Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The Battling Influencers Game: Nash Equilibria Structure of a Potential Game and Implications to Value Alignment

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 When several influencers compete for a receiver, every pure Nash equilibrium forces all but at most one of them to a maximally extreme action.

desk verdict The paper's main structural theorem is false as stated because it ignores zero influencer weights, but the fix is a one-line condition and most of the rest is sound enough to warrant peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01127 v3 pith:GKSYLHAB submitted 2025-02-03 cs.GT cs.AI

Young Wu , Yancheng Zhu , Jin-Yi Cai , Xiaojin Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GTcs.AI MSC 91A1091A0691A80
keywords BattlingInfluencersGamepotentialpureNashequilibriumextremeexaggerationconvexoptimizationvaluealignmentpreferencefeedbackstrategicdataproviders
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

The Battling Influencers Game models several strategic agents who each try to pull a common receiver toward their own target, where the receiver simply takes a weighted sum of the agents' chosen actions. The paper proves this game is a potential game, so its pure Nash equilibria are exactly the minima of one convex function and can be found by convex optimization. The central structural result is that when the agents' targets are distinct, every pure Nash equilibrium pushes all but at most one agent to the boundary of the action space: rational influencers must exaggerate their positions to the maximum. If one agent does stay interior, the receiver lands exactly on that agent's target. The paper then argues this formal result can explain why people providing preference data for AI value alignment have an incentive to report exaggerated values.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the convex potential function $\phi(x) = \|\sum_{i=0}^n w_i x_i\|_2^2 - 2\sum_{i=1}^n w_i t_i^\top x_i$ on the product domain $X^n$. A unilateral change by any player changes $\phi$ by exactly the same amount as it changes that player's loss, so pure Nash equilibria coincide with minima of $\phi$; convexity then makes the equilibrium set convex, yielding the one-or-infinite cardinality. The boundary-exaggeration theorem follows from the gradient condition $\nabla_{x_i}\phi = 0$ for an interior action: if two players were both interior, their targets would have to equal the same receiver aggregate, contradicting distinctness.

What would settle it

Compute a pure Nash equilibrium of any BIG instance with distinct targets and check whether more than one player's action lies in the interior of the action space; Theorem 4 predicts at most one, so a counterexample with two interior actions would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that for any instance of the Battling Influencers Game, in which each player minimizes $\|w_0x_0 + \sum_{i=1}^n w_i x_i - t_i\|_2^2$ over a compact convex action space $X$, the pure-strategy Nash equilibria are exactly the global minima of the convex potential function $\phi(x) = \|\sum_{i=0}^n w_i x_i\|_2^2 - 2\sum_{i=1}^n w_i t_i^\top x_i$. Because $\phi$ is convex, the game has either exactly one pure Nash equilibrium or infinitely many. The paper's main theorem (Theorem 4) states that if all targets $t_i$ are distinct, then at any pure Nash equilibrium at most one player's action lies in the interior of $X$; every other player must choose an extreme point of $X$. Moreover, if some player $i^*$ is interior, then the receiver's aggregate equals $t_{i^*}$, so the only non-extreme player is exactly the one whose target is realized.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the receiver's aggregate is the affine weighted sum in equation (1); the value-alignment experiment additionally assumes the maximum-likelihood receiver in equation (27) is approximately affine, so if a real receiver deviates substantially from affine behavior the formal results do not carry over.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any equilibrium, all but at most one influencer will take an extreme action, so exaggeration is a rational response to competition rather than an individual bias.
  • Equilibria can be computed by minimizing a convex function, so finding them is tractable for compact convex action spaces.
  • Best-response dynamics converge to an equilibrium, and each influencer can update using only the others' current actions without knowing their targets.
  • The same structure extends to finite action spaces, where the game remains a potential game and can even have exponentially many pure equilibria.
  • Applied to value alignment, the model predicts that people supplying preference data will strategically distort their reported values, so removing that incentive is a mechanism-design problem rather than a matter of assuming truthful reporting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the exaggeration result is likely fragile under nonlinear receivers: if the receiver's aggregate is not an affine function of the influencer actions, the convex-potential argument and the all-but-at-most-one theorem do not apply, and interior equilibria may reappear.
  • We infer a testable extension: measuring how far a real preference-learning receiver deviates from the affine form assumed in the paper would determine how directly the formal results transfer to value alignment.
  • We infer that the model offers a game-theoretic microfoundation for misinformation: even rational agents with moderate targets can end up broadcasting extreme positions, so observing extreme rhetoric need not imply extreme underlying beliefs.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Battling Influencers Game (BIG), an n-player simultaneous-move game in which each influencer chooses an action in a compact convex set and suffers a squared-distance loss between its own target and the output of a common affine receiver. The main formal results are that BIG is a potential game with a convex potential, that its pure Nash equilibria coincide with the minimizers of that potential, that the equilibrium set has cardinality one or infinity, and that, when all targets are distinct, every pure NE has at most one interior action, with the unique interior influencer, if any, being the one whose target equals the receiver's output. The paper also treats a finite-action variant, a weakly dominant strategy equilibrium for an inner-product loss, and a value-alignment experiment in which a maximum-likelihood preference-aggregation receiver is approximated as affine.

