Game-Theoretic Framework

Large language models are increasingly deployed as interacting agents, making the persistence of their action policies across repeated interaction critical for reliable multi-agent operation. We investigate whether and how agent-generated, non-binding pre-play communication ("cheap talk") increases such persistence in four open-weight 7-9B-parameter LLMs. Our experiments span four repeated two-player games -- Prisoner's Dilemma, Snowdrift, Stag Hunt, and Harmony -- with incentive structures ranging from strategic conflict to alignment, each presented in six contexts. We observe unstable trajectories in all four games, although their prevalence and magnitude depend strongly on model and context. Across models, games, and contexts, cheap talk is predominantly stabilizing, with five corrected reversals concentrated in social or team framings; effects vary substantially by model and context. Controlled current-message interventions identify two separable output-level channels in Qwen: reduced action uncertainty and less between-round drift in action probabilities. Matched history-by-message counterfactuals further show that recent partner behavior conditions how mutual-benefit versus self-prioritizing language affects policy persistence. Finally, in Prisoner's Dilemma, we identify in Qwen and Falcon a history-balanced policy-content direction in late transformer layers; projecting out this direction increases realized switching during closed-loop play, demonstrating that complete trajectories are causally sensitive to this component. Together, these findings show that cheap talk can make individual trajectories more persistent across diverse incentive structures, while revealing that the magnitude and mechanisms of stabilization are model- and history-dependent.

Offline multi-agent payoff models are estimated under a logging distribution but used on distributions induced by learned solutions and unilateral deviations. Standard held-out loss can therefore favor an interaction class that predicts logged play well while distorting strategic incentives. We introduce Selective Interaction-Rank Validation (SIRV) for finite games with known logging distributions. A training split fits nested payoff models and constructs a common union of all candidate deployment and unilateral-replacement distributions; an independent calibration split evaluates every candidate on this same union. SIRV returns the smallest rank whose simultaneous upper worst-target risk is within tolerance of the best upper score, and abstains when a declared target is unsupported or too imprecisely estimated. A common coverage event yields a finite-candidate target-risk bound and a candidate-specific coarse correlated equilibrium (CCE) gap certificate. We also isolate an exact two-point off-support non-identifiability result. In a controlled factorial study with 2,048 independent games per family, empirical-Bernstein bounds reduce the median CCE-gap certificate by 42.5% relative to Hoeffding bounds on common returns, with a 1.36-point reduction in supported return. Under paired rank misspecification and in a separately generated congestion family, the SIRV-EB fallback rule lowers mean true candidate-selection CCE regret relative to ID-Mean, while retaining game-level losses. Across 384 games at $N=3,5,8$, ID-Mean-relative mean CCE-regret effects stay positive while certified return falls sharply under weak coverage. These results separate certifiable model selection from universal strategic improvement.

This paper introduces a structural taxonomy for constrained non-convex optimization based on the signature of Lagrange multipliers at KKT stationary points. Leveraging a unified game-theoretic interpretation of eight classical algorithm families--including block coordinate descent, ADMM, generalized Benders decomposition, successive convex approximation, interior-point methods, mirror descent, Frank-Wolfe, and Riemannian gradient descent--we show that the normalized multiplier vector carries an algorithm-independent structural fingerprint. Four scale-free shape features of this vector partition the dual space into five operational regimes: Unconstrained, Resource-Limited, Saturation, Strongly-Coupled, and Hybrid. We establish four structural theorems characterizing the partition: invariance under natural KKT symmetries, local stability under data perturbation with explicit Lipschitz margins from Robinson's strong regularity, codimension-one regime transitions, and the topological identification of the Hybrid regime as the Lebesgue-null boundary of the core regimes. A linear-time classifier is proposed with provable guarantees on correctness, iteration stabilization, sample complexity, and online tracking under data drift. Numerical experiments on 104 mixed-integer nonlinear programs and a downlink beamforming instance validate the theoretical predictions. The framework provides a foundational tool for regime-aware algorithm design and robustness analysis in non-convex optimization.

As large language models and increasingly capable AI agents are deployed in high-risk settings, aligning them with complex human values has become a central challenge. Existing alignment methods, while effective in improving helpfulness, harmlessness, and controllability, often struggle to capture real-world preferences that are context-dependent, non-transitive, and shaped by dynamic multi-party interactions. This survey reviews AI alignment through a game-theoretic lens. Specifically, it organizes recent progress around key game-theoretic elements and synthesizes the literature along three challenges: preference diversity, alignment priority, and temporal dynamics. This perspective clarifies where current alignment methods genuinely benefit from game-theoretic analysis, where the framework is looser, and what challenges remain in building robust, adaptive, and verifiable AI systems.

As LLM-based agents with user-instructed goals are becoming widely deployed, they increasingly encounter each other in strategic interactions, and face challenges of finding mutually beneficial outcomes. Prior literature has argued that cooperation problems such as the Prisoner's Dilemma are resolvable in settings where agents know they follow very similar decision making patterns, as for example in monocultural AI ecosystems. Following that line of work, this paper introduces the first framework for evaluating LLM decision making when agents are provided with graded similarity signals. Among our findings, we establish that different LLM models vary drastically in how they navigate similarity signals, with some modern models showing consistent behavior across cooperation problems, payoff structures, and prompt framing. Perhaps surprisingly, our experiments also show that the dataset based on which the similarity signal is computed has small to no impact on induced cooperation, and that LLM models systematically self-identify as highly similar when asked to evaluate another model's chain-of-thought reasoning by themselves. Finally, we develop an LLM-behavioral-game-theoretic model that captures some of their reasoning rationale, and show that it can support cooperative outcomes in equilibrium under sufficiently high similarity scores.

