Conversation Games and a Strategic View of the Turing Test

Kaveh Aryan

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Conversation Games and a Strategic View of the Turing Test

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims the Turing test, court trials, and interrogations are all instances of a single formal object, the 'verdict game', and that strategic play gives a 64% vs. 27% win advantage in simulations.

desk verdict Clean but thin formal framework whose flagship Turing-test example doesn't match the standard protocol; the paper is an honest proposal but overclaims its central case. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18455 v1 pith:333BVYN2 submitted 2025-01-30 cs.AI cs.GT

Kaveh Aryan This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AIcs.GT MSC 91A1891A1091A26

keywords conversationgamesverdictTuringtestgametheoryextensive-formLLMagentsstrategicclassificationAIdetection

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces the conversation game and its subset, the verdict game, and argues that court trials, police interrogations, and the Turing test are all instances of this single formal object. In a verdict game, two players alternate adding utterances to a shared transcript, and a fixed, non-strategic string classifier returns a binary verdict or 'continue' after each round; utility depends on the final verdict and the players' private types. The paper shows that the Turing test is isomorphic to an interrogation game, with 'Human' and 'Machine' witness types mapped to 'Non-Guilty' and 'Guilty'. It also reports a simulation in which a strategic LLM prosecutor wins 64% of trials versus 27% for a naive prosecutor, arguing this demonstrates the practical value of the strategic view. If the claim holds, the framework provides a unified game-theoretic vocabulary for adversarial dialogue with an external evaluator, and reframes AI detection as an interactive problem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the verdict game itself: a finite extensive-form game in which the state is a string over an alphabet $\Sigma$, X and Y append delimiters '#' and '@', and a non-strategic classifier $C$ maps the transcript to a verdict in $\{0,1,\mathrm{Cont}\}$. This classifier makes utility depend on the conversation history alone, and it is the mechanism that unifies court, interrogation, and Turing test into one formalism. The corresponding solution concepts are Subgame Perfect Equilibrium for the complete-information court game and Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium for the Bayesian interrogation and Turing variants; the paper notes the action space is too large for exhaustive search and suggests Monte Carlo Tree Search as an approximation.

What would settle it

Run the court simulation with a judge allowed to ask questions or consider physical evidence, and check whether the strategic prosecutor's 64% win rate survives; if the advantage disappears or reverses, the pure string-classifier assumption is the active ingredient. Alternatively, a real trial or Turing test whose verdict changes based on evidence outside the conversation transcript would refute the claim that these processes are verdict games.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the definition of the verdict game (Definition 2), a conversation game parameterized by type sets, an alphabet, utterance-length limits, a maximum stage count, a string classifier $C : (\Sigma^*\#\Sigma^+@\Sigma^+)^+ \to \{0,1,\mathrm{Cont}\}$, and utility functions. Two players, X and Y, alternate appending utterances to a shared transcript; after each full round the classifier either stops the game with a binary verdict or continues, up to a stage limit. The paper shows three familiar processes fit this template: court (Example 7), interrogation (Example 8), and the Turing test (Example 9), with the Turing test formally isomorphic to interrogation when witness types are mapped to 'Non-Guilty' and 'Guilty'. In simulation, a prosecutor that introspects over candidate questions wins 64% of trials against a naive prosecutor's 27%, which the paper reads as evidence that the verdict-game view captures real strategic advantage in adversarial dialogue.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the judge can be represented as a fixed, non-strategic string classifier whose verdict depends only on the conversation transcript; if real judges ask questions, weigh evidence outside the transcript, or act strategically, the verdict-game representation of court, interrogation, and Turing test collapses, and the paper's own limitations section admits exactly this possibility.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Court trials, interrogations, and the Turing test can hence be studied under one game-theoretic framework, allowing solution concepts and search algorithms to transfer across these domains.
AI detection should be viewed as an interactive strategic interrogation rather than a one-shot text classifier, since the game-theoretic setting is exactly where the simulation shows a strategic advantage.
Even a shallow one-step introspection (breadth 10, depth 1) yields a 64% versus 27% win-rate difference, so deeper strategic search is a plausible direction for improving adversarial dialogue agents.
Because the verdict game is finite, in principle the court game has a Subgame Perfect Equilibrium and the interrogation/Turing games have a Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium, though approximate solvers are needed in practice.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper, a direct test is to vary the judge's prompt or decision rule in the simulation and check whether the strategic prosecutor's 64% versus 27% margin persists; if the margin collapses, the result is partly an artifact of the specific classifier.
The model implies a taxonomy of adversarial dialogues by what the judge can see and do; the paper treats the non-strategic string classifier as the boundary case, and real settings with active judges would need a meta-game with a strategic evaluator.
If LLM judges themselves can be persuaded or misled, the verdict-game reduction of court processes may need to model the judge as a third strategic player, a step the paper explicitly defers in its limitations section.
The isomorphism between Turing test and interrogation suggests that classic interrogation tactics (eliciting contradictions, pressing for detail, checking consistency) can be ported directly into AI-detection prompt strategies, which is a concrete engineering implication.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