Significance. The intended exaggeration theorem is striking and non-obvious: rational influencers in a simple affine-receiver model are driven to the boundary of the action space, and at most one can remain interior. The potential-function construction is clean, the pNE-as-convex-minimizers reduction is useful, and the proof strategy is mostly sound. The paper is also careful to separate the formal game results from the empirical value-alignment discussion. However, the central theorem is false as stated because Definition 1 permits zero weights, and the main illustrative example contains a sign error. The value-alignment transfer rests on a single numerical assertion of affine approximation. These issues are repairable, but they require substantive revision rather than copy-editing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Theorem 4, Eq. (9)-(11)] The statement of Theorem 4 is false as written under Definition 1, because the weights w_i are allowed to be zero. For example, take d=1, X=[0,1], w0=0, w1=0, w2=1, t1=0.8, t2=0.2. The receiver is x_hat = x2, player 1's loss is constant in x1, and player 2's unique best response is x2=0.2. Hence every profile (x1,0.2) with x1 in (0,1) is a pure Nash equilibrium; both actions are interior, and x_hat=0.2 differs from t1, contradicting both conclusions (7) and (8). The proof divides by 2 w_i when passing from gradient_x_i phi = 0 to t_i = sum_k w_k x_k. Adding the explicit assumption w_i != 0 for all i (or, for the narrative, w_i > 0) repairs the theorem, but the theorem and the abstract's exaggeration claim need this qualification.
  2. [Section 4, Example 2] The displayed pure NE set is not an equilibrium under the receiver definition used in Example 1. With X=[-a,a]^2, t1=(1,0), t2=(-1,0), and x_hat=(x1+x2)/2, fix x2=(a,z) and let player 1 deviate to x1'=(2-a,-z), which lies in X for a>=1; the receiver then equals t1, giving player 1 a strictly lower loss than the receiver value 0 attained at the displayed profile. The line of equilibria for this example should instead be x1=(a,-z), x2=(-a,z) with z in [-a,a], up to the sign convention of the targets. This does not invalidate the proof of Theorem 4, but the example is used to illustrate the exaggeration phenomenon and must be corrected.
  3. [Section 6.2, Eq. (28)] The transfer of the formal results to value alignment rests on the assertion that the MLE receiver in (27) is 'well-approximated' by the affine receiver x_hat = (x1+x2)/2. The paper supports this with a single configuration (n=2, X=[-1,1], t1=-0.1, t2=0.3, PY uniform on [-10,10]^2) and provides no quantitative measure of the approximation error, no variation of parameters, and no argument that the approximation persists under best-response iteration. The predictions in Section 6.1 depend on the receiver being affine, so this part should be presented as a case study or strengthened substantially. The formal game-theoretic results are independent of this point.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2, Definition 5] The common-knowledge parameter list includes k_0, although only k_1,...,k_n are defined; remove k_0 or define it explicitly.
  2. [Section 6.2, near Figure 7] The phrase 'empirical based-response' should read 'empirical best-response'.
  3. [Definition 4] The remark following the definition correctly notes the difference between weak and strict dominance, but the definition's inequality uses <= for all opponent profiles; this is stated slightly ambiguously because the displayed condition should be read as holding for every x_{-i}, not for a fixed profile. Clarifying the quantifier would remove ambiguity.
  4. [Section 3, Eq. (1)] The notation 'X ⊂Rd' is missing a space before R^d; more importantly, the paper should state explicitly that the narrative interpretation of w_i as an influence weight excludes w_i=0, since the formal definition does not.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the formal NE analysis is self-contained; the value-alignment discussion is an application, not an input to the theorems.

full rationale

The formal core of the paper is self-contained. Definition 1 and Equation (2) define the game; Theorem 1 constructs the potential function and verifies the identity ℓ_i(x_i,x_-i) − ℓ_i(y,x_-i) = φ(x_i,x_-i) − φ(y,x_-i), which is a direct algebraic check with no empirical or cited input. Proposition 2 invokes Neyman's external theorem for convex potential games, not a self-citation. Theorem 4 follows from first-order conditions: if two players were interior, their zero gradients would force the receiver aggregate to equal both distinct targets, a contradiction. (A caveat is that the division by w_i implicitly assumes w_i≠0; the zero-weight counterexample is a formal correctness gap, not circularity.) The value-alignment experiment in Section 6 is an illustrative application: the authors observe that the BTL MLE receiver is approximately affine (Eq. 28) and then apply the already-proved equilibrium structure. The predictions from the game model do not feed back into the proof of Theorems 1–4; the theorems stand independently of the experiment. References to Park et al. and other prior work are contextual and not load-bearing. No circular step reduces a claimed result to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The formal theorems rest on standard convex analysis and the cited Neyman result; no free parameters are needed for the core proof. The only fitted or ad hoc element is the affine approximation of the empirical MLE receiver in Section 6.2, used for the value alignment illustration. The experiment's setup, including equal data counts and uniform response distribution, is a domain assumption rather than a fitted constant.

