Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Verbalized Bayesian Persuasion

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 that Bayesian persuasion, traditionally solved only for small discrete games, can be solved in natural language by representing both players as LLMs and searching over prompt strategies until an approximate equilibrium is…

desk verdict A useful empirical integration of Prompt-PSRO and Bayesian persuasion, but the headline convergence guarantee is unverified for the algorithm actually run. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01587 v1 pith:6EK67C6J submitted 2025-02-03 cs.GT cs.AIcs.LG

Wenhao Li , Yue Lin , Xiangfeng Wang , Bo Jin , Hongyuan Zha , Baoxiang Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GTcs.AIcs.LG MSC 91A2691A10
keywords Bayesianpersuasioninformationdesignlargelanguagemodelsequilibriumfindingextensive-formgamespromptoptimizationnaturaldialogue
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

Bayesian persuasion, the study of how a sender can steer a receiver by committing to an information-revealing strategy, has mostly been solved only in toy games with small discrete state and signal spaces. This paper claims that by re-casting the problem as a mediator-augmented extensive-form game in which both players are LLMs and strategies are prompts, the same equilibrium logic can be applied to real natural-language dialogues such as writing recommendation letters, presenting courtroom evidence, and announcing police patrols. The proposed verbalized Bayesian persuasion (VBP) framework is claimed to converge to a $\varepsilon$-approximate Bayes correlated equilibrium in static settings and a $\varepsilon$-approximate Bayes-Nash equilibrium in multistage settings, and the experiments reproduce the theoretical sender payoffs of classic Bayesian persuasion while discovering new persuasive strategies in language. A sympathetic reader would care because, if the claim holds, persuasion in everyday communication becomes amenable to game-theoretic guarantees rather than ad hoc prompting.

What carries the argument

The central object is the verbalized mediator-augmented extensive-form game, a reformulation of Bayesian persuasion in which the sender acts as a mediator who commits to a signaling scheme and the receiver best-responds, with states, signals, and actions rendered as text rather than numbers. The solver that carries the argument is the prompt-space response oracle (Prompt-PSRO), which restricts each player's strategy space to a growing pool of prompt categories and contents, computes a meta-game equilibrium over that pool, and uses LLM-based optimizers, namely OPRO in static settings and FunSearch in multistage settings, as approximate best-response oracles. Three supporting mechanisms make the reduction work: the commitment assumption is verbalized by writing the sender's style and its probability into the receiver's prompt, obedience constraints are estimated by sampling and added as a penalty, and information obfuscation uses self-reflection to help aligned LLMs produce strategically vague signals. The theoretical load is carried by rewriting the obedience-constrained maximization as a bilinear saddle-point problem, which connects the verbalized game to the known polynomial-time equilibrium results for mediator-augmented games.

What would settle it

Compare the receiver LLM's chosen actions, over many signals in the three benchmark problems, with the Bayes best response to the posterior induced by the sender's actual mixed strategy; if the deviation rate is non-negligible, the obedience constraints are misestimated and the claimed $\varepsilon$-approximate Bayes correlated equilibrium does not hold for these agents.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a Bayesian persuasion problem can be faithfully represented as a verbalized mediator-augmented extensive-form game, in which the state, the sender's signal, the receiver's action, and the commitment assumption are all expressed as text, and that this game can be solved by a generalized equilibrium-finding algorithm that alternates between LLM-based approximate best response and a meta-game solver. Strategies are not optimized in the LLM's weight space; they are optimized in prompt space, where a signaling scheme is a probability distribution over writing-style prompts such as tone, detail level, and emphasis. The paper further claims that the sender's commitment can be verbalized by including the sender's style and its probability in the receiver's prompt, that obedience constraints can be estimated by sampling and penalized through reward shaping, and that a step-wise variant using conditional prompt functions extends the method to multistage games. Proposition 5.1 states that the result is a $\varepsilon$-approximate Bayes correlated equilibrium in static BP and a $\varepsilon$-approximate Bayes-Nash equilibrium in multistage BP, and the experiments on three classic problems are presented as evidence that the framework reproduces known equilibria and transfers to richer language settings.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a receiver LLM instructed to follow the Bayesian decision rule actually does so, and that a small set of prompt categories such as tone and detail level spans enough of the signaling space for near-optimal persuasion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If VBP works as claimed, Bayesian persuasion can be run on arbitrary conversational text rather than binary states and discrete signals, so recommendation letters, legal arguments, and public announcements can be analyzed as strategic information design problems.
  • The framework yields a convergence guarantee: in static settings the output is a $\varepsilon$-approximate Bayes correlated equilibrium, so a sender that deploys the found meta-strategy cannot gain more than $\varepsilon$ by deviating, with an analogous guarantee in multistage settings.
  • The verbalized commitment assumption gives a practical implementation of the defining feature that separates Bayesian persuasion from cheap talk: the receiver's prompt contains the sender's strategy and its probability.
  • Multistage persuasion with a long-lived receiver becomes tractable through conditional prompt functions, and the observed honesty-deception oscillations suggest bargaining-like dynamics rather than a fixed unilateral commitment.
  • The method is designed to generalize across dialogue domains without retraining the LLM, since the experiments require only LLM inference plus prompt optimization, not fine-tuning.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the receiver LLM's Bayesian updating is imperfect, the equilibrium guarantee describes best response to the simulated receiver, not to the human it stands in for; a direct test against human receivers would be needed before treating VBP as a tool for real-world persuasion.
  • The oscillation between honesty and deception observed with aligned models, which vanishes with an unaligned model, suggests alignment acts as an extra payoff perturbation; one could test this by varying the receiver's stated normative preferences and measuring the equilibrium lie rate.
  • The same mediator-augmented interface could be pointed at multi-receiver mechanism design: since the formulation already supports multiple players, VBP-style prompt search may solve information design problems where one sender recommends actions to many receivers, a direction the paper lists as future work.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces VBP (Verbalized Bayesian Persuasion), a framework that recasts Bayesian persuasion as a verbalized mediator-augmented extensive-form game in which both the sender and the receiver are implemented as LLMs. The sender's signaling scheme is represented by prompt categories (e.g., tone, detail level), and strategy optimization is performed via a prompt-space response-oracle (Prompt-PSRO) combined with OPRO and FunSearch. The authors claim in Proposition 5.1 that VBP returns an epsilon-approximate Bayes correlated equilibrium in static BP and an epsilon-approximate Bayes-Nash equilibrium in multistage BP. Experiments on recommendation-letter, courtroom, and law-enforcement scenarios show that VBP approaches the computed BCE baselines in terms of sender and receiver rewards, with exploitability decreasing to about 0.1, and that it produces interesting phenomena such as honesty oscillations and bargaining-like dynamics in the multistage setting.

