Game Theory

Parallelization has played an instrumental role in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), drastically reducing the time taken to train and evaluate large AI models. In contrast to its impact in the broader field of AI, applying parallelization to computational game solving is relatively unexplored, despite its great potential. In this paper, we parallelize the family of counterfactual regret minimization (CFR) algorithms, which were central to important breakthroughs for solving large imperfect-information games. We present a generalized parallelization framework, reframing CFR as a series of linear algebra operations. Then, existing techniques for parallelizing linear algebra operations can be applied to accelerate CFR. We also describe how our technique can be applied to other tabular members of the CFR family of algorithms, including the state-of-the-art, such as CFR+, discounted CFR, and predictive variants of CFR. Experimentally, we show that our CFR implementation on a GPU is up to four orders of magnitude faster than Google DeepMind OpenSpiel's CFR implementations on a CPU.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly prevalent in cloud-based platforms, propelled by the introduction of AI-based consumer and enterprise services. LLM inference requests in particular account for up to 90% of total LLM lifecycle energy use, dwarfing training energy costs. The rising volume of LLM inference requests is increasing environmental footprints, particularly carbon emissions and water consumption. To improve sustainability for LLM inference serving in cloud datacenter environments, we propose a novel multi-agent game-theoretic reinforcement learning framework called MARLIN to co-optimize time-to-first token (TTFT), carbon emissions, water usage, and energy costs associated with LLM inference. MARLIN demonstrates a reduction of at least 18% in TTFT, 33% in carbon emissions, 43% in water usage, and 11% in energy costs compared to state-of-the-art LLM inference management frameworks.

This paper studies the convergence of the Optimistic Multiplicative Weights Update algorithm (OMWU) in two player zero-sum games. Recent works have identified instances on which the last-iterate of OMWU can converge arbitrarily slowly, but understanding when and why this slow convergence occurs has remained open. In this work, we develop a new analysis framework that gives sharp, quantitative explanations for this behavior. Our analysis is based on viewing the algorithm's dual iterates as an optimistic skew-gradient descent with respect to an energy function. We prove over the dual iterates that energy is dissipative, and by establishing tight bounds on the magnitude of dissipation, our analysis quantifies the geometric bottlenecks that arise when the corresponding primal iterates are close to the simplex boundary. This further translates into a new linear last-iterate convergence rate in KL divergence on games with a unique and interior Nash equilibrium. Compared to prior work, this new rate contains a much sharper dependence on game-specific constants, and we prove this dependence is optimal. Moreover, these geometric insights further translate into new separations on uniform convergence rates for OMWU. On the one hand, we prove constant lower bounds on the uniform best-iterate convergence rate in KL divergence and total variation distance from Nash. On the other hand, we establish for the $2\times 2$ setting a new ${\widetilde O}(T^{-1/2})$ best-iterate rate in duality gap, improving substantially over prior work. Together, this shows in general that uniform convergence rate guarantees do not transfer across different measures of distance to Nash.

We study collaborative learning in multi-agent Bayesian bandit problems, where strategic agents collectively solve the same bandit instance. While multiple agents can accelerate learning by sharing information, strategic agents might prefer to free-ride and avoid exploration. We consider a setting with persistent agents that participate in multiple time periods. This is in contrast to most previous works on incentives in multi-agent MAB, which assume short-lived agents, namely each agent has a single decision to make and optimizes their expected reward in that single decision. As in the multi-agent MAB model with incentives, our model does not have monetary transfers, and the only incentives are through information sharing. We propose \texttt{CAOS}, a mechanism that sustains collaboration as a Nash equilibrium while achieving strong regret guarantees. Our results demonstrate that collaborative exploration can be sustained purely through information sharing, achieving performance close to that of fully cooperative systems despite strategic behavior.

