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

Haoran Sun; Peng Wang; Wei Chen; Xiaotie Deng; Xu Chu; Yukun Cheng; Yusen Wu

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 6 cited by

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

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This survey claims that game theory and large language models are linked bidirectionally and organizes the intersection into a four-part taxonomy spanning evaluation, improvement, modeling, and game-theoretic advancement.

desk verdict A useful organizational survey of the game theory–LLM intersection, but the 'systematic' claim is undercut by a missing search protocol and a few concrete citation/table errors. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09053 v2 pith:FLGCCA7S submitted 2025-02-13 cs.AI cs.GTcs.LG

Haoran Sun , Yusen Wu , Peng Wang , Wei Chen , Yukun Cheng , Xiaotie Deng , Xu Chu This is my paper

classification cs.AIcs.GTcs.LG

keywords gametheorylargelanguagemodelssurveytaxonomystrategicreasoningalignmentsocialchoicemechanismdesign

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 is a survey, and its central claim is that the relationship between game theory and large language models (LLMs) runs in both directions and is best understood through a four-part taxonomy. The four branches are: using games as playgrounds to evaluate LLMs' strategic behavior; using game-theoretic methods to improve LLM interpretability, alignment, and adaptability; building game models of the competitive and societal processes surrounding LLM development and deployment; and using LLMs to expand and solve game-theoretic problems. The authors argue that earlier surveys looked mostly one way, treating games as evaluation tools for LLMs, and that this survey is the first to organize the full bidirectional landscape. A sympathetic reader would care because the taxonomy gives researchers a shared map of where game theory and LLMs reinforce each other, and it names the open problems that remain.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is the four-branch taxonomy presented in Figure 1, which splits the intersection into evaluation playgrounds, game-theoretic LLM improvement, game modeling of LLM-related events, and LLM-assisted advances in game theory. Each branch is carried by named concepts: the Shapley value for credit assignment in interpretability, Nash equilibrium and minimax games for preference alignment, social choice axioms for heterogeneous preferences, Stackelberg and auction models for LLM economics, and LLM-as-oracle for extending classical game models. The taxonomy does the conceptual work of turning a scattered literature into a map that reveals which directions are mature, which are fragmentary, and which remain open.

What would settle it

A reader could test the comprehensiveness claim by building an independent bibliography of game-theory/LLM papers and checking whether a substantial cluster, such as LLM-based computational social choice or behavioral game experiments, resists placement in the four branches; finding such a cluster would falsify the claim. A spot check is available inside the paper itself: Table 3 labels Section 4.2 'Solving Intractable Game Problems with LLMs,' while the text of Section 4.2 concerns the societal impact of LLMs, so a reader can verify whether this inconsistency reflects a deeper categorization problem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the intersection of game theory and large language models is genuinely bidirectional, and that the existing literature can be organized into four research directions: evaluating LLMs in game-based playgrounds, improving LLMs with game-theoretic methods, characterizing LLM-related events through game models, and advancing game theory with LLMs. The authors state that this four-part taxonomy is, to their knowledge, the first comprehensive and structured analysis of the two-way relationship, and they contrast it with earlier surveys that treat game theory mainly as an evaluation tool for LLMs. They further argue that the two fields reinforce each other: game theory supplies equilibrium, incentive, and multi-agent concepts for formalizing and improving LLMs, while LLMs supply natural-language interfaces, simulated agents, and approximate oracles that let game theory address realistic, previously intractable settings. The survey also catalogs challenges, including the absence of generalist game-playing LLM agents, the mismatch between human-oriented evaluation metrics and LLM training objectives, and the risk of bias and hallucination when LLMs serve as oracles in game-theoretic applications.

Load-bearing premise

The claim of being the first comprehensive survey rests on the assumption that the authors' literature search found all (or nearly all) relevant work and placed each item in the correct branch; if important work is missing or misclassified, the taxonomy's authority weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Game-based benchmarks and behavioral studies give an accumulating evidence base for claims about LLM strategic reasoning, including pro-social bias, prompt sensitivity, and fragile coordination.
Game-theoretic alignment methods such as Nash Learning from Human Feedback provide a path beyond scalar-reward RLHF when preferences are intransitive or heterogeneous.
Game models of LLM development and deployment expose incentive misalignments, such as strategic preference reporting, pricing moral hazard, and data-ecosystem erosion, which can inform mechanism and regulation design.
LLMs acting as preference elicitors, game formalizers, and approximate solvers open a route to game theory that operates directly on natural-language descriptions rather than rigid numerical representations.

Reading between the lines

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

The four branches are probably at different maturity levels; a quantitative analysis of publication volume and citation flow per branch would test whether evaluation and alignment are ahead of LLM-advanced game theory.
If the taxonomy is adopted, it could serve as an indexing scheme for future work, but its durability will depend on whether it can absorb emerging topics such as language-mediated mechanism design, LLM-based social choice, and open-ended negotiation.
A natural next step outside this survey is a formal literature-search protocol with inclusion criteria and inter-annotator agreement, which would let an independent team verify that no substantial fifth direction is missing.

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

You should know this paper is a survey, not a research result, and it's a decent one. The useful part is the four-branch taxonomy of the bidirectional game-theory/LLM literature: evaluation playgrounds, game-theoretic LLM improvement, game models of LLM-related events, and LLMs advancing game theory. That framing genuinely extends the existing evaluation-only surveys [32-34]. The coverage is broad (~230 papers) and the summaries are mostly accurate.

Credit where due: the sections on game-theoretic alignment (Shapley, Nash/preference optimization, social choice) and on LLM-for-game-theory are the most useful; the authors did real work in organizing these subfields. The discussion sections are honest about limitations (e.g., Shapley intractability, hallucination risk when LLMs act as oracles).

The weaknesses are real but not fatal. There is no systematic search protocol, so the 'first comprehensive' claim is unverifiable. More concretely, there are at least two internal errors: Table 3 labels Section 4.2 as 'Solving Intractable Game Problems with LLMs' when that is Section 5.2, and Section 3.3.2 attributes 'Vote-based Preference Optimization' to reference [159], which is actually the 'Self-playing adversarial language game' paper (Cheng et al., NeurIPS 2024). That latter misattribution is verifiable in the reference list. These suggest the catalog needs a careful proofread before it fully earns the 'structured analysis' label. The errors are isolated enough that the taxonomy's overall shape still holds, in my view.

Who it's for: anyone entering the field or wanting a map of the intersection; it's a useful entry point, not a deep technical contribution. It deserves a serious referee—the taxonomy is worth publishing after the errors are fixed and the methodology is documented. I'd be hesitant to cite it as 'systematic' until then.

Recommendation: send it out, but request major revisions: add a search protocol, fix the misattributions and table errors, and tone down the 'first comprehensive' claim if the coverage isn't fully systematic.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript surveys the intersection of game theory and large language models (LLMs), organizing the literature into four directions: evaluating LLMs in game-based playgrounds, improving LLMs with game-theoretic methods, characterizing LLM-related events through game models, and advancing game theory with LLMs. For each direction it summarizes representative results, provides summary tables, discusses open challenges, and lists future research directions. The paper claims to be the first comprehensive and structured survey of the bidirectional relationship between game theory and LLMs.

Significance. If the taxonomy and coverage are accurate, this survey provides a useful organizing resource for a rapidly growing interdisciplinary area. The paper's strengths include a broad reference base (roughly 230 entries), a clear four-branch structure, summary tables that condense many results, and candid discussion boxes that acknowledge limitations such as the brittleness of LLM-based agents and the risk of hallucination when LLMs serve as game-theoretic oracles. The proposed taxonomy is plausible as an organizational frame, even though it is imposed on the literature rather than derived from it. The central claim of being the first comprehensive bidirectional survey, however, depends on the completeness and correctness of the literature selection and categorization, and that dependency is not fully met in the current version.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.3.2, paragraph beginning 'Directly addressing this, Cheng et al.] The attribution is incorrect: reference [159] is the paper 'Self-playing adversarial language game enhances LLM reasoning' by Cheng et al. (NeurIPS 2024), which is about an adversarial Taboo game and does not propose Vote-based Preference Optimization. The same reference is cited correctly in Section 3.4.1 for self-play in Adversarial Taboo. This misattribution misrepresents the literature on handling preference heterogeneity and is a concrete accuracy error in a survey whose value rests on correct categorization.
[Table 3, second block heading] The second block of Table 3 is labeled 'Solving Intractable Game Problems with LLMs §4.2', but Section 4.2 is titled 'Framing the Societal Impact of LLMs'; 'Solving Intractable Game Problems with LLMs' is the title of Section 5.2. The content under that block (autonomous agents, data ecosystems, regulation) does correspond to Section 4.2, so the error is in the heading and cross-reference, not in the content itself. Nevertheless, it is an internal inconsistency that signals insufficient cross-checking between the table and the text.
[Section 1 (Introduction) and overall methodology] The paper claims to provide 'the first truly comprehensive and structured analysis' of the bidirectional game theory-LLM relationship, but it does not describe the literature search protocol, inclusion or exclusion criteria, or the time span of coverage. Without such a methodology, the completeness that anchors the central claim cannot be verified by the reader. The survey appears to be a curated selection rather than a systematic review, and this gap should be addressed either by adding a methodology section or by tempering the comprehensiveness claim.

minor comments (3)

[References [27] and [215]] References [27] and [215] appear to be duplicate entries for the same paper, 'Braess's paradox of generative ai' by Taitler and Ben-Porat, with nearly identical venue and page information; one should be removed and the in-text citations merged.
[First pages and ACM Reference Format] The ACM Reference Format block still contains placeholder dates ('2018', 'August 2018') and the 'Received 20 February 2007; revised 12 March 2009; accepted 5 June 2009' line is a stale template artifact; these should be updated or removed.
[Section 6.1, paragraph 'Future Directions'] There is a typo in 'generalist game-playing LLm', which should read 'LLM'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the survey's taxonomy is an organizational frame over external literature, and its self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a literature survey, not a derivation or prediction pipeline. The four-part taxonomy is an organizational frame imposed on the cited literature; it is not claimed to follow from axioms, fitted parameters, or a formal model. No quantity is predicted from data, no result is defined in terms of the target claim, and no 'first-principles' derivation is present. The central 'first comprehensive' assertion is a comparative novelty claim, not a theorem derived from the taxonomy itself. The only author self-citations (e.g., [170] and [192]) are used as illustrative examples within broader research streams and play no load-bearing role in establishing any category, classification, or conclusion. The Table 3 mislabel and the Section 3.3.2 VPO attribution error are accuracy/classification problems, not circular reductions. Therefore no step in the paper reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own input.