Significance. If the convergence guarantee were substantiated, VBP would be a meaningful step toward applying information design to natural-language settings, a domain where existing numeric BP methods do not apply. The paper includes several strengths: it provides detailed prompt templates in Appendix C.4 that aid reproducibility, it evaluates on three classic BP scenarios plus a multistage variant, and it documents qualitatively interesting sender behaviors that connect to honesty and deception. However, the headline formal claim is currently not supported by the proof as written, and the experimental validation is partly built into the receiver's prompt rather than emergent from the model. The framework itself is promising, but the gap between the claimed guarantee and the implemented algorithm must be resolved before the central contribution can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.3 and Appendix A, Eq. (3)] Proposition 5.1 asserts an epsilon-approximate equilibrium guarantee, but the proof in Appendix A invokes 'Algorithm 1 in Zhang et al. (2024a)', a binary-search saddle-point method with a Lagrangian, a zero-sum utility transformation, and a threshold tau. The algorithm actually presented and evaluated in the main text (Algorithm 1) is a generic PSRO loop: it maintains finite prompt sets, computes a payoff tensor, finds LLM best responses, expands the sets, and updates a meta-strategy. There is no binary search over tau, no Lagrangian multiplier, and no zero-sum conversion. The convergence theorem therefore applies to a different algorithm than the one whose results are reported. Either Algorithm 1 must be shown to solve or approximate the saddle-point problem in Eq. (3), or a separate convergence proof for the PSRO variant with LLM approximate best responses must be supplied. Without this, the central theoretical claim is unverified for the executed solver.
  2. [§5.1 (Verbalized Commitment Assumption) and Appendix C.4] The receiver's prompt explicitly instructs the LLM to 'first guess the student's quality given the sent recommendation letter according to the Bayesian decision rule' and embeds the sender's writing style and its probability into the receiver's context as the commitment assumption. This means the empirical reproduction of the BCE baselines in Figures 4 and 5 is partly by construction: the experiments demonstrate that the LLM follows the prescribed Bayesian update and best-response rule, not that the VBP framework induces this behavior from a more neutral prompt. To support the claim that VBP solves real BP problems, the authors should evaluate the receiver's behavior without the explicit Bayesian-rule instruction, or at least report a control condition that measures how much of the observed proximity to BCE is due to the prompt content versus the learning dynamics.
  3. [§5.1 (Action A) and §6.4] The convergence guarantee and the experimental results are restricted to a finite set of prompt categories (e.g., tone, detail level, specificity) that the Prompt-PSRO loop is allowed to optimize. The paper assumes, without proof, that this low-dimensional prompt space spans the signaling space well enough to approximate optimal persuasion. The exploitability values in Figure 6 are computed within this restricted meta-game, not against the full space of natural-language signals, so they do not directly quantify the gap to an equilibrium of the original verbalized game. The claims about solving 'real, non-abstract BP problems' should be scoped to the expressiveness of the chosen prompt categories, and the paper should either justify the choice of categories or discuss the sensitivity of the results to that choice.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5.3] The word 'mutlistage' appears in the sentence 'In mutlistage BP, this significantly restricts...'; it should be 'multistage'.
  2. [Appendix A] In the last sentence of the proof, 'strategties' is a typo for 'strategies', and 'utilty' is a typo for 'utility'.
  3. [Figure 7 caption] The caption contains 'comparision' instead of 'comparison'.
  4. [§6.4] The text says 'the table columns in Figure 9 reflect this structure', but Figure 9 appears to be a screenshot or diagram rather than a formatted table; please clarify the layout or refer to it consistently as a table.
  5. [§6.4] The statement that 'the probabilities in Figure 9 are computed as the average probability of selecting each prompt from the strategy pool across iterations' is ambiguous: it is unclear whether the reported probabilities are averaged over all iterations or taken from the final converged meta-strategy, and the figure itself should state which iteration or time window is shown.
  6. [§6.2] For the BCE and MARL baselines in Figure 4, the paper plots 'Probability of lie' and 'Probability of honest' without specifying how these probabilities are derived from the computed equilibrium or the MARL policy; a brief definition or reference would improve interpretability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the verbalized commitment and Bayesian-updating instructions are BP assumptions, not fitted outputs; the proof–algorithm mismatch in Proposition 5.1 is a rigor gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain. The central formal claim, Proposition 5.1 in Section 5.3, states that VBP returns an epsilon-approximate Bayes correlated equilibrium in static BP and an epsilon-approximate Bayes-Nash equilibrium in multistage BP. Its proof in Appendix A rewrites Equation 1 into the bilinear saddle-point problem Equation 3 and invokes the binary-search-based Algorithm 1 of Zhang et al. (2024a). The algorithm actually implemented in the main text, Algorithm 1, is a generic PSRO loop with no Lagrangian multiplier, no binary search over tau, and no zero-sum utility transformation. This is a genuine proof gap: the convergence guarantee is not verified for the executed solver. However, it is an internal inconsistency or omitted proof, not a circular reduction. The target equilibrium concept is not an input to Algorithm 1 or to the cited theorem; the guarantee is claimed for a different solver than the one analyzed. The receiver prompt in Appendix C.4 instructs the receiver to 'first guess the student's quality given the sent recommendation letter according to the Bayesian decision rule, then choose the best response' and includes the sender's writing style with its probability under the commitment assumption. This encodes the BP model itself, not a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. In classical BP, Bayesian updating and commitment are assumptions of the solution concept, not outputs to be verified, and the sender's prompt search, meta-strategy updates, and honesty/lying dynamics are learned through PSRO rather than read off from the equilibrium. The comparisons against analytically computed BCE baselines in Appendix B are external benchmarks, not products of the framework. Self-citations such as Lin et al. (2023) supply code, extended obedience constraints, and baseline implementations, but none is load-bearing for the central convergence argument, which relies on external results from Zhang and Sandholm (2022) and Zhang et al. (2024a). I therefore find no step that reduces by construction to its own inputs; the main issues are a proof-algorithm mismatch and unverified LLM-behavior assumptions, which belong to correctness risk rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework relies heavily on prior theoretical machinery (mediator-augmented games, Prompt-PSRO) and on assumptions about LLM rationality that are not proven. Free parameters are optimization hyperparameters chosen by hand. No invented physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Prompt-PSRO strategy pool size = 10 (top prompts retained)
    Section 6.4 prunes the strategy pool to the top 10 prompts; Section 6.5.3 shows performance degrades under heavy pruning and stabilizes at 10-15, so this hand-chosen threshold affects results.
  • OPRO candidate count per step = 8
    Appendix C.3: the optimizer LLM is prompted 8 times per step to generate 8 categories or prompts; affects search diversity and cost.
  • Self-reflection rounds = 3
    Appendix C.3: information obfuscation uses 3 rounds of self-reflection; affects training speed and final strategy.
  • Temperature settings = 0 for scorer, 1.0 for optimizer
    Appendix C.3: temperature is 0 when evaluating generated prompts and 1.0 for generating diverse prompts; hand-chosen and not swept.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LLM agents act as rational expected-utility maximizers and perform Bayesian updating when instructed.
    Receiver prompts instruct LLM to guess state according to the Bayesian decision rule (Appendix C.4). If LLMs do not actually update beliefs this way, equilibrium and obedience-constraint estimates are invalid.
  • domain assumption The restricted prompt-category space preserves enough signaling power to approximate optimal persuasion.
    Section 5.1 maps actions to selecting prompts; Section 6.4 shows optimized strategies are categories like Tone and Informativeness. Equivalence between this prompt space and the full signaling scheme is assumed.
  • standard math The mediator-augmented game equivalence and Theorem 3.7 of Zhang et al. (2024a) apply to the verbalized LLM game.
    Appendix A says "we can recover the main result of Theorem 3.7 in Zhang et al. (2024a)" without verifying the finite-game assumptions in the infinite language space.
  • domain assumption Verbalized commitment assumption creates common knowledge of the signaling scheme.
    Appendix C.4 inserts "The following is the writing style the professor used" into the receiver prompt; no evidence that this yields genuine common knowledge for LLM agents.
  • domain assumption The sampled obedience constraint estimate is accurate enough for training.
    Section 5.1 estimates the obedience penalty using one current state and one action chosen by an LLM theory-of-mind prediction; no error analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Verbalized Bayesian Persuasion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6EK67C6J