Negotiation is a central mechanism of economic exchange, shaping markets, procurement, labor agreements, and resource allocation. It is also a canonical testbed for agentic language models, requiring multi-turn interaction under hidden preferences, strategic communication, and binding constraints. These properties make negotiation hard to evaluate: unlike math or code, it has no intrinsic verifier. Existing LLM negotiation evaluations rely on LLM-vs.-LLM interaction or aggregate outcomes such as deal rate, leaving failures opaque. We introduce Terms-Bench, short for Testbed for Economic Reasoning in Multi-turn Strategy, a Bayesian-game framework that makes the environment itself the verifier by specifying the counterpart's latent type, policy, and payoff structure. We instantiate it in bilateral price negotiation, where the counterpart's private state and simulator policy are hidden from the agent but observable to the evaluator. This turns the counterpart from a black-box opponent into a diagnostic instrument, enabling agent-attributable failure analysis and oracle-reference optimality gaps. Evaluating 13 LLM agents spanning frontier systems from major providers, Terms-Bench turns negotiation evaluation from aggregate ranking into actionable diagnosis: where agents fail, why they fail, and what to strengthen. Empirically, frontier models saturate deal rate yet diverge in surplus extraction, cue use, belief calibration, and compliance, revealing agent-specific bargaining bottlenecks masked by prior benchmarks.

We study the problem of learning Nash equilibria in offline two-player zero-sum Markov games. While existing approaches often rely on explicit pessimism to address distribution shift, we show that KL regularization alone suffices to stabilize learning and guarantee convergence. We first introduce Regularized Offline Sequential Equilibrium (ROSE), a theoretical framework that achieves a fast $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(1/n)$ convergence rate under \textit{unilateral concentrability}, improving over the standard $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(1/\sqrt{n})$ rates in unregularized settings. We then propose Sequential Offline Self-play Mirror Descent (SOS-MD), a practical model-free algorithm based on least-squares value estimation and iterative self-play updates. We prove that the last iterate of SOS-MD attains the same $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(1/n)$ statistical rate up to a vanishing optimization error of order $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(1/\sqrt{T})$ in the number of self-play iterations $T$.

By specifying behaviour across multiple agents, social norms are a coordination approach to resolving social dilemmas. Decentralized and wide adoption can be achieved by norms whose prescription involves interpreting stochastic signals in the environment. Such signals must have enough correlation to orchestrate mutually beneficial coordination and enough disincentivizing uncertainty about the benefits of exploiting that coordination. Evolutionary game theory of matrix games has been used to describe how, by rational agents comparing and adopting norms, a norm can evolve to become dominant in a population. Morsky & Akçay (2019) classify norms according to a set of rationality criteria. Joint player strategies that adopt norms that are consistent with optimal single-player strategies with respect to expected reward naturally satisfy a correlated, rather than Nash game theoretic equilibrium condition. Here, we present a version of this theory that clarifies the basic ingredients. We formulate it in the more general Markov game setting more commonly used in reinforcement learning theory. We illustrate the theory by mapping norms over the signal and reward space, while also giving a detailed exposition of the underlying mechanics of the approach. Finally, we give a general solution and analysis of replicator dynamics, which Morsky & Akçay (2019) propose as a means by which these norms could emerge.

The replication dynamics (differential equation system) is the foundation of evolutionary game theory. When n=2, there are four possible types of replication dynamics. When n=3, there are 49 possible types of replication dynamics. However, when n>3, the classification of replication dynamics has not been solved. In this article, the sufficient and necessary conditions of the replication dynamics equation with a unique fixed point in the interior of simplex $S_n$(Int$S_n$) for $n\geq 2$ are presented. Furthermore, the different types of replication dynamics equations with a unique fixed point in IntSn is discussed.

We propose a game-theoretic framework for adaptive multi-agent intelligent systems. Unlike classical game theory, which often treats strategies as primitive objects chosen by perfectly rational agents, the proposed framework provides a mathematical foundation for studying equilibrium in NeuroAI and can be viewed as an extension of game theory under relaxed assumptions, including partial observability, bounded computation, and uncertainty. At its core, Multilevel Interactive Equilibrium (MIE) generalizes the classical Nash equilibrium to intelligent systems with internal computation. Rather than being defined solely at the level of observable behavior, equilibrium emerges when neural learning dynamics, cognitive representations, and behavioral strategies mutually stabilize between interacting agents. This framework applies uniformly to interactions between two biological brains, two artificial agents, or hybrid human-AI systems. We discuss applications of multilevel game theory to human-autonomous vehicle driving, human-machine interaction, human-large language model (LLM) interaction, and computational psychiatry. We also outline experimental strategies and computational methods for estimating MIE and discuss challenges and prospects for future research.

