. We establish per-iteration well-posedness of the regularized local game and show that the adaptive weighting function remains Lipschitz continuous under bounded nominal-trajectory updates. Numerical simulations and multi-robot experiments on cooperative navigation and merging scenarios validate the effectiveness of the proposed framework.

Alternating-time temporal logic and its extensions provide several ways of combining strategic and quantitative reasoning. We study a particular combination: whether a coalition has a single strategy that enforces a temporal objective while guaranteeing given long-run mean-payoff thresholds. We introduce ATL_mp, an extension of ATL over weighted concurrent game structures in which each strategic modality carries a conjunctive mean-payoff constraint. The temporal and quantitative requirements must hold against every behaviour of the remaining agents, and the existence of such a strategy cannot in general be reduced to the two requirements considered separately. For one-dimensional constraints, model checking is 2EXPTIME-complete under both perfect-recall and finite-memory semantics, matching ATL*. For the pure quantitative fragment and fragments restricted to ATL or GR(1) temporal objectives, model checking has lower complexity. With multi-dimensional conjunctive constraints, model checking under finite-memory semantics remains 2EXPTIME-complete. We show that memoryless, finite-memory, and perfect-recall abilities form a strict hierarchy, while finite-memory strategies still achieve every threshold strictly below the perfect-recall supremum. We give tight linear upper and lower bounds on the required memory as a function of the denominator of the threshold, even when the game and temporal monitor are fixed. We give several examples of properties expressible in the logic, including temporal synthesis with performance guarantees and aggregate and multi-criteria objectives. We also relate the logic to cooperative rational verification, showing that it can express beneficial deviations from fixed payoff baselines, but not directly reproduce the standard ATL* encoding of the core for dichotomous preferences.

Generative AI (GenAI) search systems are transforming how users access information. Unlike ranking-based search systems, where users observe a ranked list of documents, GenAI search systems, given a user's question, generate an answer, often accompanied by external sources (e.g., in the form of citations). Content creators (publishers) seeking to increase exposure might behave strategically and compete with other creators for users' attention. While publishers in ranking-based systems might strategically modify their content to improve its ranking, the incentives in generative systems take on a new form. Publishers may now gain exposure through generated responses and attributions to those responses. We introduce a novel game-theoretic model of the emerging GenAI ecosystem in which publishers compete for attribution-based exposure. We study the learning dynamics of strategic content creators under better-response dynamics. We associate the convergence of learning dynamics to equilibrium with ecosystem stability. Employing the notion of potential games, we study the stability of GenAI ecosystems under several known content selection mechanisms. We demonstrate the instability of mechanisms representing real-world modern systems and characterize a mechanism that induces a stable ecosystem. We conduct extensive simulations to analyze the stability and welfare of GenAI ecosystems under various mechanisms. The simulations support our theoretical findings and reveal an interplay among stability, publisher welfare, and user welfare. In particular, stable mechanisms do not necessarily maximize welfare, demonstrating an important trade-off for platform designers. We then introduce a study illustrating that the proper selection of the GenAI mechanism enables the manifestation of desired trade-offs between publisher welfare and the different sources of user welfare.

Concurrent games are a standard model for multi-agent systems, with Nash equilibrium as their central solution concept. The associated \emph{constrained existence problem}---does a game admit a Nash equilibrium whose expected payoff lies within a prescribed interval for every player?---is undecidable, and remains so even for 10-player \emph{stopping} games, in which a terminal state is reached almost surely under every strategy profile. We give two routes to tractability. We first relax exactness and consider the problem of approximate constrained existence problem, parametrised by $\varepsilon$-NE, which decides whether an $\varepsilon$-Nash equilibrium with the prescribed payoffs exists. The algorithm runs in exponential time, and only polynomially in the bit-size of $\varepsilon$. We complement it with a \PSPACE-hardness lower bound that holds already for turn-based games, and for pure equilibria as well. We then relax the solution concept, turning to \emph{extreme risk-sensitive equilibria} (XRSE), recently introduced for turn-based stochastic games. Here the players are partitioned into optimists and pessimists, who evaluate a strategy profile by the best, respectively the worst, payoff attainable with positive probability, instead of the expected payoff. We prove that the constrained existence problem for XRSE is \NP-complete on concurrent games, as for turn-based games.