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

No free parameters or invented entities: the paper introduces a taxonomy but no quantitative model. The axioms listed are the background assumptions needed for the survey's central claim about comprehensiveness and the applicability of game-theoretic concepts.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The selected literature is representative and accurately classified into the four taxonomy branches.
The survey's coverage claim (Sections 2-5, Tables 1-3) depends on the completeness and correctness of the literature selection; the paper provides no systematic search or selection protocol.
domain assumption Game-theoretic solution concepts (Nash equilibrium, Shapley value, etc.) transfer meaningfully to LLM-based agents and training processes.
Throughout Sections 2-3, the survey frames LLM behavior and training algorithms through game-theoretic concepts; this framing is assumed rather than derived.
ad hoc to paper The four-way partition (evaluation, improvement, event modeling, advancing game theory) is exhaustive and non-overlapping.
The taxonomy is the paper's own organizing choice (Figure 1), not derived from prior work; overlap is visible, e.g., 'solving intractable games' appears in both Section 4 and Section 5.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Game Theory Meets Large Language Models: A Systematic Survey with Taxonomy and New Frontiers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FLGCCA7S

@misc{pith2026250209053,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Game Theory Meets Large Language Models: A Systematic Survey with Taxonomy and New Frontiers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FLGCCA7S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09053}
}

read the original abstract

Game theory is a foundational framework for analyzing strategic interactions, and its intersection with large language models (LLMs) is a rapidly growing field. However, existing surveys mainly focus narrowly on using game theory to evaluate LLM behavior. This paper provides the first comprehensive survey of the bidirectional relationship between Game Theory and LLMs. We propose a novel taxonomy that categorizes the research in this intersection into four distinct perspectives: (1) evaluating LLMs in game-based scenarios; (2) improving LLMs using game-theoretic concepts for better interpretability and alignment; (3) modeling the competitive landscape of LLM development and its societal impact; and (4) leveraging LLMs to advance game models and to solve corresponding game theory problems. Furthermore, we identify key challenges and outline future research directions. By systematically investigating this interdisciplinary landscape, our survey highlights the mutual influence of game theory and LLMs, fostering progress at the intersection of these fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09053 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

Freemium Is All You Need
cs.GT 2026-08 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

Under a stylized uniform-value model, an optimal freemium policy can be expressed by two value thresholds, but the paper's case analysis and dynamic optimality claim are not correct.
Strategy, Not Payoffs: A Behavioural Embedding of Normal-Form Games
cs.GT 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A two-feature game embedding (Nash entropy and best-response switching) predicts cross-game transfer of fine-tuned LLMs on held-out games, outperforming game identity and published structural embeddings.
How memory can affect collective and cooperative behaviors in an LLM-Based Social Particle Swarm
cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

LLM agents in a spatial Prisoner's Dilemma exhibit model-specific effects of memory length on cooperation, with Gemini suppressing and Gemma promoting it as memory increases.
When Identity Overrides Incentives: Representational Choices as Governance Decisions in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
cs.MA 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

Role-based personas in multi-agent LLM systems suppress payoff-aligned behavior, shifting equilibrium selection by up to 90 percentage points in Tragedy of the Commons versus Green Transition scenarios even with full ...
CHBench: A Cognitive Hierarchy Benchmark for Evaluating Strategic Reasoning Capability of LLMs
cs.AI 2025-08 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

CHBench fits Level-K and Poisson cognitive hierarchy models to LLM game play and uses the fitted reasoning level as a benchmark score.
Reasoning Like an Economist: Post-Training on Economic Problems Induces Strategic Generalization in LLMs
cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Post-training an LLM on economic reasoning problems improves accuracy on economic benchmarks and, without game-specific training, raises its Nash equilibrium frequency and win rates in strategic games.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

230 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

[159]

Population-proportional preference learning from human feedback: An axiomatic approach

Kihyun Kim, Jiawei Zhang, Asuman Ozdaglar, and Pablo A Parrilo. Population-proportional preference learning from human feedback: An axiomatic approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05619, 2025

arXiv 2025
[1]

Theory of games and economic behavior: 60th anniversary commemorative edition

John Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern. Theory of games and economic behavior: 60th anniversary commemorative edition. In Theory of games and economic behavior . Princeton university press, 2007

2007
[2]

Equilibrium points in n-person games

John F Nash Jr. Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences , 1950

1950
[3]

Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders

William Vickrey. Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. The Journal of finance , 1961

1961
[4]

Information design: A unified perspective

Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris. Information design: A unified perspective. Journal of Economic Literature , 57(1):44–95, 2019

2019
[5]

Social choice theory

Amartya Sen. Social choice theory. Handbook of mathematical economics , 3:1073–1181, 1986

1986
[6]

A survey of defensive deception: Approaches using game theory and machine learning

Mu Zhu, Ahmed H Anwar, Zelin Wan, Jin-Hee Cho, Charles A Kamhoua, and Munindar P Singh. A survey of defensive deception: Approaches using game theory and machine learning. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , 23(4):2460–2493, 2021

2021
[7]

Applications of game theory in deep learning: a survey

Tanmoy Hazra and Kushal Anjaria. Applications of game theory in deep learning: a survey. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 81(6):8963–8994, 2022

2022

Show all 230 references

[8]

Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models

Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

2023 arXiv
[9]

Gpt-4 technical report

Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

2023 arXiv
[10]

Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models

Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023

2023 arXiv
[11]

Deepseek-v3 technical report

Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, et al. Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437, 2024

2024 arXiv
[12]

Playing repeated games with large language models

Elif Akata, Lion Schulz, Julian Coda-Forno, Seong Joon Oh, Matthias Bethge, and Eric Schulz. Playing repeated games with large language models. Nature Human Behaviour, pages 1–11, 2025

2025
[13]

Avalon’s game of thoughts: Battle against deception through recursive contemplation

Shenzhi Wang, Chang Liu, Zilong Zheng, Siyuan Qi, Shuo Chen, Qisen Yang, Andrew Zhao, Chaofei Wang, Shiji Song, and Gao Huang. Avalon’s game of thoughts: Battle against deception through recursive contemplation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01320, 2023

arXiv
[14]

Llms at the bargaining table

Yuan Deng, Vahab Mirrokni, Renato Paes Leme, Hanrui Zhang, and Song Zuo. Llms at the bargaining table. In Agentic Markets @ ICML 2024 , volume 2024, 2024

2024
[15]

Put your money where your mouth is: Evaluating strategic planning and execution of LLM agents in an auction arena

Jiangjie Chen, Siyu Yuan, Rong Ye, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, and Kyle Richardson. Put your money where your mouth is: Evaluating strategic planning and execution of LLM agents in an auction arena. In Open-World Agents @ NeurIPS 2024, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?i...

2024
[16]

K-level reasoning: Establishing higher order beliefs in large language models for strategic reasoning

Yadong Zhang, Shaoguang Mao, Tao Ge, Xun Wang, Yan Xia, Man Lan, and Furu Wei. K-level reasoning: Establishing higher order beliefs in large language models for strategic reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association...

2025 doi
[17]

Pokergpt: An end-to-end lightweight solver for multi-player texas hold’em via large language model, 2024

Chenghao Huang, Yanbo Cao, Yinlong Wen, Tao Zhou, and Yanru Zhang. Pokergpt: An end-to-end lightweight solver for multi-player texas hold’em via large language model, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.06781

2024 arXiv
[18]

Improving language model negotiation with self-play and in-context learning from ai feedback,

Yao Fu, Hao Peng, Tushar Khot, and Mirella Lapata. Improving language model negotiation with self-play and in-context learning from ai feedback,
[19]

Measuring bargaining abilities of LLMs: A benchmark and a buyer-enhancement method

Tian Xia, Zhiwei He, Tong Ren, Yibo Miao, Zhuosheng Zhang, Yang Yang, and Rui Wang. Measuring bargaining abilities of LLMs: A benchmark and a buyer-enhancement method. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 , pages 3579–3602, 2024. doi: 10.18653...

2024 doi
[20]

Deciphering digital detectives: Understanding llm behaviors and capabilities in multi-agent mystery games

Dekun Wu, Haochen Shi, Zhiyuan Sun, and Bang Liu. Deciphering digital detectives: Understanding llm behaviors and capabilities in multi-agent mystery games. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 , pages 8225–8291, 2024. Manuscript submitted to ...

2024
[21]

Textgenshap: Scalable post-hoc explanations in text generation with long documents

James Enouen, Hootan Nakhost, Sayna Ebrahimi, Sercan Arik, Yan Liu, and Tomas Pfister. Textgenshap: Scalable post-hoc explanations in text generation with long documents. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 , pages 13984–14011, 2024

2024
[22]

Procaccia, Itai Shapira, Yevgeniy Vorobeychik, and Junlin Wu

Luise Ge, Daniel Halpern, Evi Micha, Ariel D. Procaccia, Itai Shapira, Yevgeniy Vorobeychik, and Junlin Wu. Axioms for ai alignment from human feedback. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (NeurIPS 2024) , pages 80439–80465, 2024. URL htt...