In this paper we study team-symmetric games with $m\ge 2$ teams. Players within a team have symmetric identity and have a common payoff function. We show that team-symmetric games always have a team-symmetric Nash equilibrium. We develop and solve a linear complementarity problem of team-symmetric Nash equilibria. We propose an actor-critic based multi-agent reinforcement learning algorithm for team-symmetric games. Through simulations, we show that this multi-agent reinforcement learning algorithm performs much better than many existing algorithms.

Large language models can score well on named game-theory benchmarks while failing on the same strategic computation once semantic cues are removed. We show this gap with procedurally generated zero-sum matrix games: a model that recognizes familiar games drops to 34%, 18%, and 2% success on anonymous $2{\times}2$, $3{\times}3$, and $5{\times}5$ payoff matrices. The benchmark separates semantic recall, learned approximate Nash computation, and an output-interface bottleneck that limits scale. Training only on $2{\times}2$ and $3{\times}3$ games, supervised fine-tuning raises unseen $5{\times}5$--$7{\times}7$ success from 2% to 61%, while exploitability-reward training averages 37% with high seed variance. We prove that the exploitability residual is $2$-Lipschitz in payoff perturbations, unlike discontinuous vertex-returning LP equilibrium selectors, explaining why residual training can transfer under payoff shifts even when formatting instability limits mean performance. A dominated-action padding experiment provides causal evidence: trained models solve $3{\times}3$ games embedded in much larger matrices, while random-padded controls fail and dense $12{\times}12$ games remain near failure. Procedural evaluation is therefore necessary for measuring strategic reasoning, and residual rewards expose a real but format-limited route to approximate equilibrium computation.

Dynamic Population Games (DPGs) provide a tractable framework for modeling strategic interactions in large populations of self-interested agents, and have been successfully applied to the design of Karma economies, a class of fair non-monetary resource allocation mechanisms. Despite their appealing theoretical properties, existing computational tools for DPGs assume full knowledge of the game model and operate in a centralized fashion, limiting their applicability in realistic settings where agents have access only to their own private experience. This paper takes a step towards addressing this gap by studying model-free equilibrium learning in Karma DPGs. First, we analyze the setting in which a novel agent joins a Karma DPG already at its Stationary Nash Equilibrium (SNE) and learns a policy via Deep Q-Networks (DQN) without knowledge of the game model. Leveraging recent convergence results for DQN, we establish a suboptimality bound consisting of a DQN approximation error of order $O(1/\sqrt{N_s})$ and a mean field perturbation error of order $O(1/N)$, where $N_s$ is the replay buffer size and $N$ is the population size. Second, we consider the challenging problem of learning the SNE from scratch. We show empirically that combining deep RL with fictitious play and smoothed policy iteration allows agents to converge, in a model-free fashion, to a configuration close to the centrally computed SNE. Together, these contributions support the vision of Karma economies as practical tools for fair resource allocation.

Reachability games are two-player games played on a graph, where the objective of $\texttt{REACH}$ player is to reach the target set whereas the objective of $\texttt{SAFE}$ player is to stay away from the target set. Reachability games have important applications in artificial intelligence and reactive synthesis, and many of these applications give rise to infinite-state reachability games. In this paper, we study turn-based reachability games on infinite-state graphs defined over valuations of a finite set of real variables. We consider the problem of determining the existence of and computing a winning strategy for $\texttt{REACH}$ player. Our contributions are twofold. First, we propose ranking certificates for reachability games, a sound and complete proof rule for proving that $\texttt{REACH}$ player has a winning strategy from the specified initial state. Second, we consider polynomial reachability games, where transitions and objectives are described by polynomial constraints over real variables, and propose a fully automated algorithm for computing a winning strategy for $\texttt{REACH}$ player together with a formal correctness witness in the form of a ranking certificate. The algorithm is sound, semi-complete, and runs in sub-exponential time. Our experiments demonstrate the ability of our method to solve challenging examples from the literature that were out of the reach of existing methods. Specifically, for the classical Cinderella-Stepmother game, we are able to compute an optimal winning strategy for an arbitrary precision parameter for the first time.