We study the long-term behavior of the Multiplicative Weights Update (MWU) algorithm in game settings where learning dynamics frequently fail to converge to Nash equilibria and instead exhibit Li-Yorke chaos. While such chaos precludes the prediction of specific long-term strategy profiles, it does not imply a lack of statistical structure. We demonstrate that natural invariant measures - a fundamental concept from ergodic theory - provide the rigorous framework necessary to find order within this chaos. Focusing on a two-strategy congestion game, we prove that these measures allow for a comprehensive statistical characterization of the dynamics. Crucially, we show that this framework extends beyond simple strategy frequencies to \emph{general observables}, enabling the precise calculation of long-term time averages for broad classes of economic metrics - including payoffs, social cost, and regret - despite chaos. Our results reveal that this simple learning algorithm captures the full spectrum of behaviors found in one-dimensional dynamical systems, from unique or multiple absolutely continuous invariant measures to complex periodic attractors as well as coexisting chaotic and stable (periodic) behaviors. By bridging game theory and dynamical systems, we show that statistical predictability is attainable even in the absence of pointwise convergence.

Safe and efficient navigation in mixed-traffic environments remains a critical challenge for Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), primarily due to the complex interdependence between the AV's decisions and the unpredictable reactions of human drivers. This paper introduces a comprehensive decision-making framework that formulates the driving interaction as a Generalized Nash Equilibrium Problem (GNEP). Unlike decoupled optimization approaches, this framework explicitly models shared safety and geometric constraints, ensuring that the feasibility of the AV's strategy is dynamically linked to the opponent's actions. To solve this non-convex problem in real-time, we propose a dedicated solver based on Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). The complete architecture was validated on a test track using a real autonomous Renault Zoé interacting with a human driver. Experimental results demonstrate the system's ability to handle critical scenarios by generating comfortable, human-like trajectories. Benchmarks confirm the solver's operational feasibility, achieving convergence in under 50 ms.

Organizations often pool dispersed information into one ranking and then allow many agents to act on that shared view. In a discovery problem, this can improve beliefs while reducing coverage. We develop an exactly solvable benchmark with sixteen boxes, one target, eight searchers, and noisy private clues. Pooling raises the accuracy of the best single recommendation from 0.20 to 0.3835, but repeating that recommendation lowers group discovery from 0.8322 under decentralized clue-following to 0.3835. A coordinated eight-action portfolio using the same pooled reports reaches 0.8594, and seven coordinated actions recover the decentralized benchmark. The paradox is a protocol failure, not an information failure: a one-answer rule compresses a portfolio of available actions into one repeated choice. We then replace the planner with self-interested searchers who split a prize. The equal-split game is a potential game. Its anonymous symmetric equilibrium obeys a water-filling rule. In the canonical instance it achieves 0.5991: strictly above consensus, but below both private search and the planner. The exact mixed price of anarchy is 2 - 1/N. A sole-rescue reward, which pays only an agent who covers the target alone, makes every pure Nash equilibrium first-best. Finally, a latent common-cue model shows how correlated reports collapse effective discovery channels. The centralized planner gain rises strictly with copying, and in the canonical environment the symmetric market overtakes decentralized report-following at copying probability c = 0.788462. In a proportional large-market limit the five-protocol ordering survives exactly: consensus discovery vanishes while blind, market, private, and portfolio search converge to 0.500, 0.547, 0.847, and 0.874. The contribution is a compact benchmark that separates information, allocation, incentives, and dependence into exact, reusable quantities.

