Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Information Bargaining: Bilateral Commitment in Bayesian Persuasion

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 Bayesian persuasion reduces to bargaining when receivers can also commit.

desk verdict A useful conceptual reframing of persuasion as bargaining, but the central reduction is a tautology and the LLM validation is circular; not publishable as-is. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05876 v2 pith:C3LOU25X submitted 2025-06-06 cs.GT cs.AI

Yue Lin , Shuhui Zhu , William A Cunningham , Wenhao Li , Pascal Poupart , Hongyuan Zha , Baoxiang Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GTcs.AI MSC 91A1091B2691A05
keywords Bayesianpersuasioninformationbargaininggamesjointcommitmentfirst-proposeradvantagelong-termNashsolutionlargelanguagemodels
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 tries to establish that long-term Bayesian persuasion—an informed sender committing to a signaling scheme to influence a receiver—is the same strategic situation as bargaining, and that this identification is computationally useful. The argument is that because the game structure is common knowledge, the receiver can compute both players' expected payoffs from any committed scheme and can commit, in turn, to a response rule; the interaction therefore separates into a bargaining stage, where the signaling scheme is agreed on, and a realization stage, where it is merely executed. The central formal claim is Lemma 4.3, a polynomial-time reduction from any persuasive task satisfying Assumption D.2 to a bargaining game $(Y,d)$ with the babbling outcome as disagreement point. If right, this explains why existing online persuasion strategies look like bargaining tactics, gives long-term persuasion solution concepts with fairness and Pareto efficiency, and predicts that receivers will bargain whenever they know the sender's reward function and the sender lacks a first-proposer commitment device. The paper also reports LLM experiments in which two reasoning models reproduce this bargaining pattern across 87 settings.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the joint commitment: a fixed point of the dynamics $f : \Phi \times \Pi \to \Phi \times \Pi$ that describes how the sender's signaling scheme $\varphi$ and the receiver's action rule $\pi$ are updated during a simultaneous-move bargaining stage, with $\varphi \neq \varphi_0$ and $\pi \neq \pi_0$ (neither player is stuck at the babbling outcome). Around it sit the game-structure map $\psi$ that assigns each $(\varphi,\pi)$ its expected payoff pair, the babbling pair $(\varphi_0,\pi_0)$ as the disagreement point, the receiver's meta action rule $\tilde{\pi}$ that lets it threaten to ignore signals, and the reduction to a bargaining game $Y = \{R\}$ with $d = R_0$. These pieces carry the argument by converting the sender's optimization over incentive-compatible signals into the choice of a payoff point in a bargaining set and by reinterpreting the Nash bargaining product $(R^i_1 - R^i_0)(R^j_1 - R^j_0)$ as the persuasion objective.