Classical coding-theoretic guarantees often rely on trust assumptions, such as requiring sufficiently many honest nodes compared with adversarial ones. These assumptions are difficult to enforce in open decentralized systems where participants are not centrally certified. At the same time, such environments often contain incentive mechanisms: participants may be rewarded only when their submitted data are accepted and the system remains functional. This changes the role of an adversary. Rather than acting as a pure saboteur, a strategic adversary may submit data that are consistent enough to be accepted while still degrading the quality of the final estimate. The game-of-coding framework models this strategic interaction between a data collector (DC) and an adversary. Existing works on the game of coding mostly consider the complete-information case, where the DC knows how the adversary trades off acceptance and estimation error. In this paper, we study an incomplete-information version of the game of coding in which the DC, acting as a Stackelberg leader, does not know the adversary's utility trade-off and must learn through repeated interaction. Prior work on the unknown-adversary setting considered an explore-then-commit objective, where only the final selected acceptance rule is evaluated. In contrast, we study the full learning trajectory: every acceptance rule used during the algorithm is executed and contributes to performance. We propose an algorithm that refines its search around promising acceptance rules, prove that it achieves sublinear cumulative regret, and evaluate its performance through numerical experiments.

Last-iterate convergence of learning dynamics in games has attracted significant recent attention. In two-player zero-sum games with bandit feedback, where only the loss of the selected action pair is observed, Fiegel et al. (2025) show a separation between average-iterate and last-iterate convergence in duality gap: while the optimal t^(-1/2) rate after t rounds is achievable for the former via standard no-regret algorithms, the latter cannot converge faster than t^(-1/3) in expectation or t^(-1/4) with high probability. However, in many practical settings, such as preference learning, the players observe not only their loss but also the opponent's action. This raises a natural question: can such additional information enable faster last-iterate convergence? We answer this question affirmatively, showing that t^(-1/2) last-iterate convergence is achievable with high probability in this setting, via an efficient algorithm that updates its strategy infrequently by solving an estimated log-barrier-regularized game. We identify fundamental obstacles preventing standard analysis for multi-armed bandits, the single-player case, from generalizing to games, and develop a novel analysis to overcome them. Experiments confirm that our algorithm indeed converges faster than naive baselines and prior methods that do not exploit opponent-action feedback. Finally, we note that our results also improve those for dueling bandits, a special case with skew-symmetric game matrices.

Poker is an imperfect information game that has served as a long-standing benchmark for decision-making under uncertainty. To maximize utility beyond the Nash equilibrium, an agent can deviate from Nash-equilibrium policies to exploit suboptimal play. We introduce AlphaExploitem, which extends the competitive RL poker agent AlphaHoldem by using a hierarchical transformer encoder that enables reasoning over previously played hands and modifying the training procedure with the inclusion of a diverse pool of exploitable opponents to facilitate learning to exploit. We train and evaluate AlphaExploitem on two standard benchmarks for imperfect-information games. Empirically, AlphaExploitem successfully exploits weak play by both in- and out-of-distribution opponents, without losing performance against NE opponents.

