Repeated Games

Reinforcement learning agents trained to maximize their own reward in repeated interactions can converge to supra-competitive outcomes resembling explicit collusion, without communication or shared design. Existing mitigation approaches are largely tied to specific economic settings, like two-sided platforms and auctions, leaving open how to design interventions for general repeated games. We address this gap by formalizing the connection between empirical observations from prior work on Q-learning collusion and classical theory of Simple Penal Codes (SPCs). We show any non-trivial SPC induces a quantifiable conditional dependence in agents' policies, detectable via the total variation distance between an agent's action distributions across cooperation and defection histories. Building on this connection, we propose CURB (Collusion Unwinding via Reward shaping and Belief injection), a reward-shaping framework that penalizes this Total Variation (TV) distance signal during Q-learning and is guaranteed to convert any SPC fixed point of the dynamics into a trivial one, thus precluding collusive equilibria sustained by punishment threats. Empirically, CURB substantially reduces collusion by Q-learning agents in both Bertrand and Cournot Competition Repeated Games. We further demonstrate that CURB extends to deep Q-network agents in Bertrand competition, suggesting the mechanism generalizes beyond tabular Q-learning.

In social dilemma games, additional rewards or punishments have been studied as means of promoting cooperation. Therefore, it is important to investigate the ideal situation, in which such an additional payoff would change the game. In this study, we investigated the symmetric solution of the Bellman optimality equation for a repeated harmony game. The calculations showed that three types of symmetric solutions exist. One of them corresponds to the trivial All-C strategy, and another to the Win-stay Lose-shift strategy of the prisoners dilemma game. The nontrivial behavior of the strategy corresponding to the last solution is also discussed in detail. In addition, we numerically investigated which strategy the agents actually learn by the reinforcement learning algorithm.

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.

Algorithmic collusion among pricing algorithms has raised concerns about sustained supra-competitive prices and their implications for social welfare. Existing work has largely focused on the probability that reinforcement-learning algorithms converge to cooperative strategies, typically under the assumption that exploration vanishes over time. Motivated by the observation that algorithms deployed in practice are likely to continue exploring in order to remain adaptive to changing environments, we study learning dynamics under constant exploration. In this setting, the relevant question is no longer whether an algorithm converges to a particular strategy profile, but rather what fraction of time the algorithms spend playing cooperative strategies. Even in the benchmark case of the repeated Prisoner's Dilemma with one-period memory, this yields high-dimensional stochastic learning dynamics, for which a complete analytic treatment is intractable. We show that cooperative strategies can be dominant in this time-averaged sense and derive a boundary predicting when such dominance arises, based on the expected dynamics of the Q-learning process. Extensive simulations show that this boundary is a strong predictor for non-defection-dominated behaviour under epsilon-greedy Q-learning.

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 present a multi-agent system for studying the allocation of discrete, congested resources among heterogeneous strategic agents, motivated by the problem of railway slot allocation under deregulation. Multiple operator-agents, differing in size and capacity, interact through a shared auction mechanism over repeated rounds under time-constrained decision-making. The mechanism combines a congestion-based base price that increases with aggregate demand with an asymmetric corrective adjustment that penalises the agent requesting the most slots and rewards the agent requesting the fewest, and is designed to mitigate strategic dominance by large agents while preserving transparency and congestion sensitivity. We formulate the interaction as a repeated game with incomplete information and implement the system as a real-time, web-based multi-agent environment in which human participants control individual agents and observe live marginal-cost and competitor feedback. We report exploratory observations from two structured sessions with domain experts acting as operator-agents. The congestion mechanism responds to aggregate demand as designed and the corrective incentives are actively triggered, but agents representing large operators persist with high-request strategies despite the penalty, suggesting that corrective pricing is necessary but not sufficient to neutralise strategic dominance in this multi-agent setting. A post-session debrief indicates that participants' decisions were driven by the assumed agent role rather than personal disposition, and provides qualitative support for strategic motives, such as preserving market presence and raising rivals' costs, operating alongside short-term profit maximisation. We discuss implications for multi-agent mechanism design under asymmetric budgets and outline directions for analytical validation and larger-scale multi-agent experiments.