@misc{pith2026250201587,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Verbalized Bayesian Persuasion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6EK67C6J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01587}
}
read the original abstract

Information design (ID) explores how a sender influence the optimal behavior of receivers to achieve specific objectives. While ID originates from everyday human communication, existing game-theoretic and machine learning methods often model information structures as numbers, which limits many applications to toy games. This work leverages LLMs and proposes a verbalized framework in Bayesian persuasion (BP), which extends classic BP to real-world games involving human dialogues for the first time. Specifically, we map the BP to a verbalized mediator-augmented extensive-form game, where LLMs instantiate the sender and receiver. To efficiently solve the verbalized game, we propose a generalized equilibrium-finding algorithm combining LLM and game solver. The algorithm is reinforced with techniques including verbalized commitment assumptions, verbalized obedience constraints, and information obfuscation. Numerical experiments in dialogue scenarios, such as recommendation letters, courtroom interactions, and law enforcement, validate that our framework can both reproduce theoretical results in classic BP and discover effective persuasion strategies in more complex natural language and multi-stage scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01587 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Extending classic BP examples to verbalized mediator-augmented, extensive-form games. which is often employed in communication learning (Foerster et al., 2016; Sheng et al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2022), BP requires the sender to commit to an information disclosure mechanism publicly. The focus, therefore, is on rational (Bayesian) decision-makers who understand and optimally react to the disclosed information. Given a s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: BP timing in the EFG; Right: Illustration of the Prompt-PSRO. number of strategies. To address this, a wide range of learning methods have been applied to large￾scale games, with MARL (Yang & Wang, 2020; Zhang et al., 2021) being one of the most prominent approaches. Unlike traditional methods, learning-based approaches do not require full representation of the game and instead create agents that explore and a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Verbalize Bayesian persuasion framework. 5.1 Verbalized Formulation for BP To leverage the wealth of research in LLMs for BP in realistic scenarios, we must abstract and map components of BP to the symbolic language. Note the mapping can be chosen is not unique. • State ω. Unlike the classic BP, which only describes the state with binary values, the state in VBP is defined as the text. For example, it is the detaile… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance comparison on classic static BP problems. Averaged over 20 seeds. In the 3 BP problems, the probability of lying refers to describing a weak student as strong, an innocent defendant as guilty, or an unpatrolled segment as patrolled. Conversely, the probabil…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance comparison on general static BP problems. Averaged over 20 seeds. The physical meaning of the probabilities of lying and honesty is consistent with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: The variation in exploitability during the iterative solving process of VBP in the S1 setting, reflecting changes in proximity to approximate Bayesian correlated equilibrium. Left Center: The variation in honesty probability during the iterative solving process o…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Performance comparision in the S1 setting. In the 3 BP problems, the probability of honesty refers to accurately describing a strong student, a guilty defendant, or a patrolled segment. Right: The variation in honesty probability during the iterative solving proc…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Performance comparision on the S3 setting. Averaged over 20 seeds and 5 timesteps. The physical meaning of the probabilities of lying and honesty is consistent with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The variation in the prompts during the iterative solving process of VBP in the S2 setting. commitment naturally emerges in equilibria. This occurs because the sender needs to establish a reputation for credibility, which is crucial for maximizing its long-term payoff …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The probability of the sender lying under different upper limits on the number of prompts. The figure shows that when the number of prompts is heavily pruned, significant performance degradation occurs. However, once the number of retained prompts exceeds a certain th…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Ablation studies on general static BP problems. Averaged over 20 seeds. CA, OC, and IO represent the commitment assumption, obedience constraint, and information obfuscation, respectively. The physical meaning of the probabilities of lying and honesty is consistent wi…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: REL w/o polarization Recommend Not Recommend REL with polarization Recommend Not Recommend COR w/o polarization Guilty Innocent COR with polarization Guilty Innocent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Receiver’s rewards when sender’s signaling scheme is predefined. “No signal” indicates that the message generated by the sender contains no information about the true state, while “honest” means the sender fully discloses all information about the true state. This sec…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Approximate best response generation in prompt-space response oracle framework. C.2 Extended Obedience Constraints The inclusion of obedience constraints in our framework is essential for modeling realistic com￾munication scenarios in verbalized Bayesian persuasion pr…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Examples of recommendation letters generated by VBP in the S2 setting: in this recommendation letter, the sender truthfully conveys information about a weak student to the receiver. to make them appear more competent than they actually are. Although the letter may see…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Examples of recommendation letters generated by VBP in the S2 setting: in this recommendation letter, the sender conceals and fabricates information about a weak student. D.1.2 COR The two court cases presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Two examples of cases generated by the LLM in the S2 setting. of the case builds credibility with the judge, just as the professor builds credibility with HR by being honest about weak students. By being transparent about John Smith’s likely innocence, the prosecutor …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Examples of complaints generated by VBP in the S2 Setting: in this complaint, the sender truthfully conveys case-related information to the receiver. In the second case, the prosecutor takes a different strategy, one akin to the manipulation or concealment seen in the…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Examples of complaints generated by VBP in the S2 Setting: in this complaint, the sender conceals case-related information and selectively presents ambiguous evidence to the receiver. In both cases, the prosecutor uses randomness in how they treat innocent defendants …
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Two examples of deployment plans generated by the LLM in the S2 setting. In the first deployment plan, the police follow a strategy of honest disclosure. This strategy mirrors the first recommendation letter and the first court case, where the sender (police) is trans…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Examples of police deployment announcements generated by VBP in the S2 Setting: in the left announcement, the sender truthfully conveys police deployment information to the receiver; in the right announcement, the sender conceals and fabricates police deployment infor…