free parameters (1)
  • affine receiver weights in the value alignment experiment = w_1 = w_2 = 1/2 in equation (28)
    The empirical MLE receiver is approximated as (x1 + x2)/2. This is an observed or assumed relation, not derived from the BTL-MLE. The equal weights are hand-assigned and are used to compute theoretical best responses in the experiment.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Neyman's theorem that for convex potential games, pure Nash equilibria coincide with the minimizers of the potential function.
    Invoked in Proposition 2; the paper cites Neyman (1997) but does not rederive the result.
  • domain assumption The receiver is affine, equation (1): the receiver's aggregate is a weighted sum of influencer actions plus a fixed background term.
    This defines BIG and is the foundation for the potential function. For value alignment, the MLE receiver is only approximately affine, as stated in Section 6.2.
  • domain assumption The action space X is compact and convex.
    Required for the existence of convex minimizers and for the characterization of pure NE as minima of the convex potential.
  • domain assumption The targets t_1,...,t_n are all distinct in Theorem 4.
    The all-but-one interior bound requires distinct targets. If two targets coincide, two players could both be interior at the common target's preimage.
  • domain assumption Influencer loss is squared Euclidean distance to the target, equation (2).
    Convexity and the specific potential function depend on this quadratic loss. The paper mentions a cosine-similarity variant but does not analyze it.
  • domain assumption The value alignment experiment uses the ideal point model with BTL noise, equations (25)-(26), and a maximum likelihood estimate, equation (27).
    This is the empirical bridge to BIG. The paper observes that the MLE is approximately affine, but this is not derived from first principles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Battling Influencers Game: Nash Equilibria Structure of a Potential Game and Implications to Value Alignment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GKSYLHAB

@misc{pith2026250201127,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Battling Influencers Game: Nash Equilibria Structure of a Potential Game and Implications to Value Alignment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GKSYLHAB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01127}
}
read the original abstract

When multiple influencers attempt to compete for a receiver's attention, their influencing strategies must account for the presence of one another. We introduce the Battling Influencers Game (BIG), a multi-player simultaneous-move general-sum game, to provide a game-theoretic characterization of this social phenomenon. We prove that BIG is a potential game, that it has either one or an infinite number of pure Nash equilibria (NEs), and these pure NEs can be found by convex optimization. Interestingly, we also prove that at any pure NE, all (except at most one) influencers must exaggerate their actions to the maximum extent. In other words, it is rational for the influencers to be non-truthful and extreme because they anticipate other influencers to cancel out part of their influence. We discuss the implications of BIG to value alignment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01127 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (left) Both players maximally exaggerate their actions with pure NE (x1 = 0, x2 = 6). (right) the potential function ϕ Proof. Since the set of minima of the convex potential func￾tion on a compact domain X n is non-empty, there is at least one pure Nash equilibrium. Since the set of minima of the convex potential function on a convex domain X n is con￾vex (corollary in (Neyman, 1997)), any linear combination of two … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pure NE (x1 = 0, x2 = 4). Influencer 2 not at boundary. to misrepresent itself as right-leaning (x2 > a+b 2 ) to the receiver. We will generalize this example in Theorem 4, where we show at most one influencer can be interior. Example 2 (2D actions). Same as Example 1 but let d = 2 and X = [−a, a] × [−a, a]. The game may now have an infinite number of pure NEs. For example, let the targets be t1 =  1 0  and t2 = −… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of infinite (left) and unique (right) pure Nash equilibria in d = 2 In contrast, if the targets are arranged as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of unique wDSE (left) and infinite number of wDSEs (right) in d = 2 5.2. Finite Action Space So far, we have assumed that the influencers’ action space X is a compact and convex (hence infinite unless singleton) subset of R d . In some applications, the influe…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pairwise preference labels z when both players are truth￾ful. Left: player 1 with x1 = t1, right: player 2 with x2 = t2. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Player 1 conducts a binary search to find the empirical best response x1. In subsequent iterations, we allow alternating players to perform such empirical best-response [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Receiver’s MLE xˆ under truthful players. In iteration 1, imagine player 1 observes all training data and the value alignment algorithm output from iteration 0 (i.e. a global ideal point at xˆ = 0.103). It realizes that the output is far from its true ideal point t1 = …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Empirical best-response dynamics converges to an exag￾gerating Nash equilibrium in iteration 3. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Preference labels z at the Nash equilibrium showing untruthfulness. Left: player 1 exaggerates with x1 = −1; Right: player 2 exaggerates with x2 = 1. 7. Conclusion and Future Work We proved that a version of the battling influencers game is a potential game, and charac…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Game Theory Meets Large Language Models: A Systematic Survey with Taxonomy and New Frontiers

    cs.AI 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A taxonomy-based survey of bidirectional game theory and LLM research, spanning evaluation, alignment, economic competition, and LLM-driven game solving.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  2. [2]