2024
[23]

Nash learning from human feedback

Remi Munos, Michal Valko, Daniele Calandriello, Mohammad Gheshlaghi Azar, Mark Rowland, Zhaohan Daniel Guo, Yunhao Tang, Matthieu Geist, Thomas Mesnard, Côme Fiegel, et al. Nash learning from human feedback. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning 41...

2024
[24]

Fine-tuning games: Bargaining and adaptation for general-purpose models

Benjamin Laufer, Jon Kleinberg, and Hoda Heidari. Fine-tuning games: Bargaining and adaptation for general-purpose models. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 , pages 66–76, 2024

2024
[25]

Mechanism design for large language models

Paul Duetting, Vahab Mirrokni, Renato Paes Leme, Haifeng Xu, and Song Zuo. Mechanism design for large language models. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024, pages 144–155, 2024

2024
[26]

Human vs

Fan Yao, Chuanhao Li, Denis Nekipelov, Hongning Wang, and Haifeng Xu. Human vs. generative ai in content creation competition: Symbiosis or conflict? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning 41 (ICML 2024) , 2024

2024
[27]

Braess’s paradox of generative ai

Boaz Taitler and Omer Ben-Porat. Braess’s paradox of generative ai. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 39, pages 14139–14147, 2025. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v39i13.33548. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/33548

2025 doi
[28]

Llm-powered preference elicitation in combinatorial assignment

Ermis Soumalias, Yanchen Jiang, Kehang Zhu, Michael Curry, Sven Seuken, and David C Parkes. Llm-powered preference elicitation in combinatorial assignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10308, 2025

2025 arXiv
[29]

An interpretable automated mechanism design framework with large language models

Jiayuan Liu, Mingyu Guo, and Vincent Conitzer. An interpretable automated mechanism design framework with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12203, 2025

2025 arXiv
[30]

Generative social choice

Sara Fish, Paul Gölz, David C Parkes, Ariel D Procaccia, Gili Rusak, Itai Shapira, and Manuel Wüthrich. Generative social choice. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation , pages 985–985, 2024

2024
[31]

Eliciting informative text evaluations with large language models

Yuxuan Lu, Shengwei Xu, Yichi Zhang, Yuqing Kong, and Grant Schoenebeck. Eliciting informative text evaluations with large language models. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation , pages 582–612, 2024

2024
[32]

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

Yadong Zhang, Shaoguang Mao, Tao Ge, Xun Wang, Yan Xia, Wenshan Wu, Ting Song, Man Lan, and Furu Wei. LLM as a mastermind: A survey of strategic reasoning with large language models. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=iMqJsQ4evS

2024
[33]

A survey on large language model-based social agents in game-theoretic scenarios

Xiachong Feng, Longxu Dou, Ella Li, Qinghao Wang, Haochuan Wang, Yu Guo, Chang Ma, and Lingpeng Kong. A survey on large language model-based social agents in game-theoretic scenarios. Transactions on Machine Learning Research , 2025

2025
[34]

A survey on large language model-based game agents

Sihao Hu, Tiansheng Huang, Fatih Ilhan, Selim Tekin, Gaowen Liu, Ramana Kompella, and Ling Liu. A survey on large language model-based game agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02039, 2024

2024 arXiv
[35]

Gpt in game theory experiments, 2023

Fulin Guo. Gpt in game theory experiments, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.05516

2023 arXiv
[36]

Large language models as simulated economic agents: What can we learn from homo silicus? Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2023

John J Horton. Large language models as simulated economic agents: What can we learn from homo silicus? Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2023

2023
[37]

Beyond nash equilibrium: Bounded rationality of llms and humans in strategic decision-making,

Kehan Zheng, Jinfeng Zhou, and Hongning Wang. Beyond nash equilibrium: Bounded rationality of llms and humans in strategic decision-making,
[38]

Playing games with large language models: Randomness and strategy, 2025

Alicia Vidler and Toby Walsh. Playing games with large language models: Randomness and strategy, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.02582

2025 arXiv
[39]

Helmsman of the masses? evaluate the opinion leadership of large language models in the werewolf game

Silin Du and Xiaowei Zhang. Helmsman of the masses? evaluate the opinion leadership of large language models in the werewolf game. In First Conference on Language Modeling , 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=xMt9kCv5YR

2024
[40]

From text to tactic: Evaluating LLMs playing the game of avalon

Jonathan Light, Min Cai, Sheng Shen, and Ziniu Hu. From text to tactic: Evaluating LLMs playing the game of avalon. In Foundation Models for Decision Making @ NeurIPS 2023 , 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=ltUrSryS0K

2023
[41]

Let’s negotiate! a survey of negotiation dialogue systems

Haolan Zhan, Yufei Wang, Zhuang Li, Tao Feng, Yuncheng Hua, Suraj Sharma, Lizhen Qu, Zhaleh Semnani-Azad, Ingrid Zukerman, and Reza Haffari. Let’s negotiate! a survey of negotiation dialogue systems. In EACL (Findings), 2024

2024
[42]

Evaluating and enhancing llms agent based on theory of mind in guandan: A multi-player cooperative game under imperfect information, 2024

Yauwai Yim, Chunkit Chan, Tianyu Shi, Zheye Deng, Wei Fan, Tianshi Zheng, and Yangqiu Song. Evaluating and enhancing llms agent based on theory of mind in guandan: A multi-player cooperative game under imperfect information, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.02559

2024 arXiv
[43]

Cooperate or collapse: Emergence of sustainable cooperation in a society of LLM agents

Giorgio Piatti, Zhijing Jin, Max Kleiman-Weiner, Bernhard Schölkopf, Mrinmaya Sachan, and Rada Mihalcea. Cooperate or collapse: Emergence of sustainable cooperation in a society of LLM agents. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (NeurIPS ...

2024
[44]

Evaluating language model agency through negotiations

Tim Ruben Davidson, Veniamin Veselovsky, Michal Kosinski, and Robert West. Evaluating language model agency through negotiations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations 12 (ICLR 2024) , 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=3ZqKxMHcAg

2024
[45]

Algorithmic collusion by large language models

Sara Fish, Yannai A Gonczarowski, and Ran I Shorrer. Algorithmic collusion by large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00806, 2024

2024
[46]

Economics arena for large language models

Shangmin Guo, Haochuan Wang, Haoran Bu, Yi Ren, Dianbo Sui, Yu-Ming Shang, and Siting Estee Lu. Economics arena for large language models. In Language Gamification @ NeurIPS 2024 , 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=n6Y5b1MCBV

2024
[47]

Generative ai as economic agents

Nicole Immorlica, Brendan Lucier, and Aleksandrs Slivkins. Generative ai as economic agents. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 22(1):93–109, 2024

2024
[48]

ChessGPT: Bridging policy learning and language modeling

Xidong Feng, Yicheng Luo, Ziyan Wang, Hongrui Tang, Mengyue Yang, Kun Shao, David Henry Mguni, Yali Du, and Jun Wang. ChessGPT: Bridging policy learning and language modeling. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (NeurIPS 2023) , 2023. URL...

2023
[49]

Pokerbench: Training large language models to become professional poker players

Richard Zhuang, Akshat Gupta, Richard Yang, Aniket Rahane, Zhengyu Li, and Gopala Anumanchipalli. Pokerbench: Training large language models to become professional poker players. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 39, pages 26175–26182, 2025

2025
[50]

Pokellmon: A human-parity agent for pokemon battles with large language models, 2024

Sihao Hu, Tiansheng Huang, and Ling Liu. Pokellmon: A human-parity agent for pokemon battles with large language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01118

2024 arXiv
[51]

LLMArena: Assessing capabilities of large language models in dynamic multi-agent environments

Junzhe Chen, Xuming Hu, Shuodi Liu, Shiyu Huang, Wei-Wei Tu, Zhaofeng He, and Lijie Wen. LLMArena: Assessing capabilities of large language models in dynamic multi-agent environments. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, editors, Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Mee...

2024 doi
[52]

Playing games with gpt: What can we learn about a large language model from canonical strategic games? Economics Bulletin, 44(1):25 – 37, 2024

Philip Brookins and Jason DeBacker. Playing games with gpt: What can we learn about a large language model from canonical strategic games? Economics Bulletin, 44(1):25 – 37, 2024. URL https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-23-00457

2024
[53]

Nicolò Fontana, Francesco Pierri, and Luca Maria Aiello. Nicer than humans: How do large language models behave in the prisoner’s dilemma? In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , volume 19, pages 522–535, 2025. doi: 10.1609/icwsm.v19i1.358...

2025 doi
[54]

Will systems of llm agents cooperate: An investigation into a social dilemma

Richard Willis, Yali Du, Joel Z Leibo, and Michael Luck. Will systems of llm agents cooperate: An investigation into a social dilemma. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.16173, 2025

2025 arXiv
[55]

LLM economicus? mapping the behavioral biases of LLMs via utility theory

Jillian Ross, Yoon Kim, and Andrew Lo. LLM economicus? mapping the behavioral biases of LLMs via utility theory. InFirst Conference on Language Modeling, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=Rx3wC8sCTJ

2024
[56]

Qiaozhu Mei, Yutong Xie, Walter Yuan, and Matthew O. Jackson. A turing test of whether ai chatbots are behaviorally similar to humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 121(9):e2313925121, 2024. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2313925121. URL https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10....

2024 doi
[57]

McNamara, and Deming Chen

Jingru Jia, Zehua Yuan, Junhao Pan, Paul E. McNamara, and Deming Chen. Large language model strategic reasoning evaluation through behavioral game theory, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.20432

2025
[58]

Smartplay : A benchmark for LLMs as intelligent agents

Yue Wu, Xuan Tang, Tom Mitchell, and Yuanzhi Li. Smartplay : A benchmark for LLMs as intelligent agents. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations 12 (ICLR 2024) , 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=S2oTVrlcp3

2024
[59]

Large language models playing mixed strategy nash equilibrium games

Alonso Silva. Large language models playing mixed strategy nash equilibrium games. In Network Games, Artificial Intelligence, Control and Optimization: 11th International Conference, NETGCOOP 2024, Lille, France, October 9–11, 2024, Proceedings , page 142–152, Berlin, Heidelbe...