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

134 extracted references · 46 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]

    S., Chien, J., D \' az, M., El-Sayed, S., Pittman, J., Mohamed, S., and McKee, K

    Agnew, W., Bergman, A. S., Chien, J., D \' az, M., El-Sayed, S., Pittman, J., Mohamed, S., and McKee, K. R. The illusion of artificial inclusion. In CHI, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Learning to deceive in multi-agent hidden role games

    Aitchison, M., Benke, L., and Sweetser, P. Learning to deceive in multi-agent hidden role games. In International Workshop on Deceptive AI, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    J., Bethge, M., and Schulz, E

    Akata, E., Schulz, L., Coda-Forno, J., Oh, S. J., Bethge, M., and Schulz, E. Playing repeated games with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16867, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Albrecht, S. V. and Stone, P. Autonomous agents modelling other agents: A comprehensive survey and open problems. Artificial Intelligence, 258: 0 66--95, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Persuasion is now 30 per cent of us gdp: Revisiting mccloskey and klamer after a quarter of a century

    Antioch, G. Persuasion is now 30 per cent of us gdp: Revisiting mccloskey and klamer after a quarter of a century. Economic Round-up, pp.\ 1--10, 2013

    2013

  7. [7]

    M., and Atia, M

    Asgharnia, A., Schwartz, H. M., and Atia, M. Deception in the game of guarding multiple territories: A machine learning approach. In SMC, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Assos, A., Attias, I., Dagan, Y., Daskalakis, C., and Fishelson, M. K. Online learning and solving infinite games with an erm oracle. In COLT, 2023

    2023

Show all 134 references
  1. [9]

    E., Castiglioni, M., Gatti, N., and Marchesi, A

    Bacchiocchi, F., Stradi, F. E., Castiglioni, M., Gatti, N., and Marchesi, A. Markov persuasion processes: How to persuade multiple agents from scratch. In ICML Workshop: Aligning Reinforcement Learning Experimentalists and Theorists, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Efficient model-agnostic alignment via bayesian persuasion

    Bai, F., Wang, M., Zhang, Z., Chen, B., Xu, Y., Wen, Y., and Yang, Y. Efficient model-agnostic alignment via bayesian persuasion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18718, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    G., Eichstaedt, j

    Bai, H., Voelkel, J. G., Eichstaedt, j. C., and Willer, R. Artificial intelligence can persuade humans on political issues, Feb 2023. URL osf.io/stakv

    2023

  4. [12]

    R., and Talgam-Cohen, I

    Bar-Gill, O., Sunstein, C. R., and Talgam-Cohen, I. Algorithmic harm in consumer markets. Journal of Legal Analysis, 15 0 (1): 0 1--47, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Bennett, P. G. Hypergames: developing a model of conflict. Futures, 12 0 (6): 0 489--507, 1980

    1980

  6. [14]

    and Morris, S

    Bergemann, D. and Morris, S. Robust predictions in games with incomplete information. Econometrica, 81 0 (4): 0 1251--1308, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    and Morris, S

    Bergemann, D. and Morris, S. Bayes correlated equilibrium and the comparison of information structures in games. Theoretical Economics, 11 0 (2): 0 487--522, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    and Morris, S

    Bergemann, D. and Morris, S. Information design: A unified perspective. Journal of Economic Literature, 57 0 (1): 0 44--95, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Sequential information design: Learning to persuade in the dark

    Bernasconi, M., Castiglioni, M., Marchesi, A., Gatti, N., and Trov \`o , F. Sequential information design: Learning to persuade in the dark. In NeurIPS, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Bighashdel, A., Wang, Y., McAleer, S., Savani, R., and Oliehoek, F. A. Policy space response oracles: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02227, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    and Cotton, C

    Boleslavsky, R. and Cotton, C. Grading standards and education quality. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 7 0 (2): 0 248--279, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    Bond, C. F. and Robinson, M. The evolution of deception. Journal of nonverbal behavior, 12: 0 295--307, 1988

    1988

  13. [21]

    superstition

    Bontrager, P., Khalifa, A., Anderson, D., Stephenson, M., Salge, C., and Togelius, J. " superstition" in the network: Deep reinforcement learning plays deceptive games. In AIIDE, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    M., Egdal, D

    Breum, S. M., Egdal, D. V., Mortensen, V. G., M ller, A. G., and Aiello, L. M. The persuasive power of large language models. In AAAI, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    and Woodside, T

    Burtell, M. and Woodside, T. Artificial influence: An analysis of ai-driven persuasion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08721, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Large language models are as persuasive as humans, but why? about the cognitive effort and moral-emotional language of llm arguments

    Carrasco-Farre, C. Large language models are as persuasive as humans, but why? about the cognitive effort and moral-emotional language of llm arguments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09329, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Carroll, T. E. and Grosu, D. A game theoretic investigation of deception in network security. Security and Communication Networks, 4 0 (10): 0 1162--1172, 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    Multi-receiver online bayesian persuasion