What would settle it

Find or construct a persuasion instance satisfying Assumption D.2 where the feasible payoff set $\{R\}$ is not convex or where the membership problem 'is there $(\varphi,\pi)$ with $R = y_{\mathrm{BG}}$' is NP-hard; or run the LLM protocol with the sender's reward function hidden from the receiver and check whether long-term outcomes still match bargaining predictions. Any of these would determine whether Lemma 4.3 and the bargaining decomposition hold beyond the paper's examples.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the sender's commitment advantage in Bayesian persuasion is not a single advantage but two: an informational advantage (knowing the state) and a first-proposer advantage (moving before the receiver), and that long-term persuasion decomposes into a bargaining stage followed by a realization stage. The formal statement is Lemma 4.3: when there exists a strategy pair giving both players strictly more than the babbling disagreement point, a Bayesian persuasion task $\mathrm{BP}$ can be reduced in polynomial time to a bargaining game $\mathrm{BG} = (Y,d)$, where $Y$ is the set of feasible expected-payoff pairs and $d$ is the disagreement point corresponding to $\varphi_0$ and $\pi_0$. The proof constructs $Y$ from the game-structure map $\psi$ and asks for a strategy pair inducing the bargaining solution; because both players can compute expected payoffs and the receiver can commit to a meta action rule, unilateral sender commitment becomes a special case of bilateral joint commitment, defined as a fixed point of the players' simultaneous strategy-updating dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Assumption D.2, that some strategy pair gives both players strictly more than the babbling disagreement point; the paper's own Grading Students example fails this at the sender's optimum (the receiver gets 0, same as disagreement), and the proof's claim that the constrained feasibility problem is convex and hence polynomial-time solvable is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Long-term persuasion with alternating proposer roles will converge to balanced, Pareto-optimal agreements similar to Rubinstein bargaining, while fixed roles reproduce the one-shot sender-optimal outcome.
  • Existing online persuasion strategies, such as threat-based meta signaling and promise-form schemes, can be read as bargaining tactics rather than ad hoc constructions.
  • The sender's dominance in canonical Bayesian persuasion is mostly first-proposer advantage; without an explicit commitment device, the receiver's threat to revert to the babbling equilibrium shifts outcomes toward fairness.
  • Applying bargaining solution concepts such as Nash's gives Bayesian persuasion outcomes that are Pareto efficient and fair, in addition to satisfying the obedience constraints.
  • Under Assumption D.2, the NP-hardness of long-term persuasion is sidestepped, since the reduced bargaining game can be solved through bargaining solution concepts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reduction is correct, computational bargaining solvers could serve as drop-in replacements for concavification in persuasion instances where Assumption D.2 holds, extending to settings with many receivers or dynamic states.
  • The paper's reliance on the receiver knowing the sender's reward function suggests a testable boundary: when the sender's payoffs are hidden, the bargaining pattern should disappear and one-shot persuasion outcomes should reappear even in long-term interactions.
  • An independent test could vary the receiver's commitment order (receiver-first vs sender-first) and check whether payoff splits track the first-proposer advantage cleanly, separating it from the informational component.
  • One could measure the 'bargaining gap' empirically by comparing the receiver's payoff under canonical persuasion with the payoff under receiver-commitment bargaining, testing whether receivers can actually force fairer outcomes in practice.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an 'information bargaining' reinterpretation of Bayesian persuasion. It claims that long-term Bayesian persuasion decomposes into a bargaining stage and a realization stage, that the sender's advantage separates into an informational component and a first-proposer component, and that a Bayesian persuasion task reduces in polynomial time to a cooperative bargaining game (Lemma 4.3). It introduces 'joint commitment' as a solution concept, reformulates persuasion as a Nash bargaining problem in Appendix F, and reports LLM experiments with GPT-o3 and DeepSeek-R1 across 87 settings. The code and execution logs are publicly released.

Significance. If the claimed reduction and decomposition were valid, the paper would provide a useful conceptual bridge between Bayesian persuasion and bargaining theory, and its empirical strategy of validating LLMs on known problems before using them as equilibrium solvers is reasonable in principle. The public code and logs are a strength. However, the central theoretical step, Lemma 4.3, is a tautological construction rather than a reduction, and the proposed Nash bargaining solution does not preserve the persuasion optimum in the paper's own leading example. The empirical design also embeds the bargaining mechanism directly into the prompts, so the confirmatory results largely reflect the experimental setup. As it stands, the contribution is a reinterpretation whose main equivalence claims are not supported.