2024 doi
[60]

Reta: Recursively thinking ahead to improve the strategic reasoning of large language models

Jinhao Duan, Shiqi Wang, James Diffenderfer, Lichao Sun, Tianlong Chen, Bhavya Kailkhura, and Kaidi Xu. Reta: Recursively thinking ahead to improve the strategic reasoning of large language models. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Asso...

2024
[61]

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

Caoyun Fan, Jindou Chen, Yaohui Jin, and Hao He. Can large language models serve as rational players in game theory? a systematic analysis. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 38, pages 17960–17967, 2024

2024
[62]

Strategic behavior of large language models and the role of game structure versus contextual framing

Nunzio Lorè and Babak Heydari. Strategic behavior of large language models and the role of game structure versus contextual framing. Scientific Reports, 14(1):18490, 2024

2024
[63]

Strategic reasoning with language models

Kanishk Gandhi, Dorsa Sadigh, and Noah Goodman. Strategic reasoning with language models. In Foundation Models for Decision Making @ NeurIPS 2023, 2023

2023
[64]

Fairgame: a framework for ai agents bias recognition using game theory, 2025

Alessio Buscemi, Daniele Proverbio, Alessandro Di Stefano, The Anh Han, German Castignani, and Pietro Liò. Fairgame: a framework for ai agents bias recognition using game theory, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.14325

2025
[65]

Werewolf game agent by generative AI incorporating logical information between players

Neo Watanabe and Yoshinobu Kano. Werewolf game agent by generative AI incorporating logical information between players. In Yoshinobu Kano, editor, Proceedings of the 2nd International AIWolfDial @ ACL 2024 , pages 21–29, Tokyo, Japan, September 2024. Association for Computati...

2024 doi
[66]

Werewolf arena: A case study in llm evaluation via social deduction, 2024

Suma Bailis, Jane Friedhoff, and Feiyang Chen. Werewolf arena: A case study in llm evaluation via social deduction, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2407.13943

2024 arXiv
[67]

InterIntent: Investigating social intelligence of LLMs via intention understanding in an interactive game context

Ziyi Liu, Abhishek Anand, Pei Zhou, Jen-tse Huang, and Jieyu Zhao. InterIntent: Investigating social intelligence of LLMs via intention understanding in an interactive game context. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pag...

2024 doi
[68]

LLM-coordination: Evaluating and analyzing multi-agent coordination abilities in large language models

Saaket Agashe, Yue Fan, Anthony Reyna, and Xin Eric Wang. LLM-coordination: Evaluating and analyzing multi-agent coordination abilities in large language models. In Luis Chiruzzo, Alan Ritter, and Lu Wang, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAA...

2025 doi
[69]

LLM-deliberation: Evaluating LLMs with interactive multi-agent negotiation game

Sahar Abdelnabi, Amr Gomaa, Sarath Sivaprasad, Lea Schönherr, and Mario Fritz. LLM-deliberation: Evaluating LLMs with interactive multi-agent negotiation game. In Large Language Model (LLM) Agents @ ICLR 2024 , 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=eE1WHn6qlk

2024
[70]

Gameeval: Evaluating llms on conversational games.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10032, 2023

Dan Qiao, Chenfei Wu, Yaobo Liang, Juntao Li, and Nan Duan. Gameeval: Evaluating llms on conversational games.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10032, 2023

2023 arXiv
[71]

Reasoning, memorization, and fine-tuning language models for non-cooperative games

Yunhao Yang, Leonard Berthellemy, and Ufuk Topcu. Reasoning, memorization, and fine-tuning language models for non-cooperative games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14890, 2024. Manuscript submitted to ACM 30 Sun et al

2024 arXiv
[72]

Welfare diplomacy: Benchmarking language model cooperation

Gabriel Mukobi, Hannah Erlebach, Niklas Lauffer, Lewis Hammond, Alan Chan, and Jesse Clifton. Welfare diplomacy: Benchmarking language model cooperation. In Socially Responsible Language Modelling Research , 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=WnR5BCX8GS

2023
[73]

Richelieu: self-evolving llm-based agents for ai diplomacy

Zhenyu Guan, Xiangyu Kong, Fangwei Zhong, and Yizhou Wang. Richelieu: self-evolving llm-based agents for ai diplomacy. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (NeurIPS 2024) , 2024

2024
[74]

Explaining decisions of agents in mixed-motive games

Maayan Orner, Oleg Maksimov, Akiva Kleinerman, Charles Ortiz, and Sarit Kraus. Explaining decisions of agents in mixed-motive games. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 39, pages 23267–23275, 2025

2025
[75]

Simulating human strategic behavior: Comparing single and multi-agent llms, 2024

Karthik Sreedhar and Lydia Chilton. Simulating human strategic behavior: Comparing single and multi-agent llms, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2402.08189

2024 arXiv
[76]

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

Lin Xu, Zhiyuan Hu, Daquan Zhou, Hongyu Ren, Zhen Dong, Kurt Keutzer, See-Kiong Ng, and Jiashi Feng. MAgIC: Investigation of large language model powered multi-agent in cognition, adaptability, rationality and collaboration. In Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun- Nung Che...

2024 doi
[77]

Steve Phelps and Yvan I. Russell. The machine psychology of cooperation: Can gpt models operationalise prompts for altruism, cooperation, competitiveness and selfishness in economic games?, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07970

2024 arXiv
[78]

Empowering LLMs in decision games through algorithmic data synthesis

Haolin Wang, Xueyan Li, Yazhe Niu, Shuai Hu, and Hongsheng Li. Empowering LLMs in decision games through algorithmic data synthesis. In Will Synthetic Data Finally Solve the Data Access Problem? , 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=1RIHEJWN1L

2025
[79]

GTBench: Uncovering the strategic reasoning capabilities of LLMs via game-theoretic evaluations

Jinhao Duan, Renming Zhang, James Diffenderfer, Bhavya Kailkhura, Lichao Sun, Elias Stengel-Eskin, Mohit Bansal, Tianlong Chen, and Kaidi Xu. GTBench: Uncovering the strategic reasoning capabilities of LLMs via game-theoretic evaluations. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neur...

2024
[80]

How far are we on the decision-making of llms? evaluating llms’ gaming ability in multi-agent environments

Jen-tse Huang, Eric John Li, Man Ho Lam, Tian Liang, Wenxuan Wang, Youliang Yuan, Wenxiang Jiao, Xing Wang, Zhaopeng Tu, and Michael R Lyu. 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
[81]

Game-theoretic llm: Agent workflow for negotiation games

Wenyue Hua, Ollie Liu, Lingyao Li, Alfonso Amayuelas, Julie Chen, Lucas Jiang, Mingyu Jin, Lizhou Fan, Fei Sun, William Wang, et al. Game-theoretic llm: Agent workflow for negotiation games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05990, 2024

2024 arXiv
[82]

Evaluating large language models with grid-based game competitions: An extensible llm benchmark and leaderboard, 2024

Oguzhan Topsakal, Colby Jacob Edell, and Jackson Bailey Harper. Evaluating large language models with grid-based game competitions: An extensible llm benchmark and leaderboard, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.07796

2024 arXiv
[83]

LLM-based agent society investigation: Collaboration and confrontation in avalon gameplay

Yihuai Lan, Zhiqiang Hu, Lei Wang, Yang Wang, Deheng Ye, Peilin Zhao, Ee-Peng Lim, Hui Xiong, and Hao Wang. LLM-based agent society investigation: Collaboration and confrontation in avalon gameplay. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language...

2024 doi
[84]

How well can LLMs negotiate? NegotiationArena platform and analysis

Federico Bianchi, Patrick John Chia, Mert Yuksekgonul, Jacopo Tagliabue, Dan Jurafsky, and James Zou. How well can LLMs negotiate? NegotiationArena platform and analysis. In Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian Weller, Nuria Oliver, Jonathan Scarlett, an...

2024
[85]

Glee: A unified framework and benchmark for language-based economic environments

Eilam Shapira, Omer Madmon, et al. Glee: A unified framework and benchmark for language-based economic environments. arXiv preprint, 2024

2024
[86]

Tmgbench: A systematic game benchmark for evaluating strategic reasoning abilities of llms

Haochuan Wang, Xiachong Feng, Lei Li, Zhanyue Qin, Dianbo Sui, and Lingpeng Kong. Tmgbench: A systematic game benchmark for evaluating strategic reasoning abilities of llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10479, 2024

2024 arXiv
[87]

ALYMPICS: LLM agents meet game theory

Shaoguang Mao, Yuzhe Cai, Yan Xia, Wenshan Wu, Xun Wang, Fengyi Wang, Qiang Guan, Tao Ge, and Furu Wei. ALYMPICS: LLM agents meet game theory. In Owen Rambow, Leo Wanner, Marianna Apidianaki, Hend Al-Khalifa, Barbara Di Eugenio, and Steven Schockaert, editors, Proceedings of t...

2025
[88]

Xing, Ion Stoica, Tajana Rosing, Haojian Jin, and Hao Zhang

Lanxiang Hu, Mingjia Huo, Yuxuan Zhang, Haoyang Yu, Eric P. Xing, Ion Stoica, Tajana Rosing, Haojian Jin, and Hao Zhang. lmgame-bench: How good are llms at playing games?, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.15146

2025 arXiv
[89]

Large language models are zero-shot reasoners

Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (NeurIPS 2022) , pages 22199–22213, 2022

2022
[90]

Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou

Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V Le, Ed H. Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations 11 (ICLR 2023) ,

2023
[91]

Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models

Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Tom Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (NeurIPS 2023) , pages 11809–1...