The Independent Chip Model (ICM) converts tournament chips into reference prize equity, and policies are routinely constructed against those values. Because ICM reads only stack sizes, it omits action order, blind obligations, and seat rotation, and it does not price the elimination pressure a big stack puts on the short stacks it can bust. Those omissions can alter the successor-state contrasts that determine a move. We introduce Strategic-Continuation Optimization (SCO), a policy-construction method that enumerates current-hand outcomes, maps them to successor states, prices those states with continuation values computed from the finite tournament model, and optimizes and freezes the resulting current-hand policy. The fixed-ICM comparison policy changes one thing only: the same optimizer solves the same game with successor states priced by analytic ICM, so the two policies differ only through that pricing. We evaluate the resulting policies in a three-player jam/fold tournament with a $1M prize pool. Relative to the frozen strategic-continuation benchmark, analytic ICM has $9{,}036 mean absolute value error across all 2,838 state--seat entries. That value error rewrites the ranges it prices: measured against each decision point's own fixed-ICM jam range, SCO moves the jam frequency by an average of 14.08%. To price those different moves, we compare all 946 states and three policy owners while changing only the focal policy and holding both opponents and the continuation evaluator fixed. The policy produced by SCO earns $214.33 more prize equity per hand on average and is favored in 2,433 of 2,838 matched units. The ordering survives replacing the solver-built opponent with two LLMs and with a family of non-modeling threshold players. This value-to-policy-to-cost chain shows directly when ICM becomes an inadequate objective for tournament strategy construction.

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.

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.

Reinforcement learning (RL) fine-tuning is widely used in language model training to improve model performance on a target task while limiting drift from a reference policy. A standard way to balance this trade-off is via a KL-regularized RL objective, although this formulation does not by itself provide a principled way to set the regularization coefficient. In practice, the coefficient is typically chosen heuristically or via hyperparameter search, which can lead to unnecessary overhead in training cost or undesirable reward-retention trade-offs. We instead propose a game-theoretic framework that gives this trade-off an explicit statistical interpretation. Specifically, we study a sequential game in which an agent chooses a policy to maximize cumulative reward while a monitor observes policy outputs over time and tests for deviations from the reference policy. Although not originating from the same perspective, we show that the resulting equilibrium policy can nonetheless be expressed as the solution to a KL-regularized RL problem for an optimal regularization parameter that can be viewed as maximizing reward per unit of statistical distinguishability. Drawing on classical results from concave-convex fractional programming, we provide a principled method for learning this equilibrium coefficient via reduction to the KL-regularized RL objective, thus allowing for flexible integration into standard fine-tuning pipelines. In experiments with Qwen3-8B and Llama-3.2-1B, we demonstrate that our methods result in competitive reward-retention trade-offs in a continual learning setting, and illustrate how our framework may be used to audit API providers serving open-source models.

This work presents a game-theoretic framework for interpretable hyperparameter-objective interaction analysis rather than proposing a new optimization algorithm. In the proposed framework, Shapley Effects are employed for global sensitivity analysis, while Pareto front sets are utilized to identify effective hyperparameter configurations and support early-stage model evaluation. The resulting analysis reveals which players (hyperparameters) are most influential with respect to different objectives in a given game (application). Consequently, the proposed framework provides interpretable insights into objective-aware hyperparameter interactions, enabling practitioners to guide subsequent optimization, reduce the search space, and perform early-stage model evaluation. The effectiveness of the proposed framework is demonstrated using three distinct neural network architectures across different problem domains under multi-objective settings.

Autonomous racing demands planning algorithms that balance vehicle dynamics at the limits of handling with strategic decision-making in competitive multi-agent scenarios. Game theory provides a mathematical framework for modeling these interactions, enabling interactive trajectory planning and strategic behaviors, such as blocking. However, directly solving full dynamic games online is computationally prohibitive and challenging to integrate into robust, high-frequency autonomous software stacks. This paper proposes a hybrid architecture that integrates game-theoretic reasoning into a sampling-based motion planner, combining strategic interactions with robust trajectory generation. Building upon an $α$-potential game formulation, we utilize an offline-learned potential function to capture multi-agent interactions. During online operation, a gradient-based optimization dynamically refines interaction parameters to generate an \textit{Interaction Reference Path}. This path serves as a dynamic cost bias within a high-frequency sampling planner. We evaluate our approach in a high-fidelity simulation environment on the Yas Marina Circuit. Qualitative and quantitative results demonstrate that our approach successfully induces defensive behaviors like blocking without carrying the computational burden of full dynamic game solvers.

The application of lightweight Large Language Models in rule-based scientific domains remains severely limited by their tendency to mimic linguistic patterns rather than reproduce axiomatic reasoning, causing frequent hallucinations. Here, we show that G-Frame, an adaptive multi-agent framework integrating Bayesian and team game principles, establishes an automated closed-loop for high-quality data synthesis and model training. By forcing the internalization of domain constraints through structured reasoning, we synthesized a specialized corpus of 363,045 chains-of-thought and 199,589 question-answer pairs. The resulting 7B model OmniChem achieves performance parity with GPT 4o mini on custom benchmarks and ChemBench while exhibiting a 79.46% reduction in hallucinations relative to its base architecture. We further demonstrate the advanced capabilities of OmniChem in molecular design and synthesis planning. This work establishes a scalable paradigm utilizing adaptive multi-agents to overcome inherent reasoning deficiencies, offering a feasible pathway for accelerating knowledge discovery in specialized scientific fields.

As large language models are deployed as autonomous agents that communicate intentions before acting, a critical safety question is whether agents that publicly commit to actions will honor those commitments. We place LLM agents in repeated $n$-player games with a three-stage protocol that separates private intent, public announcement, and final action, allowing us to identify whether each deviation from a stated announcement was already planned during private deliberation. Evaluating three frontier models across six games in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups over 10 rounds, we report two findings. First, when agents deviate from their announcements, the deviation is predominantly already stated in their private plan (exceeding 90% in the highest-deception conditions), yet this is not a fixed model property: the same model ranges from perfect honesty to near-total deviation across games. Second, different models interpret announcements incompatibly, some as binding commitments and others as cheap talk, producing payoff gaps that emerge in Round~0 and persist across all 10 rounds. Systems that combine models from different providers therefore cannot assume shared announcement semantics and require empirical testing of model interactions before deployment.