One thing you should know up front: the stress-test note holds up. The paper's claim that the Turing test is an instance of the verdict game is not established for the standard protocol. Definition 2 fixes the judge as a non-strategic string classifier, but in the usual Turing test the judge is also the interrogator—the one who asks questions and then announces the verdict. Example 9 quietly replaces that with an 'AI-detection system,' which is a different object. The paper concedes the difficulty in Section 3.2 when it lists 'judges themselves ask questions' as a limitation. That's the load-bearing point, and it's unresolved.

What's actually new: Definitions 1 and 2 give a compact way to describe adversarial dialogue with an external evaluator. Mapping court and interrogation onto that template works well enough. The connection to strategic classification is appropriate, and the paper is honest that the framework is finite and that equilibria are in principle computable. No theorems, so the contribution is vocabulary, not mathematics.

The experiment is a proof of concept, and only that. The judge prompt is hand-crafted to reward the introspective strategy, no code or data are shipped, and the reported p-value is the only number. The outperformance might be real, but it isn't a benchmark. The authors say this themselves, which earns some trust.

The soft spots are in proportion: the formal part is clean but thin; the empirical part is suggestive but confounded; the Turing test example is the real problem because the headline claim doesn't survive contact with the standard protocol. If you read Example 4 and Example 9 side by side, the interrogator in Example 4 updates beliefs and asks questions, but in Example 9 the decision is delegated to an external detector. Those are different games.

Who's this for? Someone thinking about interactive AI-detection systems, where an external classifier probes a suspect. That framing is useful. But the paper tries to claim the classical Turing test as well, and that's where it overreaches.

The reader's conditional verdict is about right. I'd send this to a serious referee, because the topic is timely and the flaws are addressable—the authors could either sharpen the Turing test model or explicitly scope the contribution to machine-detection settings. I wouldn't cite it in its current form, but I'd keep an eye on a revised version.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces 'conversation games,' a multi-stage extensive-form model of dialogue, and 'verdict games,' a subclass in which two players alternate utterances that are evaluated by a non-strategic classifier C returning binary verdicts or 'continue' (Definitions 1 and 2, Section 3.1). It claims that courtroom trials, interrogations, and the Turing test are instances of verdict games (Examples 7–9), discusses equilibria and solution concepts (Section 3.3), and reports a GPT-4o-based simulation in which a strategic prosecutor wins 64% of trials versus 27% for a naive prosecutor (Section 4.1). The paper positions the framework as a strategic view of the Turing test in the era of advanced AI deception.