Shared meaning in language requires people to learn and agree on categories. We ask how characteristics of agents' memories change the emergence and evolution of shared meaning. Without a coordination game, models of conceptual semantics cannot explain how shared meaning emerges and changes in groups of people; however, existing games assume that players share payoffs in a partnership setting. We model conceptual alignment as a non-partnership game and illustrate differences in actual and perceived conceptual convergence from counterfactual simulations using agents with varying levels of adaptiveness and memory degradation. We found that adaptive players achieved actual convergence faster and had closer final conceptual regions than non-adaptive players, while non-adaptive players perceived convergence earlier. Weighing novel information less over time resulted in more stable agreements than fixing the weight of novel information. Memory features are critical to the emergence and evolution of actual and perceived convergence.

For decades, static solution concepts (Nash, Correlated, and Coarse Correlated Equilibria) and the Price of Anarchy (PoA) have formed the bedrock of algorithmic game theory, with no-regret learning proving fast convergence to such game-theoretic equilibria. We show that reducing multi-agent learning to static equilibrium and black-box regret analysis obscures underlying dynamic disequilibrium and game theoretic bounds. First, interior Nash equilibria lack $C^1$ vector field information, meaning agents cannot distinguish aligned from strictly opposing incentives. Inheriting this geometry, the worst-case pure Nash equilibria dictating robust PoA bounds manifest as topologically unstable strict saddles, and in canonical congestion games, as global repellers supported on almost everywhere strictly dominated strategies. Anchoring efficiency guarantees to these unstable states causes algebraic sensitivity; we prove that accommodating all strictly positive affine costs renders the PoA unbounded. Furthermore, projecting learning trajectories onto the discrete simplex of correlated play systematically accommodates non-rationalizable behavior. Evaluating dynamics via Coarse Correlated Equilibria or proximal refinements fails to preclude strictly dominated strategies. Moreover, optimal $O(1/T)$ swap-regret minimization does not preclude macroscopic turbulence, manifesting as chaotic limit sets even in minimal games. Finally, we examine the non-atomic limit of congestion games. Though considered highly stable with tight sub-linear $Θ(p/\ln p)$ PoA bounds (where $p$ is the polynomial degree), we prove that under discrete-time learning, the unique equilibrium destabilizes into Li-Yorke chaos and global attractors whose time-averaged inefficiency degrades exponentially as $2^p$. These results necessitate re-evaluating worst-case equilibrium frameworks for dynamically grounded metrics.

Adversarial team games (ATGs) with asymmetric information, such as adversarial path-finding, goal search, and reachability games on graphs, require strategies that are robust to hidden opponent types, such as a hidden goal flag, and to deception. Under asymmetric information, deception is seen as strategic shifts in the type distribution such that the omniscient opponent can collude with Nature and condition its play on the observed type. Existing risk-neutral solution concepts, such as Bayesian Nash equilibrium (BNE), are sensitive to distribution shifts, while distributionally robust approaches provide guarantees only within a prescribed ambiguity set. To address these limitations, we introduce Probabilistically Robust Minimax-Regret Equilibrium (PR-MRE), a novel equilibrium concept that combines the distribution-free robustness of minimax-regret reasoning with probabilistic information from a nominal type distribution. PR-MRE minimizes worst-case regret over a high-confidence subset of the type space, providing protection against strategic redistribution of probability mass while avoiding the conservatism of fully distribution-free approaches. We show that, for normal-form Bayesian games, PR-MRE can be formulated as a robust bilinear program and derive a tractable semidefinite relaxation. We then adapt this relaxation into a novel meta-solver within a robust double-oracle framework, PRMRE-PSRO, enabling population-based learning of approximate PR-MRE strategies via deep reinforcement learning best responses. Experiments on graph-structured adversarial team games demonstrate that PR-MRE discovers strategies with substantially improved worst-case performance across hidden types compared to risk-neutral equilibrium solutions, resulting in more robust behavior under strategic distribution shifts.