We ask under what conditions an agent with a harm-minimizing policy can displace an approval-seeking (RLHF) agent in a competitive market, and when that policy is sufficient to prevent community harm. We use evolutionary game theory (finite-population Moran-Fermi pairwise comparison) to formalize this subject to assumptions of wisher hindsight, peer testimony, a monotone harm ledger, sufficient information density of community feedback, and a finite, depleting resource pool, in a negative-sum environment. We show that adoption is favored when the prior distributions on how readily wishers attune to community sentiment are monotone, exhibit endpoint inversion, and have a centro-symmetric pairing property, and demonstrate this with several long-tailed priors (Hill, Pareto, Lomax, Frechet). Where it is favored, a critical adoption level separates communities that drift back to the approval-seeking agent from those for which the audited agent fixes; above that level fixation is the overwhelmingly likely outcome. We derive when fixation is attainable as a bound on the effective (informational) size N_c of the community, which must be small enough to allow fixation before depletion. We present these as Theorems 5.4 and 5.5; the algebraic and finite-grid backbone is machine-checked in Lean 4, with the barrier-crossing asymptotics retained as explicit hypotheses. We show that a self-audited agent with a community ledger is not, in general, sufficient to prevent community harm. Sufficiency depends both upon the alignment of the agent's audit with community values and the timeframe over which harm is evaluated. Regardless of alignment, once adoption reaches dominance, the state is absorbing. The same policy that reduced harm under alignment becomes a trap, welfare-negative under misalignment and, even under alignment, one that locks in harm deferred past the adoption horizon.

Theory-of-mind evaluations of large language models typically use dyadic social-deduction games, where every observable cue points to a single hidden side, so a model with strong language priors can score well without ever simulating opponents' incentives. We extend the Werewolf game with a Jester, a third faction whose utility on peer suspicion is inverted because it wins by being voted out, so optimal play requires reasoning across three opposing utility functions. Across 60 games on GPT-4.1, DeepSeek-V3.1, and Llama-3.3-70B with Jester self-learning on and off, the Jester wins 60-70% of games while Werewolves never exceed 20%, and GPT-4.1 wolves vote the Jester out on day 1 in 60-70% of games, a strictly self-defeating action. Self-learning helps DeepSeek and Llama but hurts GPT-4.1, with the cost landing on Villagers rather than Werewolves. Only DeepSeek learns the subtle strategy of looking suspicious without looking intentionally suspicious, and it gains the most from the loop. Triadic incentive structure exposes a layer of multi-agent reasoning that dyadic deduction games leave invisible.

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.

Recent work has established that regularized policy gradient methods such as PPO, when used in self-play, can match or exceed specialized game-theoretic algorithms for solving two-player zero-sum imperfect-information games. The uniform distribution has emerged as a strong policy regularization target for this purpose, but it regularizes equally toward all actions regardless of their viability. We introduce EMAgnet, which instead regularizes toward an exponential moving average (EMA) of the last-iterate policy's parameters, providing an adaptive regularization target that evolves with the agent's improving strategy. We evaluate EMAgnet on both standard two-player zero-sum benchmarks and modified benchmarks with exploration challenges and large numbers of strictly dominated strategies. Relative to PPO self-play with uniform-magnet regularization under both linear and power-law annealing schedules, EMAgnet achieves lower exploitability in the majority of tested environments, with consistent performance gains across games containing strictly dominated strategies.

Location encoders transform geographic coordinates into high dimensional embeddings for downstream machine learning, but it is unclear how well these representations capture interpretable spatial effects. We benchmark whether GeoShapley, a game-theoretic explainer that treats all location features as a single joint player, can recover spatially varying coefficients from models built on location-encoder embeddings. Eleven encoders from the TorchSpatial framework are evaluated against a synthetic process with known coefficients, across three scales (grid, county, global), with and without raw coordinates alongside the embedding, and under untrained and contrastively trained conditions. Measuring recovery as the correlation between estimated and true coefficients, we report how it varies with scale and encoder architecture and compare the embeddings against a raw-coordinate baseline. Recovery of the primary coefficient is consistently high across encoders, whereas recovery of a secondary coefficient is more scale-dependent, differing most at the global scale; the raw-coordinate baseline remains competitive throughout.

Disaggregated inference architectures physically separate prefill and decode phases onto distinct GPU pools, creating competing "agents" that share a fixed hardware budget. We provide, to our knowledge, the first formal game-theoretic analysis of this architecture, using NVIDIA Dynamo as a concrete case study. We model disaggregated serving as three coupled games: a two-player resource game between prefill and decode pools, a selfish caching game over the hierarchical KV cache, and a congestion game with positive externalities for request routing. We empirically validate the latter two; the P/D resource game is treated analytically (Section 9.2). We characterize how GPU saturation induces regime transitions that shift the game's payoff structure: below saturation, selfish behavior has bounded Price of Anarchy (PoA); at saturation, superlinear latency and cache externalities drive our empirical estimator PoA-hat (defined in Section 6.4) upward. Based on this analysis, we design an adaptive controller that detects saturation transitions in real time and adjusts routing parameters accordingly, shifting from cache-affinity exploitation to load-balanced congestion avoidance. We instantiate our framework on a 3-node NVIDIA B200 cluster running Dynamo with two models, Nemotron-4-340B (TP=8, full-node workers with cross-InfiniBand KV transfers) and Llama-3.1-70B (TP=4), and find the same three-regime PoA-hat structure with the same first post-knee grid point (C=128) on both models. Adaptive routing shifts each model to a better operating point. Our strongest result is on the 70B 1P/5D topology, where PoA-hat drops 3.1x (66.4 to 21.5) in the saturated phase at a 13% throughput cost. On the 70B 1P/2D, PoA-hat drops 2.2x and TTFT P99 drops 7.6x (see Section 8.5).

Multi-agent LLM systems increasingly rely on communication protocols for coordination, yet their robustness under adversarial and structural constraints remains poorly understood. Building on prior work showing that cheap-talk channels enable cooperation in LLM coordination games, we investigate two vulnerability classes in a 4-player Stag Hunt across six model families and 720 trials. First, when Byzantine agents signal cooperation but defect, non-Byzantine agents detect the betrayal within one round yet fail to adapt collectively: a substantial fraction continue cooperating despite repeated exploitation, unable to recover coordination due to the game's unanimity payoff structure. Second, explicitly restricting communication topology collapses cooperation, while applying identical restrictions silently preserves near-perfect cooperation. This establishes that coordination failure stems from agents' meta-reasoning about hidden information, not information loss itself. We identify two stable behavioral archetypes that replicate across all model cohorts: Defection-Prone models that switch permanently after betrayal, and Cooperation-Persistent models that continue cooperating at significant individual cost. These findings reveal concrete security vulnerabilities: communication channels can be exploited as adversarial injection vectors, and disclosing network topology to agents can degrade coordination even without any adversary present.