Conversational AI has a fundamental flaw as a knowledge interface: sycophantic chatbots induce epistemic entrenchment and delusional belief spirals even in rational agents. We propose the problem does not stem from the AI model, rooted instead in a systemic consequence of the paradigm shift from user-driven knowledge search to users and agents engaged in strategic, repeated-play communication. We formalize the problem as a Crawford-Sobel cheap talk game, where costless user signals induce a pooling equilibrium. Agents optimized for user satisfaction produce sycophantic strategies that provide identical reinforcement across user types with opposite epistemic incentives: exploratory Growth-seekers'' ($θ_G$) and confirmatory Validation-seekers'' ($θ_V$). Under repeated play, this identification failure creates a coordination trap -- analogous to a Prisoner's Dilemma -- where locally rational feedback loops drive users toward pathologically certain false beliefs. We propose an inference-time mechanism design intervention called an Epistemic Mediator that breaks this pooling equilibrium by introducing a costly signal (epistemic friction), forcing type revelation based on users' asymmetric cognitive costs for processing resistance. A key contribution is Belief Versioning, a git-inspired epistemic meta-memory system that stores healthy beliefs and rollbacks when validation-seeking resistance is detected. In simulation, this intervention achieves a separating equilibrium achieving a $48\times$ differential in spiral rates while passing a learning preservation criterion), evidence that epistemic safety in AI is fundamentally a problem of strategic information environment design rather than simple model alignment.

Nash equilibrium serves as a fundamental mathematical tool in economics and game theory. However, it classically assumes knowledge of player utilities, whereas economics generally regards preferences as more fundamental. To leverage equilibrium analysis in strategic scenarios, one must first elicit numerical utilities consistent with player preferences, a delicate and time-consuming process. In this work, we forgo precise utilities and generalize the Nash equilibrium to a setting where we only assume a player is capable of providing an ordinal ranking of their actions within the context of other players' joint actions. The key technical challenge is to rethink the definition of a best-response. While the classical definition identifies actions maximizing expected payoff, we naturally look towards social choice theory for how to aggregate preferences to identify the most preferred actions. We define this generalized notion of a context-ordinal Nash equilibrium, establish its existence under mild conditions on aggregation methods, introduce notions of regularization, approximation, and regret, explore complexity for simple settings, and develop learning rules for computing such equilibria. In doing so, we provide a generalization of Nash equilibrium and demonstrate its direct applicability to elicited preferences in human experiments.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to provide instructions to many agents who interact with one another. Such shared reliance couples agents who appear to act independently: they may in fact be guided by a common model. This coupling can change the prospects for cooperation among agents with misaligned incentives. We study settings in which multiple LLMs each advise a population of clients who participate in instances of an underlying game, creating strategic interaction at the level of the LLMs themselves. This induces a meta-game among the LLMs, mediated through clients. We first analyze the one-shot setting, where shared instructions can change equilibrium behavior only when an LLM may influence more than one role in the same interaction; in such cases, cooperation may emerge, and the effect of client share can be beneficial, harmful, or non-monotone, depending on the base game. Our main result concerns the repeated setting. We prove a folk theorem for LLMs: despite indirect observation and the clients' inability to identify which LLM advised their opponents, all feasible and individually rational outcomes can be sustained as $\varepsilon$-equilibria. The result does not follow from the standard folk theorem and requires new proof techniques. Together, these results show that shared LLM guidance can sustain cooperation among populations of agents even when the underlying incentives are misaligned.

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.

Taxation is a fundamental instrument of economic policy and has long been studied through economic models. However, most existing taxation models focus on interactions within a single economic group, typically with one government and multiple households. Such a setting overlooks interactions among independent economic groups, where governments may compete for economic resources through fiscal policies. To capture these interactions, we formulate taxation as a hierarchical multi-group tax game. Within each group, a government sets tax policies while households respond, forming a hierarchical government--household interaction. Across groups, governments compete through fiscal policies, coupling the economic dynamics of distinct groups. This coupled structure poses challenges for standard multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) methods. To this end, we propose Multi-Group PPO (MGPPO), a bilevel MARL algorithm designed for hierarchical multi-group interactions. MGPPO incorporates Hierarchical Sampling to coordinate learning across agent levels and Curriculum Learning to improve training stability. We further develop a multi-group taxation simulation environment grounded in classical economic models, supporting the evaluation of fiscal policies under inter-group competition. Simulations show that in the two-group settings, MGPPO reduces the income and wealth Gini coefficients by 5.0% and 4.9%, respectively, and increases mean GDP by 4.1% compared with IPPO.