    Castiglioni, M., Marchesi, A., Celli, A., and Gatti, N. Multi-receiver online bayesian persuasion. In ICML. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Deception in social learning: A multi-agent reinforcement learning perspective

    Chelarescu, P. Deception in social learning: A multi-agent reinforcement learning perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05402, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    P., and Richardson, K

    Chen, J., Yuan, S., Ye, R., Majumder, B. P., and Richardson, K. Put your money where your mouth is: Evaluating strategic planning and execution of llm agents in an auction arena. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05746, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Crawford, V. P. and Sobel, J. Strategic information transmission. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pp.\ 1431--1451, 1982

    1982

  22. [30]

    M., Gidel, G., Tracey, B., Tuyls, K., Omidshafiei, S., Balduzzi, D., and Jaderberg, M

    Czarnecki, W. M., Gidel, G., Tracey, B., Tuyls, K., Omidshafiei, S., Balduzzi, D., and Jaderberg, M. Real world games look like spinning tops. In NeurIPS, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    R., Leibo, J

    Dafoe, A., Hughes, E., Bachrach, Y., Collins, T., McKee, K. R., Leibo, J. Z., Larson, K., and Graepel, T. Open problems in cooperative ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.08630, 2020

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Reducing congestion through information design

    Das, S., Kamenica, E., and Mirka, R. Reducing congestion through information design. In 2017 55th annual allerton conference on communication, control, and computing (allerton), pp.\ 1279--1284. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Gtbench: Uncovering the strategic reasoning limitations of llms via game-theoretic evaluations

    Duan, J., Zhang, R., Diffenderfer, J., Kailkhura, B., Sun, L., Stengel-Eskin, E., Bansal, M., Chen, T., and Xu, K. Gtbench: Uncovering the strategic reasoning limitations of llms via game-theoretic evaluations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12348, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Algorithmic information structure design: a survey

    Dughmi, S. Algorithmic information structure design: a survey. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 15 0 (2): 0 2--24, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Measuring the persuasiveness of language models, 2024

    Durmus, E., Lovitt, L., Tamkin, A., Ritchie, S., Clark, J., and Ganguli, D. Measuring the persuasiveness of language models, 2024. URL https://www.anthropic.com/news/measuring-model-persuasiveness

    2024

  28. [36]

    and Martini, G

    Dworczak, P. and Martini, G. The simple economics of optimal persuasion. Journal of Political Economy, 127 0 (5): 0 1993--2048, 2019

    1993

  29. [37]

    and Jehiel, P

    Ettinger, D. and Jehiel, P. A theory of deception. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2 0 (1): 0 1--20, 2010

    2010

  30. [38]

    FAIR, M. F. A. R. D. T., Bakhtin, A., Brown, N., Dinan, E., Farina, G., Flaherty, C., Fried, D., Goff, A., Gray, J., Hu, H., et al. Human-level play in the game of diplomacy by combining language models with strategic reasoning. Science, 378 0 (6624): 0 1067--1074, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Can large language models serve as rational players in game theory? a systematic analysis

    Fan, C., Chen, J., Jin, Y., and He, H. Can large language models serve as rational players in game theory? a systematic analysis. In AAAI, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Evolutionary conditions for the emergence of communication in robots

    Floreano, D., Mitri, S., Magnenat, S., and Keller, L. Evolutionary conditions for the emergence of communication in robots. Current biology, 17 0 (6): 0 514--519, 2007

    2007

  33. [41]

    A., De Freitas, N., and Whiteson, S

    Foerster, J., Assael, I. A., De Freitas, N., and Whiteson, S. Learning to communicate with deep multi-agent reinforcement learning. In NeurIPS, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    Bayesian persuasion in sequential decision-making

    Gan, J., Majumdar, R., Radanovic, G., and Singla, A. Bayesian persuasion in sequential decision-making. In AAAI, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Gandhi, K., Sadigh, D., and Goodman, N. D. Strategic reasoning with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19165, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    States as strings as strategies: Steering language models with game-theoretic solvers

    Gemp, I., Bachrach, Y., Lanctot, M., Patel, R., Dasagi, V., Marris, L., Piliouras, G., and Tuyls, K. States as strings as strategies: Steering language models with game-theoretic solvers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01704, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    and Cort \'e s, J

    Gharesifard, B. and Cort \'e s, J. Stealthy deception in hypergames under informational asymmetry. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 44 0 (6): 0 785--795, 2013

    2013

  38. [46]

    and Sycara, K

    Ghiya, S. and Sycara, K. Learning complex multi-agent policies in presence of an adversary. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.07698, 2020

    2008 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning

    Guo, D., Yang, D., Zhang, H., Song, J., Zhang, R., Xu, R., Zhu, Q., Ma, S., Wang, P., Bi, X., et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Can large language models play games? a case study of a self-play approach

    Guo, H., Liu, Z., Zhang, Y., and Wang, Z. Can large language models play games? a case study of a self-play approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05632, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Unpacking reward shaping: Understanding the benefits of reward engineering on sample complexity

    Gupta, A., Pacchiano, A., Zhai, Y., Kakade, S., and Levine, S. Unpacking reward shaping: Understanding the benefits of reward engineering on sample complexity. In NeurIPS, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    Q., et al

    Han, Z., Gao, C., Liu, J., Zhang, S. Q., et al. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning for large models: A comprehensive survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14608, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Teams, signaling, and information theory

    Ho, Y.-C., Kastner, M., and Wong, E. Teams, signaling, and information theory. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 23 0 (2): 0 305--312, 1978

    1978

  44. [52]

    F., DiFranzo, D., Aghajari, Z., Mieczkowski, H., Levy, K., Naaman, M., Hancock, J., and Jung, M

    Hohenstein, J., Kizilcec, R. F., DiFranzo, D., Aghajari, Z., Mieczkowski, H., Levy, K., Naaman, M., Hancock, J., and Jung, M. F. Artificial intelligence in communication impacts language and social relationships. Scientific Reports, 13 0 (1): 0 5487, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    C., and Xu, H

    Hossain, S., Wang, T., Lin, T., Chen, Y., Parkes, D. C., and Xu, H. Multi-sender persuasion--a computational perspective. In ICML, 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    Game-theoretic llm: Agent workflow for negotiation games