In this paper, we study regret minimization in repeated games with \emph{adaptive} opponents who can respond based on histories of play. The standard metric of \emph{external regret} in online learning is known to fail to capture such adaptivity. To account for players' counterfactual reasoning, we introduce {\tt Repeated Policy Regret (RP-Regret)}, a game-theoretic metric that measures the difference between the \emph{realized} and the \emph{best-in-hindsight} accumulated utility when all players can \emph{respond} to the history of play. Compared to existing regret notions in this setting, ours is native to repeated game playing, enabling stronger comparators and opponents with fewer constraints, while maintaining the possibility of finding better equilibria when all players minimize it. We first identify necessary conditions for obtaining {\tt RP-Regret} sublinear in time, on the variation of the player's comparator strategies in the regret definition and on the memories of both the comparator and opponents' strategies. We then study additional conditions and provable algorithms to minimize {\tt RP-Regret}, which is by definition \emph{non-convex} in the strategy space. To address this challenge, we propose three algorithms: (i) one based on an optimization oracle, as assumed in some prior work in online non-convex learning; (ii) one that minimizes a convex and \emph{linearized} surrogate of {\tt RP-Regret} at each iteration; (iii) one that directly minimizes {\tt RP-Regret} when opponents change strategies slowly. Furthermore, when all players can run algorithms to minimize the {\tt RP-Regret} (or its linearized variant), certain subgame perfect equilibria of the repeated game can be learned. We also provide experiments showing that minimizing our regret notions can lead to more cooperative solutions with higher utility in games such as Stag-Hunt.

LLM-based multi-agent systems are increasingly used for strategic decision-making tasks. In such settings, performance depends not only on individual model capabilities, but also on the policies by which agents interact and adapt. Multi-agent reinforcement learning can optimise these interaction policies, but its reward design often remains task-specific and weakly grounded in interaction structure. To address this gap, we propose GARL, a GAme-theoretic Reinforcement Learning framework for multi-agent strategic prioritisation. GARL formalises strategic prioritisation as a two-stage game: competing agents first allocate strategic resources over a shared candidate set, and a higher-level arbiter then produces the final ranking. The resulting game-theoretic utilities are converted into role-specific reinforcement signals, allowing policy optimisation to be guided by structured interaction. We instantiate GARL on issues-in-dispute ranking, where the goal is to prioritise core issues in legal proceedings. Experiments show that GARL improves ranking performance, enables small open-source LLMs to become competitive with a strong closed-source LLM under the same candidate-ranking setting, and yields gains in legal-domain competence and broader strategic decision-making. Overall, GARL demonstrates how game-theoretic interaction structure can be turned into reinforcement-learning objectives, providing a principled approach to policy optimisation in multi-agent strategic prioritisation.

Shapley values are a principled attribution measure widely used in interpretable machine learning, but their exact computation scales exponentially with the number of players, motivating a wide range of approximation methods based on value function evaluations of sampled coalitions. This raises the question of whether approximation accuracy can be improved by adaptively selecting coalitions for evaluation based on previous evaluations. This is particularly relevant in settings where the value function is costly and the number of evaluations is severely limited, such as retraining-based feature importance, data valuation, and hyperparameter importance. For this purpose, we propose ShaplEIG, a Bayesian experimental design approach that approximates the expensive value function using a Gaussian process surrogate and adaptively selects coalitions based on their expected information gain about the Shapley values. By the linearity of the Shapley values in the value function, we show that the expected information gain is available in closed form. Furthermore, we propose an efficient computation scheme that reduces the complexity from exponential to polynomial in the number of players via elementary symmetric polynomials. In extensive experiments across diverse costly applications, our method consistently improves sample efficiency in the low-budget regime over state-of-the-art baselines.

In this work we study agents in simulated bargaining scenarios, where a buyer and a seller communicate through a text channel and attempt to negotiate mutually beneficial trades, under different information regimes (complete information, information asymmetry or mutual uncertainty). We evaluate their performance w.r.t. game-theoretical solutions and further investigate their honesty (their tendency to disclose or withhold information or to mislead and deceive) as well as their credulity (their tendency to trust or distrust information provided by the other agent). We study zero-shot LLM agents with simple prompting scaffolding as well as fine-tuned agents, in order to investigate whether optimising the agents to maximise financial profits makes them stronger negotiators but also more dishonest and less trusting. We find that off-the-shelf LLMs all substantially deviate from game-theoretical equilibria, they attempt to lie about their private information but cannot efficiently exploit information asymmetries. Fine-tuning on financial utility makes the agents stronger at achieving better deals but also more dishonest, highlighting the risks that optimising agents for a task can have on their safety. We release our code and a dataset of bargaining scenarios.

Data valuation, the task of quantifying the contribution of individual data points to model performance, has emerged as a fundamental challenge in machine learning. Game-theoretic approaches, such as the Banzhaf value, offer principled frameworks for fair data valuation; however, they suffer from exponential computational complexity. We address this challenge by developing efficient algorithms specifically tailored for computing Banzhaf values in $k$-nearest neighbor ($k$NN) classifiers. We first establish the theoretical hardness of the problem by proving that it is #P-hard. Despite this intractability, we exploit the locality properties of $k$NN classifiers to develop practical exact algorithms. Our main contribution is a dynamic programming framework that achieves significant computational improvements: we present a pseudo-polynomial algorithm with $O(Wkn^2)$ time complexity for weighted $k$NN classifiers, where $W$ is the maximum sum of top-$k$ weights, and a specialized algorithm for unweighted $k$NN that achieves $O(nk^2)$ time complexity, that is, linear in the number of data points. We also offer efficient Monte Carlo estimation methods. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate the practical efficiency of our approach and its effectiveness in data valuation applications.

In this paper, we investigate whether deep reinforcement-learning agents interacting in a shared optimal-execution environment can sustain supra-competitive outcomes, in the sense of achieving lower implementation shortfalls than the relevant game-theoretical competitive benchmark. We study a two-agent Almgren-Chriss liquidation game and examine how learned behavior depends on intra-episode environment feedback, the ability to interpret the mid-price and the agent's knoledge of the past. We first use ex-ante schedule-learning agents to remove intra-episode feedback and isolate what can arise when agents commit to complete liquidation trajectories before execution begins. We then allow agents to condition on the evolving state using a variety of DDQN architectures. We find that, when agents are given access to intra-episode history, especially recent prices and own past actions, supra-competitive outcomes become substantially more frequent and more persistent. These findings indicate that supra-competitive behavior in this execution game is driven not by multi-agent learning or by current price observation alone, but by feedback, memory, and state-contingent interaction along the realized execution path.