2023
[92]

Game of thoughts: Iterative reasoning in game-theoretic domains with large language models

Benjamin Kempinski, Ian Gemp, Kate Larson, Marc Lanctot, Yoram Bachrach, and Tal Kachman. Game of thoughts: Iterative reasoning in game-theoretic domains with large language models. In AAMAS, 2025

2025
[93]

URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=1PL1NIMMrw
[94]

Can large language models play games? a case study of a self-play approach, 2024

Hongyi Guo, Zhihan Liu, Yufeng Zhang, and Zhaoran Wang. Can large language models play games? a case study of a self-play approach, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.05632

2024 arXiv
[95]

Reward design with language models

Minae Kwon, Sang Michael Xie, Kalesha Bullard, and Dorsa Sadigh. Reward design with language models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations 11 (ICLR 2023) , 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=10uNUgI5Kl. Manuscript submitted to ACM Ga...

2023
[96]

Suspicion agent: Playing imperfect information games with theory of mind aware GPT-4

Jiaxian Guo, Bo Yang, Paul Yoo, Bill Yuchen Lin, Yusuke Iwasawa, and Yutaka Matsuo. Suspicion agent: Playing imperfect information games with theory of mind aware GPT-4. In First Conference on Language Modeling , 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=F2yGbwXJAi

2024
[97]

An automated reinforcement learning reward design framework with large language model for cooperative platoon coordination, 2025

Dixiao Wei, Peng Yi, Jinlong Lei, Yiguang Hong, and Yuchuan Du. An automated reinforcement learning reward design framework with large language model for cooperative platoon coordination, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19480

2025 arXiv
[98]

An evolutionary model of personality traits related to cooperative behavior using a large language model

Reiji Suzuki and Takaya Arita. An evolutionary model of personality traits related to cooperative behavior using a large language model. Scientific Reports, 14(1):5989, 2024

2024
[99]

Agent-pro: Learning to evolve via policy-level reflection and optimization

Wenqi Zhang, Ke Tang, Hai Wu, Mengna Wang, Yongliang Shen, Guiyang Hou, Zeqi Tan, Peng Li, Yueting Zhuang, and Weiming Lu. Agent-pro: Learning to evolve via policy-level reflection and optimization. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational...

2024 doi
[100]

Learning to discuss strategically: a case study on one night ultimate werewolf

Xuanfa Jin, Ziyan Wang, Yali Du, Meng Fang, Haifeng Zhang, and Jun Wang. Learning to discuss strategically: a case study on one night ultimate werewolf. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (NeurIPS 2024) , 2024

2024
[101]

Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools

Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Syste...

2023
[102]

Efficacy of language model self-play in non-zero-sum games

Austen Liao, Nicholas Tomlin, and Dan Klein. Efficacy of language model self-play in non-zero-sum games. In Language Gamification @ NeurIPS 2024, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=lK93maUXif

2024
[103]

STRIDE: A tool-assisted LLM agent framework for strategic and interactive decision-making

Chuanhao Li, Runhan Yang, Tiankai Li, Milad Bafarassat, Kourosh Sharifi, Dirk Bergemann, and Zhuoran Yang. STRIDE: A tool-assisted LLM agent framework for strategic and interactive decision-making. InAgentic Markets @ ICML 2024, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=pqlkg1ABhr

2024
[104]

A value for n-person games

Lloyd S Shapley. A value for n-person games. Contribution to the Theory of Games , 2, 1953

1953
[105]

ToolLLM: Facilitating large language models to master 16000+ real-world APIs

Yujia Qin, Shihao Liang, Yining Ye, Kunlun Zhu, Lan Yan, Yaxi Lu, Yankai Lin, Xin Cong, Xiangru Tang, Bill Qian, Sihan Zhao, Lauren Hong, Runchu Tian, Ruobing Xie, Jie Zhou, Mark Gerstein, dahai li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. ToolLLM: Facilitating large language models to m...

2024
[106]

Data shapley: Equitable valuation of data for machine learning

Amirata Ghorbani and James Zou. Data shapley: Equitable valuation of data for machine learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning 36 (ICML 2019) , pages 2242–2251. PMLR, 2019

2019
[107]

Efficient shapley value-based non-uniform pruning of large language models

Chuan Sun, Han Yu, and Lizhen Cui. Efficient shapley value-based non-uniform pruning of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.01731, 2025

2025 arXiv
[108]

TokenSHAP: Interpreting large language models with Monte Carlo shapley value estimation

Miriam Horovicz and Roni Goldshmidt. TokenSHAP: Interpreting large language models with Monte Carlo shapley value estimation. In Lotem Peled-Cohen, Nitay Calderon, Shir Lissak, and Roi Reichart, editors, Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on NLP for Science (NLP4Science) @ ACL 20...

2024 doi
[109]

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

Corby Rosset, Ching-An Cheng, Arindam Mitra, Michael Santacroce, Ahmed Awadallah, and Tengyang Xie. Direct nash optimization: Teaching language models to self-improve with general preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03715, 2024

2024 arXiv
[110]

Magnetic preference optimization: Achieving last-iterate convergence for language model alignment

Mingzhi Wang, Chengdong Ma, Qizhi Chen, Linjian Meng, Yang Han, Jiancong Xiao, Zhaowei Zhang, Jing Huo, Weijie J Su, and Yaodong Yang. Magnetic preference optimization: Achieving last-iterate convergence for language model alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16714, 2024

arXiv
[111]

A minimaximalist approach to reinforcement learning from human feedback

Gokul Swamy, Christoph Dann, Rahul Kidambi, Steven Wu, and Alekh Agarwal. A minimaximalist approach to reinforcement learning from human feedback. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning 41 (ICML 2024) , 2024

2024
[112]

Negotiative alignment: Embracing disagreement to achieve fairer outcomes–insights from urban studies

Rashid Mushkani, Hugo Berard, and Shin Koseki. Negotiative alignment: Embracing disagreement to achieve fairer outcomes–insights from urban studies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12613, 2025

2025
[113]

Self-play fine-tuning converts weak language models to strong language models

Zixiang Chen, Yihe Deng, Huizhuo Yuan, Kaixuan Ji, and Quanquan Gu. Self-play fine-tuning converts weak language models to strong language models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning 41 (ICML 2024) , 2024

2024
[114]

Maxmin-rlhf: Towards equitable alignment of large language models with diverse human preferences

Souradip Chakraborty, Jiahao Qiu, Hui Yuan, Alec Koppel, Furong Huang, Dinesh Manocha, Amrit Singh Bedi, and Mengdi Wang. Maxmin-rlhf: Towards equitable alignment of large language models with diverse human preferences. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine...

2024
[115]

Decoding game: On minimax optimality of heuristic text generation strategies

Sijin Chen, Omar Hagrass, and Jason M Klusowski. Decoding game: On minimax optimality of heuristic text generation strategies. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations 13 (ICLR 2025) , 2025

2025
[116]

Interpretability of deep learning models: A survey of results

Supriyo Chakraborty, Richard Tomsett, Ramya Raghavendra, Daniel Harborne, Moustafa Alzantot, Federico Cerutti, Mani Srivastava, Alun Preece, Simon Julier, Raghuveer M Rao, et al. Interpretability of deep learning models: A survey of results. In 2017 IEEE smartworld, ubiquitous...

2017
[117]

Sta-rlhf: Stackelberg aligned reinforcement learning with human feedback

Jacob Makar-Limanov, Arjun Prakash, Denizalp Goktas, Nora Ayanian, and Amy Greenwald. Sta-rlhf: Stackelberg aligned reinforcement learning with human feedback. In Coordination and Cooperation for Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning Methods Workshop , 2024

2024
[118]

Manipulating and measuring model interpretability

Forough Poursabzi-Sangdeh, Daniel G Goldstein, Jake M Hofman, Jennifer Wortman Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. Manipulating and measuring model interpretability. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems , pages 1–52, 2021

2021
[119]

A unified approach to interpreting model predictions

Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (NeurIPS 2017) , 2017

2017
[120]

Visual interpretability for deep learning: a survey.Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, 19(1):27–39, 2018

Quan-shi Zhang and Song-Chun Zhu. Visual interpretability for deep learning: a survey.Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, 19(1):27–39, 2018

2018
[121]

Explaining large language models decisions using shapley values

Behnam Mohammadi. Explaining large language models decisions using shapley values. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01332, 2024

2024 arXiv
[122]

Document valuation in llm summaries: A cluster shapley approach

Zikun Ye and Hema Yoganarasimhan. Document valuation in llm summaries: A cluster shapley approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23842, 2025

2025 arXiv
[123]

Prompt valuation based on shapley values

Hanxi Liu, Xiaokai Mao, Haocheng Xia, Jian Lou, and Jinfei Liu. Prompt valuation based on shapley values. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.15395, 2023. Manuscript submitted to ACM 32 Sun et al

2023 arXiv
[124]

Scar: Shapley credit assignment for more efficient rlhf

Meng Cao, Shuyuan Zhang, Xiao-Wen Chang, and Doina Precup. Scar: Shapley credit assignment for more efficient rlhf. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20417, 2025

2025 arXiv
[125]

Investigating layer importance in large language models

Yang Zhang, Yanfei Dong, and Kenji Kawaguchi. Investigating layer importance in large language models. In Proceedings of the 7th BlackboxNLP Workshop: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP , pages 469–479, 2024. doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.blackboxnlp-1.29. URL https: /...

2024 doi
[127]

Efficient shapley values estimation by amortization for text classification

Chenghao Yang, Fan Yin, He He, Kai-Wei Chang, Xiaofei Ma, and Bing Xiang. Efficient shapley values estimation by amortization for text classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19998, 2023

2023 arXiv
[128]

Linguistically grounded analysis of language models using shapley head values

Marcell Fekete and Johannes Bjerva. Linguistically grounded analysis of language models using shapley head values. In Luis Chiruzzo, Alan Ritter, and Lu Wang, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025 , pages 850–865, 2025. doi: 10.18653/v1...