Significance. If the framework is sound, it offers a useful unifying vocabulary for adversarial dialogue with an external evaluator and connects strategic classification, game theory, and LLM-agent research. The paper's strengths are its accessible definitions, the worked examples, an explicit limitations section, and a proof-of-concept simulation. However, the claimed reduction of the standard Turing test to a verdict game is problematic because the standard judge is also the questioner, and the experimental evidence is not reproducible as presented and appears to reward the strategic behavior by construction. The significance is therefore conditional on substantial revision.

major comments (4)

[§3.1, Definition 2; §3.2; Example 9] The claim that the Turing test is an instance of the verdict game is not established for the standard protocol. In Definition 2, C is a non-strategic string classifier evaluated after each X–Y exchange, but in the standard Turing test the judge is also the interrogator: the same agent chooses the next question and eventually announces the verdict. Example 9 instead assigns the deciding role to an 'AI-detection system,' which is a different interaction. The paper's own Section 3.2 concedes 'judges themselves ask questions' as a limitation, yet this is precisely the standard Turing-test setup. The manuscript must either restrict the claim to a machine-detection variant with an external classifier or extend the model to allow a strategic judge; as written, the headline example does not match the formalism.
[§4.1, Table 2] The experimental claim that a strategic prosecutor outperforms a naive prosecutor by 64% to 27% is not supported as reported. No code, prompts, raw transcripts, or agent outputs are shipped, and only a p-value (≤1e-5) is given, with no confidence intervals or effect-size measures. More importantly, the judge prompt is hand-coded with 'emphasis on identifying guilt if vague responses occur to the questins regarding the suspect being seen by witnesses' (Table 2, Classifier row), which directly rewards the strategic prosecutor's introspective question selection. The introspection depth (1) and breadth (10) are free parameters. To make the experiment convincing, the authors need to release the full experimental artifacts and perform robustness checks varying the judge prompt, model, temperature, and introspection hyperparameters.
[§3.1, Definitions 1–2; §3.3] The formalization is incomplete as a game-theoretic model. Definition 1 lists desirable characteristics but does not define information sets, belief-update rules, or payoff functions for general conversation games, and Definition 2 does not formally specify the game tree, player strategies, or the players' information about types and past moves. The statement in Section 3.3 that 'All conversation games, including the verdict game, are finite' is unsupported because Definition 1 does not impose finite stage bounds or finite action sets; only the verdict-game parameters l and d make that subclass finite. The authors should either provide a complete extensive-form definition or explicitly present the framework as an informal model.
[§4.1, Experimental design] The simulation is presented as showing practical relevance, but it conflates the framework's predictions with the implementation choices. The 'strategic' prosecutor performs a shallow search to pick the question most likely to convince the judge, while the 'naive' prosecutor uses default temperature; the comparison therefore tests a specific introspection heuristic, not the verdict-game model itself. The conclusion that 'strategic agents outperform naive ones' (Section 6) is broader than what the experiment can support. The authors should define the strategies formally, state the baseline more precisely, and test multiple independent implementations of each strategy before claiming a general result.

minor comments (5)