We consider the extensive-form bandit problem, where on each trial the learner (a user coordinated by a server) plays an extensive-form game against an oblivious adversary, observing the information sets it finds itself in as well as the resulting payoff/loss. We give an algorithm for this problem that satisfies $ε$-local differential privacy and attains a regret of $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{A\ln(S)T}/ε)$, where $A$ is the total number of actions that the learner can possibly take, $S$ is the number of the learner's possible reduced strategies, and $T$ is the number of trials. On each trial, the time complexity of our algorithm is, up to a factor logarithmic in the maximum number of actions at an infoset, equal to the time required for the server to transmit the reduced strategy to the user. We note that local differential privacy is the strongest version of differential privacy and, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to study differential privacy of any form in the extensive-form bandit problem.

This paper asks whether large language models (LLMs) can be used to study the strategic foundations of conflict and cooperation. I introduce LLMs as experimental subjects in a repeated security dilemma and evaluate whether they reproduce canonical mechanisms from international relations theory. The baseline game is extended along three theoretically central dimensions: multipolarity, finite time horizons, and the availability of communication. Across multiple models, the results exhibit systematic and consistent patterns: multipolarity increases the likelihood of conflict, finite horizons induce universal unraveling consistent with backward-induction logic, and communication reduces conflict by enabling signaling and reciprocity. Beyond observed behavior, the design provides access to agents' private reasoning and public messages, allowing choices to be linked to underlying strategic logics such as preemption, cooperation under uncertainty, and trust-building. The contribution is primarily methodological. LLM-based experiments offer a scalable, transparent, and replicable approach to probing theoretical mechanisms.

Strategy-proofness is a fundamental desideratum in mechanism design, ensuring truthful reporting and robust participation. Stability is another central requirement in matching markets, widely adopted in applications such as school choice and labor market clearing. In practice, however, these markets are invariably governed by complex distributional constraints, ranging from diversity quotas and regional balance to global capacity slacks, under which stable matchings often fail to exist. This raises a fundamental question: how to distribute unavoidable instability across agents while preserving strategy-proofness? To address this, we propose \texttt{MenuNet}, a strategy-proof mechanism design framework based on a neural representation of menus. Rather than directly constructing assignments, \texttt{MenuNet} learns to generate personalized probabilistic menus, from which assignments are realized via a structured sequential choice rule that guarantees strategy-proofness by construction. By decomposing stability into fairness (no envy) and non-wastefulness, our approach models these properties as vector-valued quantities and optimizes their distribution through differentiable objectives, providing a principled trade-off between competing axioms. Empirically, \texttt{MenuNet} navigates this trade-off effectively: it consistently outperforms Random Serial Dictatorship (RSD) in terms of envy and Deferred Acceptance (DA) in terms of waste, while maintaining scalability and computational efficiency. These results suggest that learning-based menu mechanisms provide a flexible and scalable paradigm for mechanism design in highly constrained, real-world environments.

Recent advances in large language models have led to the rise of software systems (i.e. agents) that execute with increasing autonomy on behalf of users in open, multi-party settings, interacting with untrusted counterparts and managing private information. Choreographic programming offers correct-by-construction protocol-design for such settings, but assumes cooperative participants -- it has no notion of agent self-interest, that is, why an agent will follow a protocol. In this talk we introduce Pact, a choreographic language extended with operations to describe agent choices and preferences, drawing from the rich literature of game theory. Every Pact protocol maps to a formal game, allowing protocol designers to reason about game-theoretic properties of their protocols, such as solving for decision policies. We present Pact's design and a preliminary implementation -- a bounded-rational solver that computes decision policies over Pact protocols -- and findings from applying this language to multi-party coordination with self-interested agentic participants.