    Hua, W., Liu, O., Li, L., Amayuelas, A., Chen, J., Jiang, L., Jin, M., Fan, L., Sun, F., Wang, W., et al. Game-theoretic llm: Agent workflow for negotiation games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05990, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    pigovian tax

    Hua, Y., Gao, S., Li, W., Jin, B., Wang, X., and Zha, H. Learning optimal" pigovian tax" in sequential social dilemmas. In AAMAS, 2023

    2023

  48. [56]

    S., Hou, L., Wu, Y., Wang, X., Yu, H., and Han, J

    Huang, J., Gu, S. S., Hou, L., Wu, Y., Wang, X., Yu, H., and Han, J. Large language models can self-improve. In EMNLP, 2023

    2023

  49. [57]

    J., Lam, M

    Huang, J.-t., Li, E. J., Lam, M. H., Liang, T., Wang, W., Yuan, Y., Jiao, W., Wang, X., Tu, Z., and Lyu, M. R. How far are we on the decision-making of llms? evaluating llms' gaming ability in multi-agent environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11807, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Z., Phillips, M., Tuyls, K., Due \ n ez-Guzman, E., Garc \' a Casta \ n eda, A., Dunning, I., Zhu, T., McKee, K., Koster, R., et al

    Hughes, E., Leibo, J. Z., Phillips, M., Tuyls, K., Due \ n ez-Guzman, E., Garc \' a Casta \ n eda, A., Dunning, I., Zhu, T., McKee, K., Koster, R., et al. Inequity aversion improves cooperation in intertemporal social dilemmas. In NeurIPS, 2018

    2018

  51. [59]

    P., Shen, Y., Farina, G., and Andreas, J

    Jacob, A. P., Shen, Y., Farina, G., and Andreas, J. The consensus game: Language model generation via equilibrium search. In ICLR, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=n9xeGcI4Yg

    2024

  52. [60]

    Z., and De Freitas, N

    Jaques, N., Lazaridou, A., Hughes, E., Gulcehre, C., Ortega, P., Strouse, D., Leibo, J. Z., and De Freitas, N. Social influence as intrinsic motivation for multi-agent deep reinforcement learning. In ICML, 2019

    2019

  53. [61]

    A., Tessler, M

    Jarrett, D., Pislar, M., Bakker, M. A., Tessler, M. H., Koster, R., Balaguer, J., Elie, R., Summerfield, C., and Tacchetti, A. Language agents as digital representatives in collective decision-making. In NeurIPS Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop, 2023

    2023

  54. [62]

    Bayesian persuasion and information design

    Kamenica, E. Bayesian persuasion and information design. Annual Review of Economics, 11 0 (1): 0 249--272, 2019

    2019

  55. [63]

    and Gentzkow, M

    Kamenica, E. and Gentzkow, M. Bayesian persuasion. American Economic Review, 101 0 (6): 0 2590--2615, 2011

    2011

  56. [64]

    X., Park, J

    Karinshak, E., Liu, S. X., Park, J. S., and Hancock, J. T. Working with ai to persuade: Examining a large language model's ability to generate pro-vaccination messages. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7 0 (CSCW1): 0 1--29, 2023

    2023

  57. [65]

    and Skreta, V

    Koessler, F. and Skreta, V. Informed information design. Journal of Political Economy, 131 0 (11): 0 3186--3232, 2023

    2023

  58. [66]

    Long information design

    Koessler, F., Laclau, M., Renault, J., and Tomala, T. Long information design. Theoretical Economics, 17 0 (2): 0 883--927, 2022 a

    2022

  59. [67]

    Interactive information design

    Koessler, F., Laclau, M., and Tomala, T. Interactive information design. Mathematics of Operations Research, 47 0 (1): 0 153--175, 2022 b

    2022

  60. [68]

    S., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y., and Iwasawa, Y

    Kojima, T., Gu, S. S., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y., and Iwasawa, Y. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In NeurIPS, 2022

    2022

  61. [69]

    Optimal information disclosure: A linear programming approach

    Kolotilin, A. Optimal information disclosure: A linear programming approach. Theoretical Economics, 13 0 (2): 0 607--635, 2018

    2018

  62. [70]

    S., Gibson, A

    Kovach, N. S., Gibson, A. S., and Lamont, G. B. Hypergame theory: a model for conflict, misperception, and deception. Game Theory, 2015 0 (1): 0 570639, 2015

    2015

  63. [71]

    A unified game-theoretic approach to multiagent reinforcement learning

    Lanctot, M., Zambaldi, V., Gruslys, A., Lazaridou, A., Tuyls, K., P \'e rolat, J., Silver, D., and Graepel, T. A unified game-theoretic approach to multiagent reinforcement learning. In NeurIPS, 2017

    2017

  64. [72]

    Lazear, E. P. Speeding, terrorism, and teaching to the test. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121 0 (3): 0 1029--1061, 2006

    2006

  65. [73]

    Z., Zambaldi, V., Lanctot, M., Marecki, J., and Graepel, T

    Leibo, J. Z., Zambaldi, V., Lanctot, M., Marecki, J., and Graepel, T. Multi-agent reinforcement learning in sequential social dilemmas. In AAMAS, 2017

    2017

  66. [74]

    Z., Due \ n ez-Guzman, E

    Leibo, J. Z., Due \ n ez-Guzman, E. A., Vezhnevets, A., Agapiou, J. P., Sunehag, P., Koster, R., Matyas, J., Beattie, C., Mordatch, I., and Graepel, T. Scalable evaluation of multi-agent reinforcement learning with melting pot. In ICML. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  67. [75]

    An effective maximum entropy exploration approach for deceptive game in reinforcement learning

    Li, C., Wei, X., Zhao, Y., and Geng, X. An effective maximum entropy exploration approach for deceptive game in reinforcement learning. Neurocomputing, 403: 0 98--108, 2020

    2020

  68. [76]

    Information design in multi-agent reinforcement learning

    Lin, Y., Li, W., Zha, H., and Wang, B. Information design in multi-agent reinforcement learning. In NeurIPS, 2023

    2023

  69. [77]

    Llm+ p: Empowering large language models with optimal planning proficiency

    Liu, B., Jiang, Y., Zhang, X., Liu, Q., Zhang, S., Biswas, J., and Stone, P. Llm+ p: Empowering large language models with optimal planning proficiency. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11477, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  70. [78]