[§3.1, Example 8] There is an internal contradiction in Example 8: the text says 'the verdicts of 0 and 1, represent verdicts of "guilty" and "not guilty", respectively,' but Table 1 assigns utility 1 to X when the defendant is Non-Guilty and c=0, which implies c=0 corresponds to 'not guilty.' The verdict labels must be made consistent with the utility table.
[§3.1, Example 8] In Example 8, the utility function notation includes a typo 'u(Count)' instead of 'u(Cont),' and the column heading 'Player tY c = 0' is unclear; the two rows for Y (Non-Guilty) and Y (Guilty) have duplicate entries, making the table difficult to interpret.
[Abstract, §1, §4.1, §5] Several typos and infelicities should be corrected: 'has as not traditionally been studied' in Section 1, 'we leave a through exploration' in Section 4.1, 'Demonstrates' capital D mid-sentence in Section 1, 'improvemnts' in Section 5, and 'At the era' should be 'In the era.'
[§3.3] The claim that the court game is a complete-information, zero-sum game solvable by minimax should specify the assumptions under which the classifier C is deterministic and known to both players; otherwise the claim about Subgame Perfect Equilibrium is not fully justified.
[§5, Related Work] The related-work discussion of strategic classification is brief and would benefit from a more precise distinction between the non-strategic classifier in this paper and the adversarial classifier dynamics in strategic classification; the current text says the classifier is non-strategic but does not discuss what happens when the evaluator is itself learning or adaptive.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework is definitional, and the flagged concerns are modeling-adequacy issues rather than circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central construction is Definition 1 and Definition 2 (Section 3.1): a verdict game is a conversation game parameterized by types, alphabet, stage/depth limits, a non-strategic string classifier C, and utility functions. The examples (court, interrogation, Turing test) are asserted instances of this definition, not outputs of a derivation that assumes the conclusion; the definition does not mention these examples, so the classification is an application of a general definition rather than a circular reduction. There is no self-citation chain: citations such as Oppy and Dowe (2021), Tadelis (2013), and the MCTS references are standard external references, and no prior work by the author is invoked to forbid alternative models. Section 3.2 does concede the load-bearing restriction: 'the importance of impartial judgment poses a challenge... in scenarios where judges themselves ask questions' and 'when a human suspects that the other side might be a chatbot and it is not easy for them to use AI-detector tools.' This directly undercuts the paper's claim that the 'usual Turing test' (Example 9) is isomorphic to the verdict game, because the standard test's interrogator is also the judge; this is a correctness or adequacy risk, not a circular step. The Section 4.1 simulation is a proof-of-concept, not a formal prediction. Its comparison is arguably favorable to the strategic prosecutor by construction (Table 2 gives the strategic agent lookahead introspection and prompts the classifier with 'an emphasis on identifying guilt if vague responses occur' to witness questions), but the paper does not fit a parameter to data and rename it as a prediction, so the strict circularity bar is not met. Overall, no claimed result reduces by definition to its input, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on a small set of modeling choices: a fixed non-strategic classifier as judge, bounded utterance length and stages, and the use of LLM agents as proxies for human strategic play. No numbers are fitted to data in a statistical sense; the experiment's hyperparameters (depth=1, breadth=10) and the judge's hand-coded guilt bias are the main free choices. No invented entities beyond the game formalism itself.

free parameters (2)

Judge classifier's hand-coded guilt emphasis
Table 2 describes the classifier as 'emphasizing identifying guilt if vague responses occur' about witness sightings; this is a hand-designed judge behavior that likely favors the strategic prosecutor, not an independently calibrated evaluator.
Introspection depth and breadth = depth=1, breadth=10
Section 4.1 sets the strategic agent's lookahead to 10 simulated conversations; this is an arbitrary hyperparameter that defines the strategic advantage.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption A real judge can be represented as a fixed, non-strategic string classifier C
Definition 2 and Example 9 equate the judge with a string classifier returning {0,1,Cont}; Section 3.2 concedes judges may themselves ask questions or be influenced by higher courts.
domain assumption LLM agents with prompt-based introspection approximate rational strategic players
Section 4 replaces players with GPT-4o agents, assuming their utterances and the judge's verdicts are valid proxies for human strategic behavior; no robustness across models or prompts is reported.
standard math The game tree is finite because stages d and utterance lengths l are bounded
Section 3.3 uses finiteness to say the court game is solvable by minimax; this follows from the definition.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conversation Games and a Strategic View of the Turing Test." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/333BVYN2