As jailbreaks, adversarially crafted inputs that bypass safety constraints, continue to be discovered in Large Language Models, practitioners increasingly rely on fine-tuning as a defensive strategy. Yet the theoretical foundations underlying this robustness fine-tuning remain underexplored. We introduce a game-theoretic framework in which the interaction between an evaluator (auditing the model for jailbreaks) and a trainer is formalized as a two-player game. A key feature of our approach is the use of group actions, a mathematical structure that captures symmetries and transformations, to formally represent data augmentation. The simplest non-trivial instance is the circle with cyclic translation groups, where we exhibit various regimes depending on the trainer's generalization range. Below a critical threshold, the evaluator maintains a constant miss ratio for linearly many rounds, whereas other settings can yield very different behaviors. We further provide empirical evidence supporting locality-dependence of the model: for the three model families we tested (Llama, Qwen and Mistral), we have significant evidence that fine-tuning on adversarial prompts induces only local generalization, with refusal rates on test examples highly correlated with the distance to the fine-tuning prompts. Our framework recasts the central object of adversarial evaluation: a benchmark is not a static set of prompts but an orbit under the evaluator's group action, and audit protocols that ignore trainer-side adaptation cannot distinguish a genuine fix from a memorized patch.

Personalized pricing negotiations are a challenging testbed for LLM agents because successful interaction does not guarantee profitable decision making. A seller may produce valid actions and close many deals while still pricing poorly when buyer willingness to pay and bargaining traits remain hidden. This paper presents PrefBench, a simulator-based benchmark for hidden-preference personalized pricing negotiations. Each episode pairs a simulated buyer with a fixed vehicle-customization bundle; the seller observes public persona descriptors, bundle information, and negotiation history, while latent buyer variables govern valuation, patience, counter-offer behavior, and walkaway decisions. PrefBench evaluates this setting through an LLM-facing state-summary protocol that constrains agents to return strict JSON actions under a fixed hidden-information boundary. We evaluate zero-shot LLM sellers against heuristic references over 7,500 episodes. The tested LLMs follow the protocol reliably and achieve deal rates above 0.99, but their seller-profit outcomes remain weak: the best LLM average profit is only slightly above the random baseline and far below a simple concession heuristic under the same episode stream. These results show that structured action compliance and agreement-seeking behavior can coexist with weak profit-sensitive bargaining. PrefBench provides a controlled benchmark for evaluating pricing-agent behavior under hidden buyer preferences.

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.

Negotiation requires more than inferring what the other side wants: it requires using that information to make advantageous offers and counteroffers over multiple turns. We study whether large language model (LLM) agents do this in a controlled multi-attribute bargaining environment. We find that current LLM agents can model a counterparty's preferences, but do not reliably turn that knowledge into strategic bargaining. When given negotiating partner preference information, agents model it accurately and early in their reasoning traces, yet this does not reliably improve outcomes for the informed side. Turn-level analyses show why: agents often respond to what they believe the counterparty values, but do not consistently pair those moves with gains on their own high-value attributes. Sellers are more accommodating overall, and in asymmetric-information conditions, the informed side often makes the more weakly compensated concessions. Because agents fail to leverage this underlying utility structure for strategic advantage, their final agreements are heavily dictated by surface-level opening anchors rather than actual utility weights. Finally, requiring agents to explicitly state concession-for-reciprocity trades before making an offer makes individual turns look more strategic, but ultimately fails to improve the efficiency of the final agreements.

Financial, social, and political factors often prevent the interests of the owners of ML systems and services and their users from being perfectly aligned. ML systems often produce biased information that can influence users to make decisions that are not in their best interest. Current solution approaches require ML systems to implement protocols to mitigate their biases. However, ML system owners usually do not have any incentive to implement these protocols and often argue that it limits their freedom of expression or business. We believe that a successful solution to this problem must recognize the conflict of interest between the ML systems and their users, and use this information to protect users against information that adversely influences their decisions while allowing users to safely benefit from these systems. To this end, we propose a game-theoretic framework that models the interaction between ML systems and users with conflicts of interest. We present scalable algorithms with theoretical guarantees that maximize the amount of desired information and actions and minimize the amount of biased and manipulative actions in interaction with ML systems.

Shapley value and its priority-aware extensions are widely used for valuation in machine learning, but existing methods require pairwise priority to be binary and acyclic, a restriction spectacularly violated in real-data examples such as aggregated human preferences and multi-criterion comparisons. We introduce the generalized priority-aware Shapley value (GPASV), a random order value defined on arbitrary directed weighted priority graphs, in which pairwise edges penalize rather than forbid order violations. GPASV covers a range of classical models as boundary cases. We establish GPASV through an axiomatic characterization, develop the associated computational methods, and introduce a priority sweeping diagnostic extending PASV's. We apply GPASV to LLM ensemble valuation on the cyclic Chatbot Arena preference graph, illustrating that priority-aware valuation is not a one-button operation: different balances of pairwise graph priority versus individual soft priority produce substantively different valuations of the same data.

We introduce \textsc{Cattle Trade, a multi-agent benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as agents in strategic reasoning under imperfect information, adversarial interaction, and resource constraints. The benchmark combines auctions, hidden-offer trade challenges (TCs), bargaining, bluffing, opponent modeling, and resource allocation within a single long-horizon game lasting 50--60 turns. Unlike prior agent benchmarks that test these abilities in isolation, \textsc{Cattle Trade} evaluates whether agents integrate them across a competitive, multi-agent economic game with conflicting incentives. The benchmark logs every bid, TC offer, counteroffer, and card selection, enabling behavioural analysis beyond final scores or win rates. We evaluate seven cost-efficient language models and three deterministic code agents across 242 games. Strategic coherence, in particular spending efficiency, resource discipline, and phase-adaptive bidding, is associated with rank more strongly than spending volume or any single subskill. Two heuristic code agents outperform most tested LLMs, and behavioural traces surface recurring LLM failure modes including overbidding, self-bidding, bankrupt TC initiation, and weak opponent-state adaptation. Evaluating agentic competence requires benchmarks that test the joint deployment of multiple capabilities in multi-agent environments with conflicting incentives, uncertainty, and economic dynamics.