AlphaZero has demonstrated that a neural-guided Monte Carlo Tree Search can achieve superhuman performance, but strong play does not necessarily imply perfect play. We study this gap in two oracle-evaluable domains with contrasting structure: Connect Four, a solved partisan game with exact game-theoretic values, and Chomp, an impartial game whose optimal play is governed by Grundy-number structure. Under a unified self-play $+$ MCTS pipeline, we compare vanilla AlphaZero, a multi-frame variant (limited to Chomp), and an AlphaZero Auxiliary Loss (AZAL) that adds oracle-derived policy supervision. We find that vanilla AlphaZero achieves strong play across both domains but cannot preserve the exact trajectories required for optimal play: in Connect Four, it fails to maintain the optimal line of play, while in Chomp, it fails to consistently restore the $g=0$ invariant. On rectangular Chomp boards, multi-frame inputs alone do not remove this gap. Nevertheless, AZAL substantially improves oracle consistency across multi-seeded full-game traces and sampled-state evaluations. On Chomp, AZAL reaches perfect full-game oracle consistency on 10x11 and high but not complete consistency on 9x10; on Connect Four, AZAL improves oracle-match rate and delays the first oracle mistake, but does not reach perfect play.

Computing Nash equilibrium policies in multi-agent Pursuit-Evasion games (PEG) is challenging due to the exponential growth of the joint state and action spaces with the number of agents. Existing approaches either rely on offline equilibrium approximations, which may lack adaptability during execution, or online planning methods, which suffer from large branching factors. In this work, we propose Primitive-Guided Tree Search (PGTS), a hybrid framework that integrates offline exact Nash equilibrium computation with online tree search: PGTS first solves a collection of smaller, tractable sub-games offline; at deployment, PGTS performs online tree search at each time step, using the optimal sub-game policies and value functions to guide tree expansion and estimate leaf-node values. Extensive experiments on varied graph topologies, including real-world networks, demonstrate that PGTS significantly outperforms state-of-the-art learning and heuristic baselines, while maintaining robust performance against adversaries.

We study repeated bidding in multi-unit discriminatory (pay-as-bid) auctions for a single bidder with per-round utility equal to value minus $α$ times payment, where $α\in[0,1]$ is a cost-of-capital parameter. The bidder aims to maximize cumulative utility over $T$ rounds subject to a total budget $B$. The problem is challenging even without budgets: the action space is exponential in $M$, the maximum demand of the bidder and the valuation vector (context) varies over time. Exploiting a decomposition of utility across units, we develop polynomial-time learning algorithms based on shortest paths in a directed acyclic graph, obtaining sublinear regret under both full-information and bandit feedback. In the bandit setting, the regret is independent of the number of contexts due to complete cross-learning: observing the utility of the chosen action under the realized context reveals the utility for the same action under all counterfactual contexts. With budget constraints, when the average normalized per-round budget $ρ=\frac{B}{MT}<1$, we design a coupled primal-dual algorithm in which the DAG-based procedure uses dual-adjusted edge weights for primal updates, while online gradient descent updates the dual variable, yielding $ρ$-approximate sublinear regret. Finally, we give implementations whose per-round time and space are independent of the number of contexts, enabling scalability to large or even infinite context spaces.

Learning to bid in repeated multi-unit auctions with bandit feedback poses a fundamental challenge. Existing methods often rely on rigid explore-then-exploit schedules, assume stationary adversaries, and optimize solely for bidder utility, thereby limiting adaptability and strategic robustness. To address these limitations, we introduce the A3M framework, which integrates adaptive deep reinforcement learning (DRL), explicit adversarial reasoning, and principled multi-objective reward design for online auction strategy optimization. A3M employs an actor-critic DRL backbone to dynamically balance exploration and exploitation, an opponent model for fictitious play against non-stationary adversaries, and a composite reward function to jointly maximize utility, auctioneer revenue, and fairness. We provide the first comprehensive empirical evaluation of this integrated approach against established baselines in both discriminatory and uniform price auctions. Results show that A3M reduces final regret by 30--40% in standard settings, maintains robust performance against adversarial strategy shifts, scales favorably with the number of units $K$, and enables tunable multi-objective trade-offs. An extensive ablation study confirms the necessity of each core component. Our work establishes A3M as a powerful and flexible framework for learning in complex auction environments.