2025 doi
[129]

Shapley head pruning: Identifying and removing interference in multilingual transformers

William Held and Diyi Yang. Shapley head pruning: Identifying and removing interference in multilingual transformers. In Andreas Vlachos and Isabelle Augenstein, editors, Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistic...

2023 doi
[130]

Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback

Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Gray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, an...

2022
[131]

A survey of reinforcement learning from human feedback

Timo Kaufmann, Paul Weng, Viktor Bengs, and Eyke Hüllermeier. A survey of reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14925, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.14925

2024
[132]

Who’s the mvp? a game-theoretic evaluation benchmark for modular attribution in llm agents, 2025

Yingxuan Yang, Bo Huang, Siyuan Qi, Chao Feng, Haoyi Hu, Yuxuan Zhu, Jinbo Hu, Haoran Zhao, Ziyi He, Xiao Liu, Zongyu Wang, Lin Qiu, Xuezhi Cao, Xunliang Cai, Yong Yu, and Weinan Zhang. Who’s the mvp? a game-theoretic evaluation benchmark for modular attribution in llm agents,...

2025
[133]

Iterative nash policy optimization: Aligning llms with general preferences via no-regret learning

Yuheng Zhang, Dian Yu, Baolin Peng, Linfeng Song, Ye Tian, Mingyue Huo, Nan Jiang, Haitao Mi, and Dong Yu. Iterative nash policy optimization: Aligning llms with general preferences via no-regret learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representati...

2025
[134]

Online iterative reinforcement learning from human feedback with general preference model

Chenlu Ye, Wei Xiong, Yuheng Zhang, Hanze Dong, Nan Jiang, and Tong Zhang. Online iterative reinforcement learning from human feedback with general preference model. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (NeurIPS 2024) , pages 81773–81807, 2024

2024
[135]

Self-play preference optimization for language model alignment

Yue Wu, Zhiqing Sun, Huizhuo Yuan, Kaixuan Ji, Yiming Yang, and Quanquan Gu. Self-play preference optimization for language model alignment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations 13 (ICLR 2025) , 2025

2025
[137]

Extragradient preference optimization (egpo): Beyond last-iterate convergence for nash learning from human feedback

Runlong Zhou, Maryam Fazel, and Simon S Du. Extragradient preference optimization (egpo): Beyond last-iterate convergence for nash learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08942, 2025

2025 arXiv
[138]

A theoretical analysis of nash learning from human feedback under general kl-regularized preference

Chenlu Ye, Wei Xiong, Yuheng Zhang, Nan Jiang, and Tong Zhang. A theoretical analysis of nash learning from human feedback under general kl-regularized preference. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2402, 2024

2024
[139]

Game-theoretic regularized self-play alignment of large language models

Xiaohang Tang, Sangwoong Yoon, Seongho Son, Huizhuo Yuan, Quanquan Gu, and Ilija Bogunovic. Game-theoretic regularized self-play alignment of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00030, 2025

2025 arXiv
[140]

Investigating regularization of self-play language models

Reda Alami, Abdalgader Abubaker, Mastane Achab, Mohamed El Amine Seddik, and Salem Lahlou. Investigating regularization of self-play language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04291, 2024

2024 arXiv
[141]

Provably efficient and practical self-play for better llm alignment

Yibo Wang, Zikun Zhang, Zhihan Liu, Shenao Zhang, and Zhaoran Wang. Provably efficient and practical self-play for better llm alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00705, 2024

2024 arXiv
[142]

Fundamental limits of game-theoretic llm alignment: Smith consistency and preference matching

Zhekun Shi, Kaizhao Liu, Qi Long, Weijie J Su, and Jiancong Xiao. Fundamental limits of game-theoretic llm alignment: Smith consistency and preference matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20627, 2025

2025 arXiv
[143]

Beyond preferences in ai alignment

Tan Zhi-Xuan, Micah Carroll, Matija Franklin, and Hal Ashton. Beyond preferences in ai alignment. Philosophical Studies, pages 1–51, 2024

2024
[144]

Rethinking bradley-terry models in preference-based reward modeling: Foundations, theory, and alternatives

Hao Sun, Yunyi Shen, and Jean-Francois Ton. Rethinking bradley-terry models in preference-based reward modeling: Foundations, theory, and alternatives. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.04991, 2024

2024 arXiv
[145]

Ai alignment and social choice: Fundamental limitations and policy implications

Abhilash Mishra. Ai alignment and social choice: Fundamental limitations and policy implications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16048, 2023

2023 arXiv
[146]

Mapping social choice theory to rlhf

Jessica Dai and Eve Fleisig. Mapping social choice theory to rlhf. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13038, 2024

2024 arXiv
[147]

When the majority is wrong: Modeling annotator disagreement for subjective tasks

Eve Fleisig, Rediet Abebe, and Dan Klein. When the majority is wrong: Modeling annotator disagreement for subjective tasks. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 6715–6726, 2023

2023
[148]

Distributive fairness in large language models: Evaluating alignment with human values

Hadi Hosseini and Samarth Khanna. Distributive fairness in large language models: Evaluating alignment with human values. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00313, 2025

2025
[149]

Clone-robust ai alignment

Ariel D Procaccia, Benjamin Schiffer, and Shirley Zhang. Clone-robust ai alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09254, 2025

2025 arXiv
[150]

Direct alignment with heterogeneous preferences

Ali Shirali, Arash Nasr-Esfahany, Abdullah Alomar, Parsa Mirtaheri, Rediet Abebe, and Ariel Procaccia. Direct alignment with heterogeneous preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16320, 2025. Manuscript submitted to ACM Game Theory Meets Large Language Models: A Systematic Surv...

2025 arXiv
[151]

Theoretical tensions in rlhf: Reconciling empirical success with inconsistencies in social choice theory

Jiancong Xiao, Zhekun Shi, Kaizhao Liu, Qi Long, and Weijie J Su. Theoretical tensions in rlhf: Reconciling empirical success with inconsistencies in social choice theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.12350, 2025

2025 arXiv
[152]

Position: Social choice should guide ai alignment in dealing with diverse human feedback

Vincent Conitzer, Rachel Freedman, Jobst Heitzig, Wesley H Holliday, Bob M Jacobs, Nathan Lambert, Milan Mossé, Eric Pacuit, Stuart Russell, Hailey Schoelkopf, et al. Position: Social choice should guide ai alignment in dealing with diverse human feedback. InProceedings of the...

2024
[153]

Distortion of ai alignment: Does preference optimization optimize for preferences? arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23749, 2025

Paul Gölz, Nika Haghtalab, and Kunhe Yang. Distortion of ai alignment: Does preference optimization optimize for preferences? arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23749, 2025

2025 arXiv
[154]

The battling influencers game: Nash equilibria structure of a potential game and implications to value alignment

Young Wu, Yancheng Zhu, Jin-Yi Cai, and Xiaojin Zhu. The battling influencers game: Nash equilibria structure of a potential game and implications to value alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01127, 2025

2025 arXiv
[155]

What are human values, and how do we align ai to them? arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10636, 2024

Oliver Klingefjord, Ryan Lowe, and Joe Edelman. What are human values, and how do we align ai to them? arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10636, 2024

2024 arXiv
[156]

Incentive compatibility for ai alignment in sociotechnical systems: Positions and prospects

Zhaowei Zhang, Fengshuo Bai, Mingzhi Wang, Haoyang Ye, Chengdong Ma, and Yaodong Yang. Incentive compatibility for ai alignment in sociotechnical systems: Positions and prospects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12907, 2024

2024 arXiv
[157]

Proportional representation for artificial intelligence

Dominik Peters. Proportional representation for artificial intelligence. In ECAI 2024, pages 27–31. IOS Press, 2024

2024
[158]

Representative social choice: From learning theory to ai alignment

Tianyi Qiu. Representative social choice: From learning theory to ai alignment. In Pluralistic Alignment @ NeurIPS 2024 , 2024

2024
[160]

Statistical impossibility and possibility of aligning llms with human preferences: From condorcet paradox to nash equilibrium

Kaizhao Liu, Qi Long, Zhekun Shi, Weijie J Su, and Jiancong Xiao. Statistical impossibility and possibility of aligning llms with human preferences: From condorcet paradox to nash equilibrium. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10990, 2025

2025 arXiv
[161]

Pal: Pluralistic alignment framework for learning from heterogeneous preferences

Daiwei Chen, Yi Chen, Aniket Rege, and Ramya Korlakai Vinayak. Pal: Pluralistic alignment framework for learning from heterogeneous preferences. Adaptive Foundation Models @ NeurIPS 2024 , 2024

2024
[162]

Self-playing adversarial language game enhances llm reasoning

Pengyu Cheng, Yong Dai, Tianhao Hu, Han Xu, Zhisong Zhang, Lei Han, Nan Du, and Xiaolong Li. Self-playing adversarial language game enhances llm reasoning. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (NeurIPS 2024) , pages 126515–126543, 2024. UR...

2024
[163]

Provable multi-party reinforcement learning with diverse human feedback

Huiying Zhong, Zhun Deng, Weijie J Su, Zhiwei Steven Wu, and Linjun Zhang. Provable multi-party reinforcement learning with diverse human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05006, 2024

2024 arXiv
[164]

Alamdari, Soroush Ebadian, and Ariel D

Parand A. Alamdari, Soroush Ebadian, and Ariel D. Procaccia. Policy aggregation. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems 37 (NeurIPS 2024) , pages 68308–68329, 2024. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2024/file/ 7e670825a5783...