    L., de Witt, C

    Lo, Y. L., de Witt, C. S., Sokota, S., Foerster, J. N., and Whiteson, S. Cheap talk discovery and utilization in multi-agent reinforcement learning. In ICLR, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=cddbeL1HWaD

    2023

  71. [79]

    and Heydari, B

    Lor \`e , N. and Heydari, B. Strategic behavior of large language models: Game structure vs. contextual framing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05898, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  72. [80]

    and Heydari, B

    Lor \`e , N. and Heydari, B. Strategic behavior of large language models and the role of game structure versus contextual framing. Scientific Reports, 14 0 (1): 0 18490, 2024

    2024

  73. [81]

    and Precup, D

    Lupu, A. and Precup, D. Gifting in multi-agent reinforcement learning. In AAMAS, 2020

    2020

  74. [82]

    Red teaming game: A game-theoretic framework for red teaming language models

    Ma, C., Yang, Z., Gao, M., Ci, H., Gao, J., Pan, X., and Yang, Y. Red teaming game: A game-theoretic framework for red teaming language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00322, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  75. [83]

    M., Lipovetzky, N., Ramirez, M., and Pearce, A

    MacNally, A. M., Lipovetzky, N., Ramirez, M., and Pearce, A. R. Action selection for transparent planning. In AAMAS, 2018

    2018

  76. [84]

    Artificial intelligence can generate fraudulent but authentic-looking scientific medical articles: Pandora’s box has been opened

    M \'a jovsk \`y , M., C ern \`y , M., Kasal, M., Komarc, M., and Netuka, D. Artificial intelligence can generate fraudulent but authentic-looking scientific medical articles: Pandora’s box has been opened. Journal of medical Internet research, 25: 0 e46924, 2023

    2023

  77. [85]

    and Renou, L

    Makris, M. and Renou, L. Information design in multistage games. Theoretical Economics, 18 0 (4): 0 1475--1509, 2023

    2023

  78. [86]

    Alympics: Language agents meet game theory

    Mao, S., Cai, Y., Xia, Y., Wu, W., Wang, X., Wang, F., Ge, T., and Wei, F. Alympics: Language agents meet game theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03220, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Bargaining games, pp.\ 622–658

    Maschler, M., Solan, E., and Zamir, S. Bargaining games, pp.\ 622–658. Cambridge University Press, 2013

    2013

  80. [88]

    and Sardina, S

    Masters, P. and Sardina, S. Deceptive path-planning. In IJCAI, pp.\ 4368--4375, 2017

    2017

  81. [89]

    S., Peters, H., Harari, G., and Cerf, M

    Matz, S., Teeny, J., Vaid, S. S., Peters, H., Harari, G., and Cerf, M. The potential of generative ai for personalized persuasion at scale. Scientific Reports, 14 0 (1): 0 4692, 2024

    2024

  82. [90]

    and Klamer, A

    McCloskey, D. and Klamer, A. One quarter of gdp is persuasion. The American Economic Review, 85 0 (2): 0 191--195, 1995

    1995

  83. [91]

    R., Gemp, I., McWilliams, B., Du \`e \ n ez-Guzm \'a n, E

    McKee, K. R., Gemp, I., McWilliams, B., Du \`e \ n ez-Guzm \'a n, E. A., Hughes, E., and Leibo, J. Z. Social diversity and social preferences in mixed-motive reinforcement learning. In AAMAS, 2020

    2020

  84. [92]

    Myerson, R. B. Incentive compatibility and the bargaining problem. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, pp.\ 61--73, 1979

    1979

  85. [93]

    Two-person cooperative games

    Nash, J. Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pp.\ 128--140, 1953

    1953

  86. [94]

    Nash, J. F. et al. The bargaining problem. Econometrica, 18 0 (2): 0 155--162, 1950

    1950

  87. [95]

    K., Eck, D., Levine, S., and Jaques, N

    Ndousse, K. K., Eck, D., Levine, S., and Jaques, N. Emergent social learning via multi-agent reinforcement learning. In ICML, 2021

    2021

  88. [96]

    Y., Harada, D., and Russell, S

    Ng, A. Y., Harada, D., and Russell, S. Policy invariance under reward transformations: Theory and application to reward shaping. In ICML, 1999

    1999

  89. [97]

    Learning to reason with llms

    OpenAI. Learning to reason with llms. https://openai.com/index/learning-to-reason-with-llms/, 2024. Accessed: 2024-10-02

    2024

  90. [98]

    A., and Botvinick, M

    Rabinowitz, N., Perbet, F., Song, F., Zhang, C., Eslami, S. A., and Botvinick, M. Machine theory of mind. In ICML. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  91. [99]

    P., Karande, S., Bhatia, Y., et al

    Ramani, G. P., Karande, S., Bhatia, Y., et al. Persuasion games using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15879, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  92. [100]

    and Segal, I

    Rayo, L. and Segal, I. Optimal information disclosure. Journal of political Economy, 118 0 (5): 0 949--987, 2010

    2010

  93. [101]

    and Smolin, A

    Romanyuk, G. and Smolin, A. Cream skimming and information design in matching markets. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 11 0 (2): 0 250--276, 2019

    2019

  94. [102]

    P., Dupont, E., Ruiz, F

    Romera-Paredes, B., Barekatain, M., Novikov, A., Balog, M., Kumar, M. P., Dupont, E., Ruiz, F. J., Ellenberg, J. S., Wang, P., Fawzi, O., et al. Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models. Nature, 625 0 (7995): 0 468--475, 2024

    2024

  95. [103]

    H., Gallotti, R., and West, R

    Salvi, F., Ribeiro, M. H., Gallotti, R., and West, R. On the conversational persuasiveness of large language models: A randomized controlled trial. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14380, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Measuring the non-transitivity in chess

    Sanjaya, R., Wang, J., and Yang, Y. Measuring the non-transitivity in chess. Algorithms, 15 0 (5): 0 152, 2022

    2022

  97. [105]

    Learning structured communication for multi-agent reinforcement learning

    Sheng, J., Wang, X., Jin, B., Yan, J., Li, W., Chang, T.-H., Wang, J., and Zha, H. Learning structured communication for multi-agent reinforcement learning. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 36 0 (2): 0 50, 2022

    2022

  98. [106]

    and Kim, J

    Shin, M. and Kim, J. Enhancing human persuasion with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16466, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  99. [107]

    and Kim, J

    Shin, M. and Kim, J. Large language models can enhance persuasion through linguistic feature alignment. Available at SSRN 4725351, 2024