We show that a threshold in decision capacity determines whether self-play reinforcement learning agents collapse under asymmetric rule perturbations. Across poker variants, matrix games, a dice game, and multiple learning algorithms, eliminating all positive-reach contingent decisions causes rapid convergence to a deterministic exploitation attractor, a fixed point at near-maximal loss. Preserving even a single positive-reach contingent decision point prevents this collapse. A frozen baseline and fixed-opponent control confirm that the mechanism is co-adaptation under constraint, not the perturbation itself. The phenomenon is timing-invariant, fully reversible upon action restoration, and intensifies under function approximation. These results establish a sharp threshold at zero reach-weighted contingent action capacity, with severity scaling continuously via reach-weighted capacity in the tested domains.

We present Coopetition-Gym v1, a benchmark platform for mixed-motive multi-agent reinforcement learning under strategic coopetition. The platform comprises twenty environments organized into four mechanism classes that correspond to four foundational technical reports: interdependence and complementarity (arXiv:2510.18802), trust and reputation dynamics (arXiv:2510.24909), collective action and loyalty (arXiv:2601.16237), and sequential interaction and reciprocity (arXiv:2604.01240). Each environment carries a closed-form payoff structure and a calibrated interdependence matrix derived from the corresponding report. Every environment exposes a parameterized reward layer configurable across three structurally distinct modes (private, integrated, cooperative). This separation of payoff from reward enables reward-type ablation, the platform's principal methodological apparatus. Four of the twenty environments are calibrated against historically documented coopetitive relationships and reproduce their outcomes at 98.3, 81.7, 86.7, and 87.3 percent on the validation rubric (Samsung-Sony LCD, Renault-Nissan Alliance, Apache HTTP Server, Apple iOS App Store). The platform exposes Gymnasium, PettingZoo Parallel, and PettingZoo AEC interfaces and ships 126 reference algorithms: 16 learning algorithms, 7 game-theoretic oracles, 2 heuristic baselines, and 101 constant-action policies. A reference experimental study trained the 16 learning algorithms on every environment under every reward configuration with seven random seeds, producing a 25,708-run training corpus and a 1,116-run behavioral audit corpus, both released under CC-BY-4.0 with Croissant 1.0 metadata. Coopetition-Gym v1 is the first platform to combine continuous-action mixed-motive environments, parameterized reward mutuality, calibrated interdependence coefficients, game-theoretic oracle baselines, and validated case studies.

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.

Offline multi-agent reinforcement learning in general-sum settings is challenged by the distribution shift between logged datasets and target equilibrium policies. While standard methods rely on manual pessimistic penalties, we demonstrate that KL regularization suffices to stabilize learning and achieve equilibrium recovery. We propose General-sum Anchored Nash Equilibrium (GANE), which recovers regularized Nash equilibria at an accelerated statistical rate of $\widetilde{O}(1/n)$. For computational tractability, we develop General-sum Anchored Mirror Descent (GAMD), an iterative algorithm converging to a Coarse Correlated Equilibrium at the standard rate of $\widetilde{O}(1/\sqrt{n}+1/T)$. These results establish KL regularization as a standalone mechanism for pessimism-free offline learning that achieves equivalent or accelerated rates in multi-player general-sum games.

Most familiar equilibrium concepts, such as Nash and correlated equilibrium, guarantee only that no single player can improve their utility by deviating unilaterally. They offer no guarantees against profitable coordinated deviations by coalitions. Although the literature proposes solution concepts that provide stability against multilateral deviations (\emph{e.g.}, strong Nash and coalition-proof equilibrium), these generally fail to exist. In this paper, we study an alternative solution concept that minimizes coalitional deviation incentives, rather than requiring them to vanish, and is therefore guaranteed to exist. Specifically, we focus on minimizing the average gain of a deviating coalition, and extend the framework to weighted-average and maximum-within-coalition gains. In contrast, the minimum-gain analogue is shown to be computationally intractable. For the average-gain and maximum-gain objectives, we prove a lower bound on the complexity of computing such an equilibrium and present an algorithm that matches this bound. Finally, we use our framework to solve the \emph{Exploitability Welfare Frontier} (EWF), the maximum attainable social welfare subject to a given exploitability (the maximum gain over all unilateral deviations).