Repeated reference games test whether interlocutors replace their initially long descriptions with shorter, partner-specific expressions grounded in shared interaction history; that is, with conceptual pacts. Prior work shows that multimodal LLMs fail to become more efficient across rounds, although they align on the labels they use. However, how can we determine whether this alignment reflects partner-specific grounding rather than a shared task vocabulary? We address this by comparing competent multimodal agent dyads with human dyads from the KTH Tangrams corpus. Our novel methodological contribution is a pragmatically constrained pseudo-dyad baseline: rounds from two different real dyads describing the same target at comparable trajectory positions are paired, preserving referential task structure while removing shared partner history. This enables us to test whether the observed label alignment depends on interaction with a specific partner. Across three measures (task competence, description strategy, alignment dynamics), we find clear differences. Humans reduce effort through entrainment, compressing descriptions and increasing label alignment with partners. Agents instead maintain fixed effort levels, producing verbose descriptions from round one, with near-ceiling label overlap that is statistically indistinguishable between real and pseudo dyads. MLLMs thus achieve coordination without conceptual pacts, succeeding by verbose description rather than by forming the compact, history-dependent referring expressions characteristic of human dialogue.

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.

Many real-world competitive systems require multiple decision-makers to act simultaneously under shared constraints, limited information, and repeated interaction, as in auctions, resource allocation, and security competition. We study multi-turn simultaneous bidding as a controlled testbed for such problems and propose DNQ, a solver-in-the-loop equilibrium supervision framework for training bidding agents. DNQ alternates between trajectory collection, critic-based payoff estimation, equilibrium computation, and policy imitation. At each visited state, a shared critic predicts either pairwise payoff matrices or an exact N-player payoff tensor, an external solver computes equilibrium strategies, and the agents are trained by minimizing the KL divergence between their masked policies and the solver-derived equilibrium targets. We focus on a scalable pairwise formulation that greatly reduces equilibrium-solving cost and training time compared with the exact formulation, while the shared critic amortizes payoff learning across agents and states. Experiments compare the pairwise and exact variants using critic loss, policy entropy, bidding resource usage, and training cost, showing that the pairwise method scales to larger numbers of agents, whereas the exact method becomes computationally impractical as the joint game grows. These results illustrate the trade-off between strategic fidelity and scalability in repeated competitive environments.

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 study emergent social dynamics in LLM agents playing The Resistance: Avalon, a hidden-role deception game. Unlike prior work on single-game performance, our agents play repeated games while retaining memory of previous interactions, including who played which roles and how they behaved, enabling us to study how social dynamics evolve. Across 188 games, two key phenomena emerge. First, reputation dynamics emerge organically when agents retain cross-game memory: agents reference past behavior in statements like "I am wary of repeating last game's mistake of over-trusting early success." These reputations are role-conditional: the same agent is described as "straightforward" when playing good but "subtle" when playing evil, and high-reputation players receive 46% more team inclusions. Second, higher reasoning effort supports more strategic deception: evil players more often pass early missions to build trust before sabotaging later ones, 75% in high-effort games vs 36% in low-effort games. Together, these findings show that repeated interaction with memory gives rise to measurable reputation and deception dynamics among LLM agents.

Imitation sometimes achieves success in multi-agent situations even though it is very simple. In repeated games, success of imitation has been characterized by unbeatability against other agents. Previous studies specified conditions under which imitation is unbeatable against co-players in repeated symmetric games, and clarified that the existence of unbeatable imitation is strongly related to the existence of payoff-controlling strategies, called zero-determinant strategies. However, these results were on the situations in which one repeated game is played by one group of players. It was pointed out that imitation of other players in the same group and imitation of other players in the same role in other groups generally result in different outcomes. Here, we investigate the existence condition of unbeatable imitation in the latter situations, described by two concurrent repeated games played by two different groups of players. We find that the existence condition of unbeatable imitation is stronger than the existence condition of unbeatable zero-determinant strategies, whereas both are very limited. Furthermore, we also find that adding exploration can make an imitation strategy unbeatable even in games where imitation without exploration can be beaten. Our findings suggest a strong relation between unbeatable imitation and payoff control even in the two concurrent repeated game situations.