2024
[165]

Rlhf from heterogeneous feedback via personalization and preference aggregation

Chanwoo Park, Mingyang Liu, Dingwen Kong, Kaiqing Zhang, and Asuman E Ozdaglar. Rlhf from heterogeneous feedback via personalization and preference aggregation. In Aligning Reinforcement Learning Experimentalists and Theorists @ ICML 2024 , 2024

2024
[166]

Pairwise calibrated rewards for pluralistic alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19731, 2025

Daniel Halpern, Evi Micha, Ariel D Procaccia, and Itai Shapira. Pairwise calibrated rewards for pluralistic alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19731, 2025

2025
[167]

Large language models overcome the machine penalty when acting fairly but not when acting selfishly or altruistically

Zhen Wang, Ruiqi Song, Chen Shen, Shiya Yin, Zhao Song, Balaraju Battu, Lei Shi, Danyang Jia, Talal Rahwan, and Shuyue Hu. Large language models overcome the machine penalty when acting fairly but not when acting selfishly or altruistically. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03724, 2024

arXiv
[168]

Llm voting: Human choices and ai collective decision-making

Joshua C Yang, Damian Dalisan, Marcin Korecki, Carina I Hausladen, and Dirk Helbing. Llm voting: Human choices and ai collective decision-making. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society 7 (AIES 2024) , pages 1696–1708, 2024

2024
[169]

Language alignment via nash-learning and adaptive feedback

Ari Azarafrooz and Farshid Faal. Language alignment via nash-learning and adaptive feedback. In Models of Human Feedback for AI Alignment @ ICML 2024, 2024

2024
[170]

Stackelberg game preference optimization for data-efficient alignment of language models

Xu Chu, Zhixin Zhang, Tianyu Jia, and Yujie Jin. Stackelberg game preference optimization for data-efficient alignment of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18099, 2025

2025
[171]

Defining and characterizing reward gaming

Joar Skalse, Nikolaus Howe, Dmitrii Krasheninnikov, and David Krueger. Defining and characterizing reward gaming. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (NeurIPS 2022) , pages 9460–9471, 2022

2022
[172]

Reward-guided prompt evolving in reinforcement learning for llms

Ziyu Ye, Rishabh Agarwal, Tianqi Liu, Rishabh Joshi, Sarmishta Velury, Quoc V Le, Qijun Tan, and Yuan Liu. Reward-guided prompt evolving in reinforcement learning for llms. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning 42 (ICML 2025) , 2025

2025
[173]

Chasing moving targets with online self-play reinforcement learning for safer language models

Mickel Liu, Liwei Jiang, Yancheng Liang, Simon Shaolei Du, Yejin Choi, Tim Althoff, and Natasha Jaques. Chasing moving targets with online self-play reinforcement learning for safer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07468, 2025

2025 arXiv
[174]

Toward optimal llm alignments using two-player games

Rui Zheng, Hongyi Guo, Zhihan Liu, Xiaoying Zhang, Yuanshun Yao, Xiaojun Xu, Zhaoran Wang, Zhiheng Xi, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, et al. Toward optimal llm alignments using two-player games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10977, 2024

2024 arXiv
[175]

Reflect-rl: Two-player online rl fine-tuning for lms

Runlong Zhou, Simon S Du, and Beibin Li. Reflect-rl: Two-player online rl fine-tuning for lms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12621, 2024

2024 arXiv
[176]

Learning from response not preference: A stackelberg approach for llm detoxification using non-parallel data

Xinhong Xie, Tao Li, and Quanyan Zhu. Learning from response not preference: A stackelberg approach for llm detoxification using non-parallel data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.20298, 2024. Manuscript submitted to ACM 34 Sun et al

2024 arXiv
[177]

Spc: Evolving self-play critic via adversarial games for llm reasoning

Jiaqi Chen, Bang Zhang, Ruotian Ma, Peisong Wang, Xiaodan Liang, Zhaopeng Tu, Xiaolong Li, and Kwan-Yee K Wong. Spc: Evolving self-play critic via adversarial games for llm reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19162, 2025

2025 arXiv
[178]

Principled penalty-based methods for bilevel reinforcement learning and rlhf

Han Shen, Zhuoran Yang, and Tianyi Chen. Principled penalty-based methods for bilevel reinforcement learning and rlhf. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06886, 2024

2024 arXiv
[179]

Parl: A unified framework for policy alignment in reinforcement learning from human feedback

Souradip Chakraborty, Amrit Bedi, Alec Koppel, Huazheng Wang, Dinesh Manocha, Mengdi Wang, and Furong Huang. Parl: A unified framework for policy alignment in reinforcement learning from human feedback. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations...

2024
[180]

Adversarial preference optimization: Enhancing your alignment via rm-llm game

Pengyu Cheng, Yifan Yang, Jian Li, Yong Dai, Tianhao Hu, Peixin Cao, Nan Du, and Xiaolong Li. Adversarial preference optimization: Enhancing your alignment via rm-llm game. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 , pages 3705–3716, 2024

2024
[181]

Coevolving with the other you: Fine-tuning llm with sequential cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning

Hao Ma, Tianyi Hu, Zhiqiang Pu, Liu Boyin, Xiaolin Ai, Yanyan Liang, and Min Chen. Coevolving with the other you: Fine-tuning llm with sequential cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (NeurIPS...

2024
[182]

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

Ian Gemp, Yoram Bachrach, Marc Lanctot, Roma Patel, Vibhavari Dasagi, Luke Marris, Georgios Piliouras, Siqi Liu, and Karl Tuyls. States as strings as strategies: Steering language models with game-theoretic solvers. Agentic Markets @ ICML 2024 , 2024

2024
[183]

Contextual bilevel reinforcement learning for incentive alignment

Vinzenz Thoma, Barna Pásztor, Andreas Krause, Giorgia Ramponi, and Yifan Hu. Contextual bilevel reinforcement learning for incentive alignment. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (NeurIPS 2024) , pages 127369–127435, 2024

2024
[184]

Incentivizing truthful language models via peer elicitation games

Baiting Chen, Tong Zhu, Jiale Han, Lexin Li, Gang Li, and Xiaowu Dai. Incentivizing truthful language models via peer elicitation games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13636, 2025

2025
[185]

Vln-game: Vision-language equilibrium search for zero-shot semantic navigation

Bangguo Yu, Yuzhen Liu, Lei Han, Hamidreza Kasaei, Tingguang Li, and Ming Cao. Vln-game: Vision-language equilibrium search for zero-shot semantic navigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11609, 2024

2024 arXiv
[186]

The consensus game: Language model generation via equilibrium search

Athul Paul Jacob, Yikang Shen, Gabriele Farina, and Jacob Andreas. The consensus game: Language model generation via equilibrium search. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations 12 (ICLR 2024) , 2024

2024
[187]

Steering language models with game-theoretic solvers

Ian Gemp, Roma Patel, Yoram Bachrach, Marc Lanctot, Vibhavari Dasagi, Luke Marris, Georgios Piliouras, Siqi Liu, and Karl Tuyls. Steering language models with game-theoretic solvers. In Agentic Markets @ ICML 2024 , 2024

2024
[188]

Game-theoretic approaches for stepwise controllable text generation in large language models

Daniel Sefeni, Michael Johnson, and Joshua Lee. Game-theoretic approaches for stepwise controllable text generation in large language models. Authorea Preprints, 2024

2024
[189]

Strategic llm decoding through bayesian games

Weitong Zhang, Chengqi Zang, and Bernhard Kainz. Strategic llm decoding through bayesian games. InReasoning and Planning for Large Language Models @ ICLR 2025 , 2025

2025
[190]

From debate to equilibrium: Belief-driven multi-agent LLM reasoning via bayesian nash equilibrium

Xie Yi, Zhanke Zhou, Chentao Cao, Qiyu Niu, Tongliang Liu, and Bo Han. From debate to equilibrium: Belief-driven multi-agent LLM reasoning via bayesian nash equilibrium. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning 42 (ICML 2025) , 2025. URL https://openr...

2025
[191]

Strategyproof reinforcement learning from human feedback

Thomas Kleine Buening, Jiarui Gan, Debmalya Mandal, and Marta Kwiatkowska. Strategyproof reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09561, 2025

2025
[192]

Vickreyfeedback: Cost-efficient data construction for reinforcement learning from human feedback

Guoxi Zhang and Jiuding Duan. Vickreyfeedback: Cost-efficient data construction for reinforcement learning from human feedback. InInternational Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems , pages 351–366. Springer, 2024

2024
[193]

How humans help llms: Assessing and incentivizing human preference annotators

Shang Liu, Hanzhao Wang, Zhongyao Ma, and Xiaocheng Li. How humans help llms: Assessing and incentivizing human preference annotators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06387, 2025

2025 arXiv
[194]

Incentivizing high-quality human annotations with golden questions

Shang Liu, Zhongze Cai, Hanzhao Wang, Zhongyao Ma, and Xiaocheng Li. Incentivizing high-quality human annotations with golden questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19134, 2025

2025 arXiv
[195]

Mechanism design for llm fine-tuning with multiple reward models

Haoran Sun, Yurong Chen, Siwei Wang, Wei Chen, and Xiaotie Deng. Mechanism design for llm fine-tuning with multiple reward models. Pluralistic Alignment @ NeurIPS 2024 , 2024

2024
[196]

Heterogeneous data game: Characterizing the model competition across multiple data sources

Renzhe Xu, Kang Wang, and Bo Li. Heterogeneous data game: Characterizing the model competition across multiple data sources. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning 42 (ICML 2025) , 2025

2025
[197]

Navigating the deployment dilemma and innovation paradox: Open-source versus closed-source models

Yanxuan Wu, Haihan Duan, Xitong Li, and Xiping Hu. Navigating the deployment dilemma and innovation paradox: Open-source versus closed-source models. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025 , WWW ’25, page 1488–1501, New York, NY, USA, 2025. Association for Computing ...