Probabilistic prediction systems often aggregate probability estimates from multiple models into a single decision. A common assumption is that if each model is individually calibrated, the aggregate prediction will also be well calibrated. We show that this assumption fails in multi-agent settings: individually calibrated predictors can become collectively miscalibrated when their predictions interact strategically, in the game-theoretic sense of Brier-optimal local response, even without deliberate coordination. This phenomenon arises naturally when agents are independently trained on overlapping data. We prove that under Brier-score-based aggregation with positively correlated beliefs, each agent's individually optimal report systematically underestimates the positive-class probability, yielding a Price of Anarchy greater than one whenever Cov(b_i, b_j) > 0. In a canonical setting (n = 5 agents, pairwise correlation = 0.5, base rate = 0.3), the empirically measured PoA in false-negative rate reaches 7.25x. In contrast, VCG-based aggregation aligns incentives by rewarding marginal contribution, achieving dominant-strategy incentive compatibility and near-optimal performance. Experiments on three real-world datasets (NSL-KDD, UNSW-NB15, Credit Card Fraud) show that VCG provides strong robustness while maintaining comparable accuracy. It performs particularly well in data-sparse and adversarial settings, and adaptive weighting further improves performance under distribution shift.

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.

Herding -- where agents align their behaviors and act collectively -- is a central driver of market fragility and systemic risk. Existing approaches to quantify herding rely on price-correlation statistics, which inherently lag because they only detect coordination after it has already moved realised returns. We propose GeomHerd, a forward-looking geometric framework that bypasses this observability lag by quantifying coordination directly on upstream agent-interaction graphs. To generate these graphs, we treat a heterogeneous LLM-driven multi-agent simulator -- each financial trader instantiated by a persona-conditioned LLM call -- as a forecastable world, and evaluate the geometric pipeline on the Cividino--Sornette continuous-spin agent-based substrate as our headline financial testbed. By tracking the discrete Ollivier--Ricci curvature of these action graphs, GeomHerd captures the structural topology of emerging coordination. Theoretically, we establish a mean-field bridge mapping our graph-theoretic metric to CSAD, the classical macroscopic herding statistic, linking GeomHerd to downstream price-dispersion measurement. Empirically, GeomHerd anticipates herding long before aggregate market baselines: on the continuous-spin substrate, our primary detector fires a median of 272 steps before order-parameter onset; a contagion detector ($β_{-}$) recalls 65% of critical trajectories 318 steps early; and on co-firing trajectories the agent-graph signal precedes price-correlation-graph baselines by 40 steps. As a complementary indicator, the effective vocabulary of agent actions contracts during cascades. The geometric signature transfers out-of-domain to the Vicsek self-driven-particle model, and a curvature-conditioned forecasting head reduces cascade-window log-return MAE over detector-conditioned and price-only baselines.

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.

Agent-based modeling (ABM) has long been used in economics to study human behavior, and large language model (LLM) agents now enable new forms of social and economic simulation. While prior work has discovered strategic deception by LLM agents in financial trading and auction markets, e-commerce remains underexplored despite its distinctive information asymmetry: sellers privately observe product quality, whereas buyers rely on advertised claims and reputation signals. We introduce TruthMarketTwin, a controlled simulation framework for studying LLM-agent behavior in e-commerce markets. The framework is one of the first to model bilateral trade under asymmetric information sharing, where agents make strategic listing, purchasing, rating, and recourse-related decisions to optimize seller profit and buyer utility. We find that LLM agents released into traditional markets autonomously exploit weaknesses in reputation-based governance, while warrant enforcement reduces deception and reshapes strategic reasoning. Our results position LLM-agent simulation as a tool for studying institution-governed autonomous markets.

Accurate stock price forecasting has consistently remained a pivotal yet challenging FinTech task that underpins quantitative trading and investment decision making. Recent efforts have been dedicated to modeling various complex relationships among stocks in the stock market toward more reliable stock price forecasting.These methods depend heavily on strong static prior assumptions by modeling either temporal dependencies within individual stocks or spatial dependencies across different stocks based on predefined structures, while the complex market dynamics that drive stock price movements remain unexplored. To alleviate this issue, we propose a novel game-theoretic modeling method that captures heterogeneous investor interactions for stock price forecasting. The core idea is to embed game-theoretic mechanisms into the heterogeneous graph structure to finely model the dynamic strategic interactions among heterogeneous investors with respect to target stocks. Additionally, temporal positional encoding is adopted to reflect the differentiated influences of each game event at different time steps within the time window on future stock price movements. Leveraging heterogeneous graph networks, we proxy the intricate dynamics of the stock market through investor games and enable real-time information propagation and node updates among all nodes. Extensive experiments conducted on two real-world benchmark dataset demonstrate that our method effectively outperforms state-of-the-art stock price forecasting methods.

Activated PI3K8 Syndrome (APDS) is a rare genetic immune disorder caused by variants in PIK3CD or PIK3R1, with highly heterogeneous symptoms that often delay diagnosis. Early recognition is hampered by overlapping clinical presentations and limited clinician awareness, motivating systematic, data-driven approaches to detect APDS-associated phenotypic patterns in routine electronic health records. Traditional linear scoring systems cannot capture complex symptom interactions, while deep learning models, though expressive, often lack interpretability. To bridge this gap, we propose Shapley regression, a novel game-theoretic model replacing the linear predictor with a k-additive cooperative game, explicitly modeling co-occurrence of symptoms while maintaining the transparency and convexity of logistic regression. We carry out an empirical study of our lightweight method on eight public biomedical datasets, showing that a 2-additive model with $l_{2}$ regularization achieves an optimal trade-off between predictive power and noise robustness. We also apply it to a real-world cohort of 222 patients, on which Shapley regression accurately distinguished APDS cases from matched controls, confirming and validating phenotypes known to be associated with APDS, and facilitating the exploration of pairwise interactions between symptoms, validated by clinical experts.

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.