Solving multi-agent optimal control problems in aerospace such as pursuit-evasion and contested space operations can be modeled as non-convex differential games for which, there are limited algorithms. In this work, a relaxation of generalized Nash Equilibrium problems (GNEPs) to exclude inter-agent control coupling in dynamics, which is representative of many multi-agent systems is introduced. The main contribution is an algorithm for solving a broad class of differential games named FALCON: Fast Augmented Lagrangian Convexification for Open-loop Nash equilibria is presented. Methodologically, sequential convex programming (SCP) is utilized to create tractable convex sub-games which can then be solved via standard convex programming methods involving a potential game reformulation. FALCON is demonstrated to have global convergence guarantees to an open-loop Nash equilibrium for non-convex differential games under mild assumptions. This is numerically shown through both cooperative and competitive differential games.

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.

Evaluating LLM agents requires dynamic environments that go beyond static reasoning and zero-sum games. Real-world economic interaction is often open-ended and mixed-motive: agents must negotiate, create positive-sum surplus, compete for scarce assets, and plan under delayed returns. We introduce SidConArena, a new benchmark framework for evaluating LLM agents in open-ended, positive-sum bargaining. SidConArena formalizes a multi-player economy as a finite-horizon partially observable stochastic game with three coupled phases: natural-language negotiation with binding trades, deterministic converter-based production, and sealed-bid auctions for long-term assets. The framework combines structured observations, phase-aware agent dispatching, a neural-symbolic action interface, and asynchronous execution, enabling free-form interaction while preserving rule-grounded evaluation. Across homogeneous and heterogeneous tournaments, stronger frontier models achieve higher economic outcomes, yet agents still misvalue resources, bargain passively, and remain limited in long-horizon investment planning.

Mean field games efficiently approximate a very large population of strategic agents. While these games can aid the understanding of complex systems, their deployment in real-world settings is challenged by the specification of their parameters: mean field games (MFGs) often involve hidden preferences, constraints, and interactions that can rarely be theoretically derived or directly observed. To address this gap, we present a neural network-based framework for learning parametric, finite-state MFGs from observed population dynamics. To do so, we formulate the parameter calibration as an inverse problem and use implicit differentiation to backpropagate through the games' equilibrium. The resulting approach is fully differentiable and enables us to estimate flexible trajectory-wise parameter paths, including state- and time-dependent specifications without requiring observations of the individual agents' actions or rewards. We provide a proof for the exactness of the gradient computation in a discrete-time formulation. We validate our framework through numerical experiments across four systems of increasing complexity, ranging from synthetic linear-quadratic benchmarks to real-world urban mobility datasets.

Deploying multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) in the real world is often limited by model mismatches between the training simulators and the true environment, which could be further amplified through strategic interactions and result in severe performance degradation upon deployment. Distributional robustness offers a principled response by optimizing policies against worst-case transition models drawn from an uncertainty set, but standard robust MARL frameworks become increasingly intractable as the number of agents grows. This paper develops an infinite-horizon, stationary mean-field game framework that incorporates distributional model uncertainty directly into the population-coupled dynamics. We establish a robust dynamic programming principle with a contractive Bellman operator and prove the existence of a stationary robust mean-field equilibrium via a fixed-point argument. We further develop the first concrete algorithm with convergence guarantees. We then connect the mean-field solution to a finite-population robust game whose ambiguity sets depend on the empirical distribution, showing that the mean-field equilibrium policy induces approximate equilibrium behavior as the population size increases. Under a contractive robust-dynamics regime, we further obtain explicit non-asymptotic error bounds. Numerical experiments further illustrate the qualitative and quantitative impact of robustness under multiple uncertainty models, validating our theoretical findings.