2025
[198]

Data sharing with a generative ai competitor.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12386, 2025

Boaz Taitler, Omer Madmon, Moshe Tennenholtz, and Omer Ben-Porat. Data sharing with a generative ai competitor.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12386, 2025

2025 arXiv
[199]

Pricing and competition for generative ai

Rafid Mahmood. Pricing and competition for generative ai. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (NeurIPS 2024), 2024

2024
[200]

Strategic prompt pricing for aigc services: A user-centric approach.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18168, 2025

Xiang Li, Bing Luo, Jianwei Huang, and Yuan Luo. Strategic prompt pricing for aigc services: A user-centric approach.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18168, 2025

2025 arXiv
[201]

The Economics of Large Language Models: Token Allocation, Fine-Tuning, and Optimal Pricing

Dirk Bergemann, Alessandro Bonatti, and Alex Smolin. The Economics of Large Language Models: Token Allocation, Fine-Tuning, and Optimal Pricing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07736, 2025

2025
[202]

Online advertisements with llms: Opportunities and challenges

Soheil Feizi, MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi, Keivan Rezaei, and Suho Shin. Online advertisements with llms: Opportunities and challenges. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 22(2):66––81, March 2025. Manuscript submitted to ACM Game Theory Meets Large Language Models: A Systematic Survey with T...

2025
[203]

Truthful aggregation of llms with an application to online advertising

Ermis Soumalias, Michael J Curry, and Sven Seuken. Truthful aggregation of llms with an application to online advertising. Agentic Markets @ ICML 2024, 2024

2024
[204]

Incentivizing quality text generation via statistical contracts

Eden Saig, Ohad Einav, and Inbal Talgam-Cohen. Incentivizing quality text generation via statistical contracts. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (NeurIPS 2024) , 2024

2024
[205]

Auctions with llm summaries

Avinava Dubey, Zhe Feng, Rahul Kidambi, Aranyak Mehta, and Di Wang. Auctions with llm summaries. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pages 713–722, 2024

2024
[206]

Ads in conversations

Martino Banchio, Aranyak Mehta, and Andres Perlroth. Ads in conversations. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation , page 350. Association for Computing Machinery, 2025. ISBN 9798400719431. doi: 10.1145/3736252.3742545. URL https: //doi.org/10.11...

2025
[207]

Ad auctions for llms via retrieval augmented generation

MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi, Sebastien Lahaie, Keivan Rezaei, and Suho Shin. Ad auctions for llms via retrieval augmented generation. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (NeurIPS 2024) , 2024

2024
[208]

A review on large model-oriented advertising auction

Ziwei Wu and Junwu Zhu. A review on large model-oriented advertising auction. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Computing and Complex Data (ICCD) , pages 7–12. IEEE, 2024

2024
[209]

Advertising in ai systems: Society must be vigilant

Menghua Wu and Yujia Bao. Advertising in ai systems: Society must be vigilant. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18425, 2025

2025 arXiv
[210]

Sponsored question answering

Tommy Mordo, Moshe Tennenholtz, and Oren Kurland. Sponsored question answering. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval , pages 167–173, 2024

2024
[211]

Human decision-making is susceptible to ai-driven manipulation

Sahand Sabour, June M Liu, Siyang Liu, Chris Z Yao, Shiyao Cui, Xuanming Zhang, Wen Zhang, Yaru Cao, Advait Bhat, Jian Guan, et al. Human decision-making is susceptible to ai-driven manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07663, 2025

2025
[212]

Strategic content creation in the age of genai: To share or not to share? arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16358, 2025

Gur Keinan and Omer Ben-Porat. Strategic content creation in the age of genai: To share or not to share? arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16358, 2025

2025
[213]

Selective Response Strategies for GenAI

Boaz Taitler and Omer Ben-Porat. Selective Response Strategies for GenAI. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning 42 (ICML 2025), 2025

2025
[214]

How to strategize human content creation in the era of genai? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05187, 2024

Seyed A Esmaeili, Kshipra Bhawalkar, Zhe Feng, Di Wang, and Haifeng Xu. How to strategize human content creation in the era of genai? arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05187, 2024

2024 arXiv
[215]

Braess’s paradox of generative ai

Boaz Taitler and Omer Ben-Porat. Braess’s paradox of generative ai. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 39, pages 14139–14147, 2025

2025
[216]

Pandora box or golden fleece: Economic analysis of generative ai adoption on creation platforms

Yi Gao, Zhe Wang, and Yan Huang. Pandora box or golden fleece: Economic analysis of generative ai adoption on creation platforms. In Michelle Carter 0001, Kelly J. Fadel, Thomas O. Meservy, Deborah J. Armstrong, Amit Deokar 0001, and Matthew L. Jensen, editors, 30th Americas C...

2024
[217]

Flattening supply chains: When do technology improvements lead to disintermediation? arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.20783, 2025

S Nageeb Ali, Nicole Immorlica, Meena Jagadeesan, and Brendan Lucier. Flattening supply chains: When do technology improvements lead to disintermediation? arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.20783, 2025

2025 arXiv
[218]

Algorithmic decision-making under agents with persistent improvement

Tian Xie, Xuwei Tan, and Xueru Zhang. Algorithmic decision-making under agents with persistent improvement. In Proceedings of AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society 7 (AIES 2024) , page 1672–1683, 2025

2024
[219]

The Backfiring Effect of Weak AI Safety Regulation

Benjamin Laufer, Jon Kleinberg, and Hoda Heidari. The Backfiring Effect of Weak AI Safety Regulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20848, 2025

2025 arXiv
[220]

Generative social choice: The next generation

Niclas Boehmer, Sara Fish, and Ariel D Procaccia. Generative social choice: The next generation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning 42 (ICML 2025) , 2025

2025
[221]

Large language models empower personalized valuation in auction

Jie Sun, Tianyu Zhang, Houcheng Jiang, Kexin Huang, Chi Luo, Junkang Wu, Jiancan Wu, An Zhang, and Xiang Wang. Large language models empower personalized valuation in auction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15817, 2024

2024
[222]

Verbalized bayesian persuasion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01587, 2025

Wenhao Li, Yue Lin, Xiangfeng Wang, Bo Jin, Hongyuan Zha, and Baoxiang Wang. Verbalized bayesian persuasion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01587, 2025

2025 arXiv
[223]

Rethinking strategic mechanism design in the age of large language models: New directions for communication systems

Ismail Lotfi, Nouf Alabbasi, and Omar Alhussein. Rethinking strategic mechanism design in the age of large language models: New directions for communication systems. IEEE Internet of Things Magazine , pages 1–9, 2025. doi: 10.1109/MIOT.2025.3576260

2025
[224]

Accelerated preference elicitation with llm-based proxies

David Huang, Francisco Marmolejo-Cossío, Edwin Lock, and David Parkes. Accelerated preference elicitation with llm-based proxies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14625, 2025

2025
[225]

Natural language mechanisms via self-resolution with foundation models

Nicolas Della Penna. Natural language mechanisms via self-resolution with foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07845, 2024

2024 arXiv
[226]

From natural language to extensive-form game representations

Shilong Deng, Yongzhao Wang, and Rahul Savani. From natural language to extensive-form game representations. arXiv preprint, 2025

2025
[227]

Autoformalization of game descriptions using large language models

Agnieszka Mensfelt, Kostas Stathis, and Vince Trencsenyi. Autoformalization of game descriptions using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12300, 2024

2024 arXiv
[228]

Autoformalizing and simulating game-theoretic scenarios using llm-augmented agents

Agnieszka Mensfelt, Kostas Stathis, and Vince Trencsenyi. Autoformalizing and simulating game-theoretic scenarios using llm-augmented agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08805, 2024

2024 arXiv
[229]

Do llm agents have regret? a case study in online learning and games

Chanwoo Park, Xiangyu Liu, Asuman E Ozdaglar, and Kaiqing Zhang. Do llm agents have regret? a case study in online learning and games. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations 13 (ICLR 2025) , 2025. Received 20 February 2007; revised 12 March ...

2025
[231]

Too much information? investigating information disclosure in auction systems with llm simulations

Yue Yin. Too much information? investigating information disclosure in auction systems with llm simulations. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI EA ’25, New York, NY, USA, 2025. Association for Computing Ma...

2025
[2023]

URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10142

arXiv
[2025]

URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09390

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [159]

Population-proportional preference learning from human feedback: An axiomatic approach

Kihyun Kim, Jiawei Zhang, Asuman Ozdaglar, and Pablo A Parrilo. Population-proportional preference learning from human feedback: An axiomatic approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05619, 2025

arXiv 2025

[2] [1]

Theory of games and economic behavior: 60th anniversary commemorative edition

John Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern. Theory of games and economic behavior: 60th anniversary commemorative edition. In Theory of games and economic behavior . Princeton university press, 2007

2007

[3] [2]

Equilibrium points in n-person games

John F Nash Jr. Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences , 1950

1950

[4] [3]

Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders

William Vickrey. Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. The Journal of finance , 1961

1961

[5] [4]

Information design: A unified perspective

Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris. Information design: A unified perspective. Journal of Economic Literature , 57(1):44–95, 2019

2019

[6] [5]

Social choice theory

Amartya Sen. Social choice theory. Handbook of mathematical economics , 3:1073–1181, 1986

1986

[7] [6]

A survey of defensive deception: Approaches using game theory and machine learning

Mu Zhu, Ahmed H Anwar, Zelin Wan, Jin-Hee Cho, Charles A Kamhoua, and Munindar P Singh. A survey of defensive deception: Approaches using game theory and machine learning. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials , 23(4):2460–2493, 2021

2021

[8] [7]

Applications of game theory in deep learning: a survey

Tanmoy Hazra and Kushal Anjaria. Applications of game theory in deep learning: a survey. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 81(6):8963–8994, 2022

2022