@misc{pith2026250118455,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conversation Games and a Strategic View of the Turing Test},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/333BVYN2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18455}
}

read the original abstract

Although many game-theoretic models replicate real interactions that often rely on natural language, explicit study of games where language is central to strategic interaction remains limited. This paper introduces the \emph{conversation game}, a multi-stage, extensive-form game based on linguistic strategic interaction. We focus on a subset of the games, called verdict games. In a verdict game, two players alternate to contribute to a conversation, which is evaluated at each stage by a non-strategic judge who may render a conclusive binary verdict, or a decision to continue the dialogue. The game ends once a limit is reached or a verdict is given. We show many familiar processes, such as interrogation or a court process fall under this category. We also, show that the Turing test is an instance of verdict game, and discuss the significance of a strategic view of the Turing test in the age of advanced AI deception. We show the practical relevance of the proposed concepts by simulation experiments, and show that a strategic agent outperforms a naive agent by a high margin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18455 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** An illustration of the verdict game. 3 Verdict Games A verdict game is a conversation game in which players’ utilities are determined by the outcome of a binary sequence classifier on the conversation history. 3.1 Problem Setup The verdict game ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

Chat- GPT‘s Information Seeking Strategy: Insights from the 20-Questions Game

[Bertolazzi et al., 2023] Leonardo Bertolazzi, Davide Maz- zaccara, Filippo Merlo, and Raffaella Bernardi. Chat- GPT‘s Information Seeking Strategy: Insights from the 20-Questions Game. In C. Maria Keet, Hung-Yi Lee, and Sina Zarrieß, editors, Proceedings of the 16th Inter- national Natural Language Generation Conference, pages 153–162, Prague, Czechia, September

work page 2023
[8]

[Huang et al., 2024] Xu Huang, Weiwen Liu, Xiaolong Chen, Xingmei Wang, Hao Wang, Defu Lian, Yasheng Wang, Ruiming Tang, and Enhong Chen

Google-Books-ID: Hr19CAAAQBAJ. [Huang et al., 2024] Xu Huang, Weiwen Liu, Xiaolong Chen, Xingmei Wang, Hao Wang, Defu Lian, Yasheng Wang, Ruiming Tang, and Enhong Chen. Understanding the planning of LLM agents: A survey, February

work page 2024
[9]

[Jacob et al., 2024] Athul Jacob, Gabriele Farina, and Jacob Andreas

arXiv:2402.02716 [cs]. [Jacob et al., 2024] Athul Jacob, Gabriele Farina, and Jacob Andreas. Regularized Conventions: Equilibrium Compu- tation as a Model of Pragmatic Reasoning. In Kevin Duh, Helena Gomez, and Steven Bethard, editors, Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human ...

arXiv 2024
[10]

[Marcus and T¨orm¨a, 2023] Pierre Marcus and Ilkka T ¨orm¨a

Association for Computational Linguistics. [Marcus and T¨orm¨a, 2023] Pierre Marcus and Ilkka T ¨orm¨a. WINNING SETS OF REGULAR LANGUAGES: DE- SCRIPTIONAL AND COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEX- ITY .Journal of Automata, Languages and Combinatorics, 28,

work page 2023
[11]

Smaller Language Models are Better Zero- shot Machine-Generated Text Detectors

[Mireshghallah et al., 2024] Niloofar Mireshghallah, Justus Mattern, Sicun Gao, Reza Shokri, and Taylor Berg- Kirkpatrick. Smaller Language Models are Better Zero- shot Machine-Generated Text Detectors. In Yvette Gra- ham and Matthew Purver, editors, Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistic...

work page 2024
[12]

[Mitchell et al., 2023] Eric Mitchell, Yoonho Lee, Alexan- der Khazatsky, Christopher D

Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics. [Mitchell et al., 2023] Eric Mitchell, Yoonho Lee, Alexan- der Khazatsky, Christopher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text De- tection using Probability Curvature. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 24950–24962. PMLR, July

work page 2023
[13]

[OpenAI, 2024] OpenAI

ISSN: 2640-3498. [OpenAI, 2024] OpenAI. GPT-4o System Card, October

work page 2024
[14]

The Turing Test

[Oppy and Dowe, 2021] Graham Oppy and David Dowe. The Turing Test. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, winter 2021 edition,

work page 2021

Show all 24 references

[15]