major comments (5)
  1. [Appendix D, Lemma 4.3] The proof of Lemma 4.3 does not establish a reduction. It defines Y={R} and d=R0, where R is chosen so that R>R0, and then observes that a bargaining solution yBG belongs to Y by construction. Problem (4), min 0 subject to R=yBG, is a membership test with no objective, and the proof never exhibits a polynomial-time map from a bargaining solution back to an optimal signaling scheme and action rule, nor does it show that the bargaining solution corresponds to the persuasion optimum. Even under the broader reading of {R} in Section 3.1 as the set of all achievable payoff pairs, selecting an element of Y is a feasibility check, not a computational reduction. The claim BP ≤p BG is therefore unsupported.
  2. [Appendix D, Eq. (4)] The assertion that optimization problem (4) is convex and therefore polynomial-time solvable is not justified. Equation (3) defines expected payoffs as bilinear expressions in the signaling scheme φ and the action rule π over products of simplices, and the feasible payoff set {R} is the image of a bilinear map, which is generally nonconvex. The objective in (4) is constant, the optimization variables are not specified, and no representation of the feasible set is given that would permit membership testing in polynomial time. Convexity alone would not be sufficient for the tractability claim even if convexity were established.
  3. [Appendix F / Example G.2] The proposed Nash bargaining reformulation does not preserve the persuasion outcome in the paper's own main example. In Example G.2, the canonical persuasion optimum is η=1/2 with payoffs (2/3,0), but the Nash product in Appendix F, ((1+2η)/3)((1−2η)/3), is maximized at η=0 with payoffs (1/3,1/3). Thus the bargaining solution selects a different signaling scheme from the sender-optimal persuasion solution, contradicting the claim that the framework reinterprets classic one-sided persuasion 'without changing optimality.' I note that Assumption D.2 is satisfied in this example (η=0 gives a strict Pareto improvement over (0,0)), so the issue is not the assumption itself but the failure of the bargaining solution to preserve the persuasion objective.
  4. [§4.1 / Procedure 2] The central claim that long-term Bayesian persuasion decomposes into a bargaining stage and a realization stage 'without changing optimality or equilibrium' is asserted rather than proven. Procedure 2 changes the game: it inserts a bargaining loop, allows the receiver to commit to an action policy, and lets both players declare strategies before the realization phase. No theorem states which equilibrium concept applies to the new game or proves that its equilibria coincide with those of the original Bayesian persuasion game in Procedure 1. The separation of the sender's informational advantage from the first-proposer advantage therefore lacks a formal foundation.
  5. [§5.2 / Appendix G.4] The empirical validation is confounded by the prompt design. The sample prompt in Appendix G.4 explicitly instructs the receiver to announce a signaling scheme φ1 and threaten to follow π0 unless the sender proposes a scheme that gives the receiver at least as much, and it describes alternating offers, consensus conditions, and role switching. These are exactly the bargaining mechanics whose predicted effects the experiment is supposed to test, so the high correlation with bargaining outcomes reflects the instructions rather than an independent confirmation of the framework. In addition, the long-term 'mathematical baseline' persuasion tasks use the same payoff structure as the bounded bargaining tasks, making the favorable comparison partly a restatement of the setup.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1] The sentence beginning 'prompting various strategic proposals' is repeated verbatim in the introduction.
  2. [Appendix B.1] The text says Bayesian persuasion is restated as Procedure 3, but the displayed procedure is labeled Procedure 4.
  3. [Appendix B.2, Theorem B.1] There is a typo, 'Rubinsein', which should read 'Rubinstein'.
  4. [§5.1] The phrase 'the remaining are are reasoning models' contains a duplicated 'are'.
  5. [Table 2 / §5.2] Table 2 is described as the 'unbounded value setting' but reports the maximum payoff as 2/3 and uses experiments indexed 52 and 54, which are bounded-value settings; the caption should be corrected.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Central reduction is tautological (Y = {R}) and the empirical 'prediction' is embedded in the LLM prompts.

  1. self definitional [Appendix D, proof of Lemma 4.3, Eq. (4)]
    "With Assumption D.2, there exists R such that R > R0. Thus we can investigate the bargaining game where Y = {R} and d = R0. Given a bargaining solution concept ωBG, one could obtain the solution of BG, denoted as yBG. Then we have yBG ∈ Y = {R}. In this way, BP can be formulated as an optimization problem min (φ,π) 0 s.t. R = yBG . (4) By Equation (3), the optimization problem (4) is convex, which can be solved in polynomial time, as we desired."

    Section 3.1 defines {R} := {(Ri, Rj)} as the set of all possible expected payoff pairs in BP. So Y, the feasible set of the bargaining game, is exactly the image of BP's strategy space under the payoff map. Picking yBG ∈ Y is therefore just picking an already-feasible BP payoff vector. The constraint R = yBG in Eq. (4) is satisfied by definition, and the constant objective 0 cannot select among (φ, π) pairs; no polynomial-time map from yBG back to an optimal signaling scheme or equilibrium is given. The convexity assertion also uses Eq. (3), which is bilinear in φ and π over a product of simplices, so it does not make the membership problem convex or polynomial. The claimed reduction BP ≤p BG is tautological.

  2. self definitional [Section 5.1 and Appendix G.4 (LLM prompt for long-term signaling tasks)]
    "If the receiver is the proposer (and the sender is the responder): The receiver announces a signaling scheme $\varphi_1$, claiming that it will follow $\pi_1$ if the sender commits to a signaling scheme $\varphi$ that yields an expected reward for the receiver at least as high as that induced by $\varphi_1$; otherwise, the receiver will follow $\pi_0$."