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 introduce the metagame, a conceptual framework for quantifying second-order interaction effects of model explanations. For any first-order attribution $φ(f)$ explaining a model $f$, we measure the directional influence of feature $j$ on the attribution of feature $i$, denoted as meta-attribution $\varphi_{j \to i}(f)$, by treating the attribution method itself as a cooperative game and computing its Shapley value. Theoretically, we prove that attributions hierarchically decompose into meta-attributions, and establish these as directional extensions of existing interaction indices. Empirically, we demonstrate that the metagame delivers insights across diverse interpretability applications: (i) quantifying token interactions in instruction-tuned language models, (ii) explaining cross-modal similarity in vision-language encoders, and (iii) interpreting text-to-image concepts in multimodal diffusion transformers.

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.

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.

Grounding is the collaborative process of establishing mutual belief sufficient for a communicative goal. While static grounding maps language to a shared context, dynamic grounding requires agents to negotiate meaning across turns. Current multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) benchmarks largely emphasize static, one-shot tasks, overlooking whether agents can repair grounding breakdowns through interaction. We introduce an iterated multi-turn negotiation game where two agents allocate shared resources to private projects with verifiable jointly optimal outcomes. Although individual agents can identify Pareto-optimal allocations in isolation, agent dyads consistently fail to reach them across models. We identify four failure modes: (1) loss of shared interaction history, (2) stubborn anchoring to early proposals, (3) defaulting to equal splits over reward-maximizing coordination, and (4) referential binding errors across turns. Our baselines show that the coordination gap is not explained by individual reasoning limits or insufficient information exchange alone. Instead, the bottleneck lies in dynamic grounding: joint plan formation, commitment, and execution.

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.

In this work, we introduce the Deceptive Resource Allocation Game (DRAG), which studies purposeful deception within a Bayesian game framework. In DRAG, a Defender allocates resources across the true asset and several decoys to influence an Attacker's beliefs and actions, with the goal of diverting the Attacker away from the true asset. We seek to characterize purposeful deception, whereby the Defender deceives only when doing so improves its performance. To this end, we solve for the Perfect Bayesian Nash Equilibrium (PBNE) of the corresponding game. We show that, despite the coupled belief-policy interdependence, the problem admits an efficient, non-iterative linear programming formulation. Numerical results demonstrate that the resulting policies naturally balance effective allocation and belief manipulation, giving rise to purposeful and emergent deceptive behaviors.

Cloud-hosted Large Language Models (LLMs) offer unmatched reasoning capabilities and dynamic knowledge, yet submitting raw queries to these external services risks exposing sensitive user intent. Conversely, relying exclusively on trusted local models preserves privacy but often compromises answer quality due to limited parameter scale and knowledge. To resolve this dilemma, we propose Game-theoretic Trustworthy Knowledge Acquisition (GTKA), a framework that formulates the trade-off between knowledge utility and privacy as a strategic game. GTKA consists of three components: (i) a privacy-aware sub-query generator that decomposes sensitive intent into generalized, low-risk fragments; (ii) an adversarial reconstruction attacker that attempts to infer the original query from these fragments, providing adaptive leakage signals; and (iii) a trusted local integrator that synthesizes external responses within a secure boundary. By training the generator and attacker in an alternating adversarial manner, GTKA optimizes the sub-query generation policy to maximize knowledge acquisition accuracy while minimizing the reconstructability of the original sensitive intent. To validate our approach, we construct two sensitive-domain benchmarks in the biomedical and legal fields. Extensive experiments demonstrate that GTKA significantly reduces intent leakage compared to state-of-the-art baselines while maintaining high-fidelity answer quality.

Multi-agent systems built from teams of large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for collaborative scientific reasoning and problem-solving. These systems require agents to coordinate under shared constraints, such as GPUs or credit balances, where cooperative behavior matters. Behavioral economics provides a rich toolkit of games that isolate distinct cooperation mechanisms, yet it remains unknown whether a model's behavior in these stylized settings predicts its performance in realistic collaborative tasks. Here, we benchmark 35 open-weight LLMs across six behavioral economics games and show that game-derived cooperative profiles robustly predict downstream performance in AI-for-Science tasks, where teams of LLM agents collaboratively analyze data, build models, and produce scientific reports under shared budget constraints. Models that effectively coordinate games and invest in multiplicative team production (rather than greedy strategies) produce better scientific reports across three outcomes, accuracy, quality, and completion. These associations hold after controlling for multiple factors, indicating that cooperative disposition is a distinct, measurable property of LLMs not reducible to general ability. Our behavioral games framework thus offers a fast and inexpensive diagnostic for screening cooperative fitness before costly multi-agent deployment.

Consider betting against a sequence of data in $[0,1]$, where one is allowed to make any bet that is fair if the data have a conditional mean $m_0 \in (0,1)$. Cover's universal portfolio algorithm delivers a worst-case regret of $O(\ln n)$ compared to the best constant bet in hindsight, and this bound is unimprovable against adversarially generated data. In this work, we present a novel mixture betting strategy that combines insights from Robbins and Cover, and exhibits a different behavior: it eventually produces a regret of $O(\ln \ln n)$ on almost all paths (a measure-one set of paths if each conditional mean equals $m_0$ and intrinsic variance increases to $\infty$), but has an $O(\log n)$ regret on the complement (a measure zero set of paths). Our paper appears to be the first to point out the value in hedging two very different strategies to achieve a best-of-both-worlds adaptivity to stochastic data and protection against adversarial data. We contrast our results to those in Agrawal and Ramdas [2026] for a sub-Gaussian mixture on unbounded data: their worst-case regret has to be unbounded, but a similar hedging delivers both an optimal betting growth-rate and an almost sure $\ln\ln n$ regret on stochastic data. Finally, our strategy witnesses a sharp game-theoretic upper law of the iterated logarithm, analogous to Shafer and Vovk [2005].

Can Large Language Models (AI agents) aggregate dispersed private information through trading and reason about the knowledge of others by observing price movements? We conduct a controlled experiment where AI agents trade in a prediction market after receiving private signals, measuring information aggregation by the log error of the last price. We find that although the median market is effective at aggregating information in the easy information structures, increasing the complexity has a significant and negative impact, suggesting that AI agents may suffer from similar limitations as humans when reasoning about others. Consistent with our theoretical predictions, information aggregation remains unaffected by allowing cheap talk communication, changing the duration of the market or initial price, and strategic prompting, thus demonstrating that prediction markets are robust. We establish that "smarter" AI agents perform better at aggregation and they are more profitable. Surprisingly, giving them feedback about past performance has no impact on aggregation.