Bergen, and Cameron R

[Rathi et al., 2024] Ishika Rathi, Sydney Taylor, Ben- jamin K. Bergen, and Cameron R. Jones. GPT-4 is judged more human than humans in displaced and inverted Turing tests, July

2024
[16]

arXiv:2407.08853 [cs] version:

arXiv
[17]

Competing in a Complex Hidden Role Game with Information Set Monte Carlo Tree Search, May

[Reinhardt, 2020] Jack Reinhardt. Competing in a Complex Hidden Role Game with Information Set Monte Carlo Tree Search, May

2020
[19]

Game Theory: An Introduc- tion

[Tadelis, 2013] Steven Tadelis. Game Theory: An Introduc- tion. Princeton University Press, January

2013
[21]

arXiv:2408.17177 [econ] version:
[22]

ELIZA—a com- puter program for the study of natural language communi- cation between man and machine

[Weizenbaum, 1966] Joseph Weizenbaum. ELIZA—a com- puter program for the study of natural language communi- cation between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9(1):36–45, January

1966
[24]

[´Swiechowski et al., 2023] Maciej ´Swiechowski, Konrad Godlewski, Bartosz Sawicki, and Jacek Ma´ndziuk

arXiv:2309.07864 [cs]. [´Swiechowski et al., 2023] Maciej ´Swiechowski, Konrad Godlewski, Bartosz Sawicki, and Jacek Ma´ndziuk. Monte Carlo Tree Search: a review of recent modifications and applications. Artificial Intelligence Review , 56(3):2497– 2562, March 2023

2023 arXiv
[1966]

The Rise and Poten- tial of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey, September

[Xi et al., 2023] Zhiheng Xi, Wenxiang Chen, Xin Guo, Wei He, Yiwen Ding, Boyang Hong, Ming Zhang, Jun- zhe Wang, Senjie Jin, Enyu Zhou, Rui Zheng, Xiaoran Fan, Xiao Wang, Limao Xiong, Yuhao Zhou, Weiran Wang, Changhao Jiang, Yicheng Zou, Xiangyang Liu, Zhangyue Yin, Shihan Do...

2023
[2012]

[Ghalme et al., 2021] Ganesh Ghalme, Vineet Nair, Itay Eilat, Inbal Talgam-Cohen, and Nir Rosenfeld

Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games. [Ghalme et al., 2021] Ganesh Ghalme, Vineet Nair, Itay Eilat, Inbal Talgam-Cohen, and Nir Rosenfeld. Strate- gic Classification in the Dark. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on...

2021
[2013]

[Wang, 2024] S

Google- Books-ID: 4OqAaITAWMC. [Wang, 2024] S. T. Wang. Optimal Strategy in Werewolf Game: A Game Theoretic Perspective, August

2024
[2015]

[Hintikka, 2012] Jaakko Hintikka

arXiv:1506.06980 [cs]. [Hintikka, 2012] Jaakko Hintikka. The Game of Language: Studies in Game-Theoretical Semantics and Its Applica- tions. Springer Science & Business Media, December

2012 arXiv
[2016]

Strategic Classifi- cation, November

[Hardt et al., 2015] Moritz Hardt, Nimrod Megiddo, Chris- tos Papadimitriou, and Mary Wootters. Strategic Classifi- cation, November

2015
[2020]

[Rosenfeld, 2024] Matthieu Rosenfeld

arXiv:2005.07156 [cs]. [Rosenfeld, 2024] Matthieu Rosenfeld. Ann wins the non- repetitive game over four letters and the erase-repetition game over six letters.European Journal of Combinatorics, 118:103924, May

2005 arXiv
[2021]

[Goodman and Frank, 2016] Noah D

ISSN: 2640-3498. [Goodman and Frank, 2016] Noah D. Goodman and Michael C. Frank. Pragmatic Language Interpretation as Probabilistic Inference. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 20(11):818–829, November

2016
[2023]