    The paper's hypothesis (Section 5.1) is that long-term persuasion with alternating roles leads to bargaining-like fair outcomes. But the 'long-term persuasion' task prompt handed to the LLM literally implements the bargaining protocol: a receiver-proposer sets φ1 and threatens π0 unless the sender's committed scheme pays enough, and roles switch on disagreement. Hence the reported rhyp values (0.9369, 0.9344) quantify how faithfully the LLM executed the bargaining instructions the authors wrote into the scenario, not independent evidence that persuasion reduces to bargaining.

full rationale

Two central claims reduce to their own inputs. First, Lemma 4.3: Y = {R}, where {R} is the set of BP-achievable payoff pairs, so solving the bargaining game is a membership test, and Eq. (4) has a constant objective and an unproven convexity claim; this makes BP ≤p BG trivial by definition. Second, the empirical 'prediction' is self-fulfilling: the long-term persuasion prompts instruct the LLM in the bargaining protocol (receiver proposes φ1 and threatens π0, roles alternate), so the high rhyp correlation measures instruction-following. Appendix F's Nash-product reformulation is also not equivalent to the persuasion optimum on the paper's own Grading Students example (η = 1/2 gives (2/3, 0), product 0; η = 0 gives product 1/9), but that is a correctness inconsistency rather than a circularity. The model validation on standard tasks is a legitimate external check, and self-citations are not load-bearing; however, the central theoretical and empirical claims are circular by construction, so the score is 8.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The framework rests on a new information assumption (ri common knowledge), a new commitment assumption for the receiver, and a strict-improvement assumption (D.2) that fails in the paper's canonical example. No free parameters are fitted to data, but the LLM task design choices (such as the bounded value mapping) shape the results. The 'joint commitment' and 'satisfaction threshold' are invented solution concepts with no independent evidence.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.1: the sender commits to a signaling scheme φ before the game and follows it.
    Standard commitment assumption in Bayesian persuasion, inherited from Kamenica and Gentzkow (2011).
  • ad hoc to paper The receiver knows the sender's reward function ri, so ri is common knowledge (ri ∈ Vi+j).
    Introduced in Section 2; the paper notes this was not specified in previous work. Without it, the receiver cannot compute the sender's payoff and the bargaining interpretation collapses.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption D.2: there exists a strategy pair (φ, π) with Ri(φ,π) > Ri(φ0,π0) and Rj(φ,π) > Rj(φ0,π0).
    Required for Lemma 4.3 to make the disagreement point strictly improvable. Fails in the paper's own Grading Students example, where the receiver's payoff at the optimum equals the disagreement payoff.
  • ad hoc to paper The receiver can commit to a meta action rule before the sender chooses the signaling scheme (Procedure 10).
    The paper grants the receiver commitment capabilities comparable to the sender's, which is a substantive modification of the standard one-sided commitment assumption and is load-bearing for the joint commitment solution concept.
invented entities (2)
  • Joint commitment (fixed point of f)
    purpose: Defines the solution concept of Bayesian persuasion under bilateral commitment.
    Definition 4.1; no existence or uniqueness proof is given, and the dynamics f are not specified.
  • Satisfaction threshold function χ
    purpose: A device allowing the receiver to accept or reject a signaling scheme by comparing expected payoffs, implementing the receiver's commitment.
    Introduced in Section 3.2 and Appendix B.3; it is a modeling construct with no empirical grounding outside the LLM prompts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Information Bargaining: Bilateral Commitment in Bayesian Persuasion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C3LOU25X

@misc{pith2026250605876,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Information Bargaining: Bilateral Commitment in Bayesian Persuasion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C3LOU25X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05876}
}
read the original abstract

Bayesian persuasion, an extension of cheap-talk communication, involves an informed sender committing to a signaling scheme to influence a receiver's actions. Compared to cheap talk, this sender's commitment enables the receiver to verify the incentive compatibility of signals beforehand, facilitating cooperation. While effective in one-shot scenarios, Bayesian persuasion faces computational complexity (NP-hardness) when extended to long-term interactions, where the receiver may adopt dynamic strategies conditional on past outcomes and future expectations. To address this complexity, we introduce the bargaining perspective, which allows: (1) a unified framework and well-structured solution concept for long-term persuasion, with desirable properties such as fairness and Pareto efficiency; (2) a clear distinction between two previously conflated advantages: the sender's informational advantage and first-proposer advantage. With only modest modifications to the standard setting, this perspective makes explicit the common knowledge of the game structure and grants the receiver comparable commitment capabilities, thereby reinterpreting classic one-sided persuasion as a balanced information bargaining framework. The framework is validated through a two-stage validation-and-inference paradigm: We first demonstrate that GPT-o3 and DeepSeek-R1, out of publicly available LLMs, reliably handle standard tasks; We then apply them to persuasion scenarios to test that the outcomes align with what our information-bargaining framework suggests. All code, results, and terminal logs are publicly available at github.com/YueLin301/InformationBargaining.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05876 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The framework of communication with charge-free signals and information asymmetry. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Ground Truth and Hypothesis. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cooperation, competition, and maliciousness: Llm-stakeholders interactive negotiation