    Fine-tuning language models to find agreement among humans with diverse preferences

    Bakker, M., Chadwick, M., Sheahan, H., Tessler, M., Campbell-Gillingham, L., Balaguer, J., McAleese, N., Glaese, A., Aslanides, J., Botvinick, M., et al. Fine-tuning language models to find agreement among humans with diverse preferences. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 0 38176--38189, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    and Vandenberghe, L

    Boyd, S. and Vandenberghe, L. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press , 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Bradley, R. A. and Terry, M. E. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39 0 (3/4): 0 324--345, 1952

    1952

  5. [5]

    Chen, D., Chen, Y., Rege, A., and Vinayak, R. V. Pal: Pluralistic alignment framework for learning from heterogeneous preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08469, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    H., Jacobs, B

    Conitzer, V., Freedman, R., Heitzig, J., Holliday, W. H., Jacobs, B. M., Lambert, N., Moss \'e , M., Pacuit, E., Russell, S., Schoelkopf, H., et al. Social choice should guide ai alignment in dealing with diverse human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10271, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Coombs, C. H. Psychological scaling without a unit of measurement. Psychological review, 57 0 (3), 1950

    work page 1950

  8. [8]

    and Duan, L

    Hao, S. and Duan, L. Online learning from strategic human feedback in llm fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16834, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Jamieson, K. G. and Nowak, R. Active ranking using pairwise comparisons. Advances in neural information processing systems, 24, 2011

    2011

  2. [10]

    G., Rowland, M., Guo, Z

    Munos, R., Valko, M., Calandriello, D., Azar, M. G., Rowland, M., Guo, Z. D., Tang, Y., Geist, M., Mesnard, T., Michi, A., et al. Nash learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.00886, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Correlated equilibrium and potential games

    Neyman, A. Correlated equilibrium and potential games. International Journal of Game Theory, 26 0 (2): 0 223--227, 1997

    1997

  4. [12]

    Osborne, M. J. A course in game theory. MIT Press, 1994

    1994

  5. [13]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback

    Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 0 27730--27744, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Park, C., Liu, M., Kong, D., Zhang, K., and Ozdaglar, A. E. Rlhf from heterogeneous feedback via personalization and preference aggregation. In ICML 2024 Workshop: Aligning Reinforcement Learning Experimentalists and Theorists, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    D., Ermon, S., and Finn, C

    Rafailov, R., Sharma, A., Mitchell, E., Manning, C. D., Ermon, S., and Finn, C. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Direct nash optimization: Teaching language models to self-improve with general preferences

    Rosset, C., Cheng, C.-A., Mitra, A., Santacroce, M., Awadallah, A., and Xie, T. Direct nash optimization: Teaching language models to self-improve with general preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03715, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Algorithmic game theory

    Roughgarden, T. Algorithmic game theory. Communications of the ACM, 53 0 (7): 0 78--86, 2010

    2010

  10. [18]

    and Schrijvers, O

    Roughgarden, T. and Schrijvers, O. Online prediction with selfish experts. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Whose opinions do language models reflect? In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 29971--30004

    Santurkar, S., Durmus, E., Ladhak, F., Lee, C., Liang, P., and Hashimoto, T. Whose opinions do language models reflect? In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 29971--30004. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Actively learning hemimetrics with applications to eliciting user preferences

    Singla, A., Tschiatschek, S., and Krause, A. Actively learning hemimetrics with applications to eliciting user preferences. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 412--420. PMLR, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    J., and Seuken, S

    Soumalias, E., Curry, M. J., and Seuken, S. Truthful aggregation of llms with an application to online advertising. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.05905, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Mechanism design for llm fine-tuning with multiple reward models

    Sun, H., Chen, Y., Wang, S., Chen, W., and Deng, X. Mechanism design for llm fine-tuning with multiple reward models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16276, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    S., and Agarwal, A

    Swamy, G., Dann, C., Kidambi, R., Wu, Z. S., and Agarwal, A. A minimaximalist approach to reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04056, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Game Theory: An Introduction

    Tadelis, S. Game Theory: An Introduction. Princeton University Press, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    and Davenport, M

    Xu, A. and Davenport, M. Simultaneous preference and metric learning from paired comparisons. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 454--465, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

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