[Carminati et al., 2024] Luca Carminati, Brian Hu Zhang, Gabriele Farina, Nicola Gatti, and Tuomas Sandholm

Association for Computational Linguistics. [Carminati et al., 2024] Luca Carminati, Brian Hu Zhang, Gabriele Farina, Nicola Gatti, and Tuomas Sandholm. Hidden-Role Games: Equilibrium Concepts and Compu- tation, July

2024
[2024]

[Cowling et al., 2012] Peter I

arXiv:2308.16017 [cs]. [Cowling et al., 2012] Peter I. Cowling, Edward J. Powley, and Daniel Whitehouse. Information Set Monte Carlo Tree Search. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games , 4(2):120–143, June

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Chat- GPT‘s Information Seeking Strategy: Insights from the 20-Questions Game

[Bertolazzi et al., 2023] Leonardo Bertolazzi, Davide Maz- zaccara, Filippo Merlo, and Raffaella Bernardi. Chat- GPT‘s Information Seeking Strategy: Insights from the 20-Questions Game. In C. Maria Keet, Hung-Yi Lee, and Sina Zarrieß, editors, Proceedings of the 16th Inter- national Natural Language Generation Conference, pages 153–162, Prague, Czechia, September

work page 2023

[2] [8]

[Huang et al., 2024] Xu Huang, Weiwen Liu, Xiaolong Chen, Xingmei Wang, Hao Wang, Defu Lian, Yasheng Wang, Ruiming Tang, and Enhong Chen

Google-Books-ID: Hr19CAAAQBAJ. [Huang et al., 2024] Xu Huang, Weiwen Liu, Xiaolong Chen, Xingmei Wang, Hao Wang, Defu Lian, Yasheng Wang, Ruiming Tang, and Enhong Chen. Understanding the planning of LLM agents: A survey, February

work page 2024

[3] [9]

[Jacob et al., 2024] Athul Jacob, Gabriele Farina, and Jacob Andreas

arXiv:2402.02716 [cs]. [Jacob et al., 2024] Athul Jacob, Gabriele Farina, and Jacob Andreas. Regularized Conventions: Equilibrium Compu- tation as a Model of Pragmatic Reasoning. In Kevin Duh, Helena Gomez, and Steven Bethard, editors, Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human ...

arXiv 2024

[4] [10]

[Marcus and T¨orm¨a, 2023] Pierre Marcus and Ilkka T ¨orm¨a

Association for Computational Linguistics. [Marcus and T¨orm¨a, 2023] Pierre Marcus and Ilkka T ¨orm¨a. WINNING SETS OF REGULAR LANGUAGES: DE- SCRIPTIONAL AND COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEX- ITY .Journal of Automata, Languages and Combinatorics, 28,

work page 2023

[5] [11]

Smaller Language Models are Better Zero- shot Machine-Generated Text Detectors

[Mireshghallah et al., 2024] Niloofar Mireshghallah, Justus Mattern, Sicun Gao, Reza Shokri, and Taylor Berg- Kirkpatrick. Smaller Language Models are Better Zero- shot Machine-Generated Text Detectors. In Yvette Gra- ham and Matthew Purver, editors, Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistic...

work page 2024

[6] [12]

[Mitchell et al., 2023] Eric Mitchell, Yoonho Lee, Alexan- der Khazatsky, Christopher D

Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics. [Mitchell et al., 2023] Eric Mitchell, Yoonho Lee, Alexan- der Khazatsky, Christopher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text De- tection using Probability Curvature. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 24950–24962. PMLR, July

work page 2023

[7] [13]

[OpenAI, 2024] OpenAI

ISSN: 2640-3498. [OpenAI, 2024] OpenAI. GPT-4o System Card, October

work page 2024

[8] [14]

The Turing Test

[Oppy and Dowe, 2021] Graham Oppy and David Dowe. The Turing Test. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, winter 2021 edition,

work page 2021