We introduce the first version of KWBench (Knowledge Work Bench), a benchmark for unprompted problem recognition in large language models: can an LLM identify a professional scenario before attempting to solve it. Existing frontier benchmarks have saturated, and most knowledge-work evaluations to date reduce to extraction or task completion against a specification. KWBench targets the step before that: recognizing the governing structure of the situation from raw inputs alone. The benchmark contains 223 tasks sourced from practitioners across acquisitions, contract negotiations, clinical pharmacy, organizational politics, fraud analysis, and incentive design. Each task encodes a formal game-theoretic pattern (principal-agent conflict, signaling, mechanism design failure, strategic omission, coalitional dynamics, strategic interdependence) and carries structured ground truth recording the expert reading of the situation and the anticipated failure modes. Models receive raw data and a task prompt with no indication of problem type. Scoring is a three-tier rubric gated by a mandatory conjunctive check. Mandatory criteria encode the predicted wrong paths. We evaluate 16 models. The best model passes on 27.9% of tasks. The top two models agree on only 31.7% of their passes. Among the top 8, 44 tasks are solved by exactly one model; routing across the top 8 covers 50.7% of the benchmark, nearly double the best single model. Conditional on passing, quality scores converge (approx 83% across models); unconditional scores do not. Same models articulate the relevant game-theoretic concept correctly when asked, then fail to apply it unprompted. We release KWBench to shift how frontier models are evaluated on knowledge work, scoring them on whether they recognize the right problem from the situation alone, not only on how well they execute once the problem has been framed for them.

Automated negotiation in complex, multi-party and multi-issue settings critically depends on accurate opponent modeling. However, conventional numerical-only approaches fail to capture the qualitative information embedded in natural language interactions, resulting in unstable and incomplete preference estimation. Although Large Language Models (LLMs) enable rich semantic understanding of utterances, it remains challenging to quantitatively incorporate such information into a consistent opponent modeling. To tackle this issue, we propose a novel preference estimation method integrating natural language information into a structured Bayesian opponent modeling framework. Our approach leverages LLMs to extract qualitative cues from utterances and converts them into probabilistic formats for dynamic belief tracking. Experimental results on a multi-party benchmark demonstrate that our framework improves the full agreement rate and preference estimation accuracy by integrating probabilistic reasoning with natural language understanding.

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.

Modern machine learning systems, such as generative models and recommendation systems, often evolve through a cycle of deployment, user interaction, and periodic model updates. This differs from standard supervised learning frameworks, which focus on loss or regret minimization over a fixed sequence of prediction tasks. Motivated by this setting, we revisit the classical model of learning from equivalence queries, introduced by Angluin (1988). In this model, a learner repeatedly proposes hypotheses and, when a deployed hypothesis is inadequate, receives a counterexample. Under fully adversarial counterexample generation, however, the model can be overly pessimistic. In addition, most prior work assumes a \emph{full-information} setting, where the learner also observes the correct label of the counterexample, an assumption that is not always natural. We address these issues by restricting the environment to a broad class of less adversarial counterexample generators, which we call \emph{symmetric}. Informally, such generators choose counterexamples based only on the symmetric difference between the hypothesis and the target. This class captures natural mechanisms such as random counterexamples (Angluin and Dohrn, 2017; Bhatia, 2021; Chase, Freitag, and Reyzin, 2024), as well as generators that return the simplest counterexample according to a prescribed complexity measure. Within this framework, we study learning from equivalence queries under both full-information and bandit feedback. We obtain tight bounds on the number of learning rounds in both settings and highlight directions for future work. Our analysis combines a game-theoretic view of symmetric adversaries with adaptive weighting methods and minimax arguments.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as decision-making agents in high-stakes domains and as imitators of human behavior in the social and behavioral sciences. Yet how closely LLMs mirror human decision-making remains poorly understood. This gap is critical: misalignment could produce harmful outcomes in practice, while failure to replicate human behavior renders LLMs ineffective as social simulators. Here, we address this gap by replicating large-scale game-theoretic experiments and by introducing a systematic prompting and probing framework for machine-behavioral evaluation. We test three open models typically used to power agents (Llama, Mistral, and Qwen). Across 121 dyadic games spanning four classical game types, Llama reproduces human cooperation patterns with high fidelity, while Qwen aligns closely with Nash equilibrium predictions. Characterizing models through behavioral phenotyping, we find that humans and Llama share an envious decision profile, while Qwen and Mistral exhibit different profiles. An attention-based analysis of payoff salience reveals Llama processes payoff information in a structured, layer-dependent manner absent in Qwen and Mistral, suggesting a mechanistic basis for its closer alignment with human behavior. Population-level behavioral replication is achieved without persona-based prompting, simplifying the simulation process. Extending the experimental parameter space beyond the original human-tested games, we generate and preregister testable hypotheses for novel game configurations. Our findings demonstrate appropriately configured LLMs can replicate aggregate human behavioral patterns, exhibit human-like decision phenotypes, and enable systematic exploration of unexplored experimental spaces, offering a complementary approach to traditional behavioral research that generates new empirical predictions about human social decision-making.

Games have long been a microcosm for studying planning and reasoning in both natural and artificial intelligence (AI), often focusing on expert-level or even super-human play. But real life also pushes human intelligence along a different frontier, requiring people to flexibly navigate decision-making problems that they have never thought about before. Here, we use novice gameplay to study how people reason about new problem settings. Through a series of large-scale behavioral studies with over 1000 participants and 121 two-player strategic board games (almost all novel to our participants), we show that people are systematic and adaptively rational in how they play a game for the first time, or evaluate a game (e.g., how fair or how fun it is likely to be) before they have played it even once. We explain these capacities via a computational cognitive model that we call the 'Intuitive Gamer', a model based on mechanisms of fast and flat (depth-limited) goal-directed probabilistic simulation. Our work offers new insights into how people rapidly evaluate, act, and make suggestions when encountering novel problems, and could inform the design of more flexible and human-like AI systems that can determine not just how to solve new tasks, but whether a task is worth thinking about at all.