    2024

  100. [108]

    Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning

    Shinn, N., Cassano, F., Gopinath, A., Narasimhan, K., and Yao, S. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. In NeurIPS, 2024

    2024

  101. [109]

    Large language models playing mixed strategy nash equilibrium games

    Silva, A. Large language models playing mixed strategy nash equilibrium games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10574, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Strouse, D., Kleiman-Weiner, M., Tenenbaum, J., Botvinick, M., and Schwab, D. J. Learning to share and hide intentions using information regularization. In NeurIPS, 2018

    2018

  103. [111]

    A survey on self-evolution of large language models

    Tao, Z., Lin, T.-E., Chen, X., Li, H., Wu, Y., Li, Y., Jin, Z., Huang, F., Tao, D., and Zhou, J. A survey on self-evolution of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14387, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  104. [112]

    and Weiss, G

    Tuyls, K. and Weiss, G. Multiagent learning: Basics, challenges, and prospects. Ai Magazine, 33 0 (3): 0 41--41, 2012

    2012

  105. [113]

    and Lehner, P

    Vane, R. and Lehner, P. Using hypergames to increase planned payoff and reduce risk. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 5: 0 365--380, 2002

    2002

  106. [114]

    Carbon market simulation with adaptive mechanism design

    Wang, H., Li, W., Zha, H., and Wang, B. Carbon market simulation with adaptive mechanism design. In IJCAI Demostrations Track, 2024

    2024

  107. [115]

    Wellman, M. P. Methods for empirical game-theoretic analysis. In AAAI, 2006

    2006

  108. [116]

    When and why is persuasion hard? a computational complexity result

    Wojtowicz, Z. When and why is persuasion hard? a computational complexity result. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07923, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  109. [117]

    I., and Xu, H

    Wu, J., Zhang, Z., Feng, Z., Wang, Z., Yang, Z., Jordan, M. I., and Xu, H. Sequential information design: Markov persuasion process and its efficient reinforcement learning. In EC, 2022

    2022

  110. [118]

    J., Tao, X., and Wang, F

    Xu, L., Xie, H., Qin, S.-Z. J., Tao, X., and Wang, F. L. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods for pretrained language models: A critical review and assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.12148, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Magic: Investigation of large language model powered multi-agent in cognition, adaptability, rationality and collaboration

    Xu, L., Hu, Z., Zhou, D., Ren, H., Dong, Z., Keutzer, K., Ng, S.-K., and Feng, J. Magic: Investigation of large language model powered multi-agent in cognition, adaptability, rationality and collaboration. In ICLR Workshop on Large Language Model (LLM) Agents, 2024

    2024

  112. [120]

    V., Zhou, D., and Chen, X

    Yang, C., Wang, X., Lu, Y., Liu, H., Le, Q. V., Zhou, D., and Chen, X. Large language models as optimizers. In ICLR, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=Bb4VGOWELI

    2024

  113. [121]

    Learning to incentivize other learning agents

    Yang, J., Li, A., Farajtabar, M., Sunehag, P., Hughes, E., and Zha, H. Learning to incentivize other learning agents. In NeurIPS, 2020

    2020

  114. [122]

    and Wang, J

    Yang, Y. and Wang, J. An overview of multi-agent reinforcement learning from game theoretical perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.00583, 2020

    2011 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Designing incentives for heterogeneous researchers

    Yoder, N. Designing incentives for heterogeneous researchers. Journal of Political Economy, 130 0 (8): 0 2018--2054, 2022

    2018

  116. [124]

    Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning

    Zelikman, E., Wu, Y., Mu, J., and Goodman, N. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. In NeurIPS, 2022

    2022

  117. [125]

    Zelikman, E., Harik, G., Shao, Y., Jayasiri, V., Haber, N., and Goodman, N. D. Quiet-star: Language models can teach themselves to think before speaking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09629, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  118. [126]

    and Sandholm, T

    Zhang, B. and Sandholm, T. Polynomial-time optimal equilibria with a mediator in extensive-form games. In NeurIPS, 2022

    2022

  119. [127]

    Computing optimal equilibria and mechanisms via learning in zero-sum extensive-form games

    Zhang, B., Farina, G., Anagnostides, I., Cacciamani, F., McAleer, S., Haupt, A., Celli, A., Gatti, N., Conitzer, V., and Sandholm, T. Computing optimal equilibria and mechanisms via learning in zero-sum extensive-form games. In NeurIPS, 2024 a

    2024

  120. [128]

    Multi-agent reinforcement learning: A selective overview of theories and algorithms

    Zhang, K., Yang, Z., and Ba s ar, T. Multi-agent reinforcement learning: A selective overview of theories and algorithms. Handbook of reinforcement learning and control, pp.\ 321--384, 2021

    2021

  121. [129]

    Llm as a mastermind: A survey of strategic reasoning with large language models

    Zhang, Y., Mao, S., Ge, T., Wang, X., de Wynter, A., Xia, Y., Wu, W., Song, T., Lan, M., and Wei, F. Llm as a mastermind: A survey of strategic reasoning with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01230, 2024 b

    2024 arXiv

  122. [130]

    K-level reasoning with large language models

    Zhang, Y., Mao, S., Ge, T., Wang, X., Xia, Y., Lan, M., and Wei, F. K-level reasoning with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01521, 2024 c

    2024 arXiv

  123. [131]

    X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Wang, X., Hou, Y., Min, Y., Zhang, B., Zhang, J., Dong, Z., et al

    Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Wang, X., Hou, Y., Min, Y., Zhang, B., Zhang, J., Dong, Z., et al. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  124. [132]

    C., and Socher, R

    Zheng, S., Trott, A., Srinivasa, S., Parkes, D. C., and Socher, R. The ai economist: Taxation policy design via two-level deep multiagent reinforcement learning. Science advances, 8 0 (18): 0 eabk2607, 2022

    2022

  125. [133]

    The design and implementation of xiaoice, an empathetic social chatbot

    Zhou, L., Gao, J., Li, D., and Shum, H.-Y. The design and implementation of xiaoice, an empathetic social chatbot. Computational Linguistics, 46 0 (1): 0 53--93, 2020

    2020

  126. [134]

    A survey of multi-agent reinforcement learning with communication

    Zhu, C., Dastani, M., and Wang, S. A survey of multi-agent reinforcement learning with communication. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08975, 2022

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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