This paper develops a noncooperative model of directed network formation in which agents create links to access valuable information while sharing the costs generated along the paths through which information is obtained. Each agent is endowed with a positive amount of information and chooses, simultaneously, which other agents to contact. A directed link initiated by one agent allows her to access the information of the contacted agent and of the latter's reachable network, but each link in the resulting information path entails a unit cost. Payoffs therefore depend on the total value of accessible information net of the accumulated connection costs required to obtain it. The paper characterizes the relationship between strategy profiles and directed graphs, defines accessibility, paths, components, and minimal connectedness, and studies the Nash architectures induced by individual best responses. The central result is that strict Nash equilibria must take the form of circular directed networks. Moreover, circular networks are exactly the Nash networks that use the minimum number of links while allowing every agent to access all available information. Although noncircular weak Nash networks may exist, they are structurally redundant and do not satisfy the same minimality property. The model also shows that strict Nash networks are both Pareto optimal and efficient in terms of aggregate welfare. Finally, the paper compares this framework with Bala and Goyal's model, emphasizing that shared path costs and heterogeneous information values generate different equilibrium implications. The analysis supports the equivalence between strict stability and minimal connectivity in directed information networks.

Nash equilibrium (NE) arises from selfish utility maximization, yet its social welfare can be arbitrarily far from optimal. Moreover, computing an NE is intractable in general. We study augmented game models in which players use budget-balanced internal transfers to improve incentives before play. We first introduce \emph{Self-Enforcing Transfer Equilibrium} (SETE), where players commit to nonnegative peer-to-peer transfers that are paid only if the recipient does not deviate from a prescribed strategy. For polymatrix games, we show that every stationary point of the social welfare function, in particular any socially optimal strategy profile, can be sustained as a SETE. This induces a Nash equilibrium in the agent normal form of the corresponding augmented game. We further propose a polynomial-time algorithm and a decentralized learning dynamic to compute such product-form equilibria. We then introduce \emph{Mediated Self-Enforcing Transfer Equilibrium} (M-SETE), where a mediator makes both the payment schedule and the prescribed strategies binding offers. This additional enforcement resolves the agent-normal-form limitation: an M-SETE is a Nash equilibrium of the augmented game itself, not merely of its agent normal form, and any socially optimal strategy profile can be supported as an M-SETE in any finite game while preserving budget balance. Thus, internal transfers improve welfare and computation while preserving independent play on the equilibrium path. When full sequential-game stability is required, binding mediation provides the corresponding implementation.

This paper investigates mobile target search under imperfect perceptions caused by sensor limitations, malicious jamming, or communication noise. Searchers and targets operate in a grid-shaped area with bounded mobility, leading to a dynamic interplay between search and evasion. To capture this adversarial interaction under imperfect perceptions, we adopt the partially observable stochastic game (POSG) approach, which generalizes partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs) by incorporating target intelligence. To handle false alarms and missed detections caused by perceptual uncertainties, we propose a novel detectability concept to determine whether a search strategy guarantees eventual detection, and provide sufficient detectability criteria based on stochastic recurrence analysis. We further develop a server-assisted distributed algorithm that utilizes the aggregative potential game structure for searchers and a KL-divergence-based reduction for target prediction. Numerical simulations validate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm and support the detectability analysis.

We introduce optimal coarse correlated equilibria for continuous-time mean field games. A coarse correlated equilibrium is a randomized recommendation scheme from which no player can gain by ignoring the recommendation and switching to an alternative strategy. The problem is as follows: a moderator selects, among all mean-field coarse correlated equilibria, one that optimizes a prescribed performance criterion, which may differ from the representative player's objective. After formulating the problem, we develop a linear programming (LP) formulation, prove the existence of optimal LP coarse correlated equilibria, and relate the LP characterization to the original probabilistic setting. Building on this characterization, we design a no-regret primal-dual algorithm, based on an equivalent Lagrangian formulation of the external-regret constraint, for learning such equilibria. We provide explicit convergence rates for the learning algorithm, and numerical examples illustrate the method.