    Sahar Abdelnabi, Amr Gomaa, Sarath Sivaprasad, Lea Sch \"o nherr, and Mario Fritz. Cooperation, competition, and maliciousness: Llm-stakeholders interactive negotiation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 0 83548--83599, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    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

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    On the value of persuasion by experts

    Ricardo Alonso and Odilon C \^a mara. On the value of persuasion by experts. Journal of Economic Theory, 174: 0 103--123, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

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

    Gerry Antioch. 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

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    The evolution of cooperation

    Robert Axelrod and William D Hamilton. The evolution of cooperation. science, 211 0 (4489): 0 1390--1396, 1981

    1981

  6. [6]

    Robust predictions in games with incomplete information

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

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Bayes correlated equilibrium and the comparison of information structures in games

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

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Information design: A unified perspective

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

    2019

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Persuading farsighted receivers in mdps: the power of honesty

    Martino Bernasconi, Matteo Castiglioni, Alberto Marchesi, and Mirco Mutti. Persuading farsighted receivers in mdps: the power of honesty. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05863, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cooperation under the shadow of the future: experimental evidence from infinitely repeated games

    Pedro Dal B \'o . Cooperation under the shadow of the future: experimental evidence from infinitely repeated games. American economic review, 95 0 (5): 0 1591--1604, 2005

    2005

  4. [12]

    Grading standards and education quality

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

    2015

  5. [13]

    Private bayesian persuasion with sequential games

    Andrea Celli, Stefano Coniglio, and Nicola Gatti. Private bayesian persuasion with sequential games. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pp.\ 1886--1893, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    A survey of experiments on communication via cheap talk

    Vincent Crawford. A survey of experiments on communication via cheap talk. Journal of Economic theory, 78 0 (2): 0 286--298, 1998

    1998

  7. [15]

    Strategic information transmission

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

    1982

  8. [16]

    Reducing congestion through information design

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

    2017

  9. [17]

    Evaluating language model agency through negotiations

    Tim R Davidson, Veniamin Veselovsky, Martin Josifoski, Maxime Peyrard, Antoine Bosselut, Michal Kosinski, and Robert West. Evaluating language model agency through negotiations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04536, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    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 Workshop at ICML 2024, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Algorithmic information structure design: a survey

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

    2017

  12. [20]

    Algorithmic bayesian persuasion

    Shaddin Dughmi and Haifeng Xu. Algorithmic bayesian persuasion. In Proceedings of the forty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing, pp.\ 412--425, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    Cheap talk

    Joseph Farrell and Matthew Rabin. Cheap talk. Journal of Economic perspectives, 10 0 (3): 0 103--118, 1996

    1996

  14. [22]

    A non-cooperative equilibrium for supergames

    James W Friedman. A non-cooperative equilibrium for supergames. The Review of Economic Studies, 38 0 (1): 0 1--12, 1971

    1971

  15. [23]

    Bayesian persuasion in sequential decision-making

    Jiarui Gan, Rupak Majumdar, Goran Radanovic, and Adish Singla. Bayesian persuasion in sequential decision-making. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pp.\ 5025--5033, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

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

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Ultimatum bargaining behavior: A survey and comparison of experimental results

    Werner G \"u th and Reinhard Tietz. Ultimatum bargaining behavior: A survey and comparison of experimental results. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11 0 (3): 0 417--449, 1990

    1990

  18. [26]

    An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining

    Werner G \"u th, Rolf Schmittberger, and Bernd Schwarze. An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of economic behavior & organization, 3 0 (4): 0 367--388, 1982

    1982

  19. [27]

    Decoupling strategy and generation in negotiation dialogues

    He He, Derek Chen, Anusha Balakrishnan, and Percy Liang. Decoupling strategy and generation in negotiation dialogues. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.09637, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    How bayesian persuasion can help reduce illegal parking and other socially undesirable behavior

    Pen \'e lope Hern \'a ndez and Zvika Neeman. How bayesian persuasion can help reduce illegal parking and other socially undesirable behavior. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 14 0 (1): 0 186--215, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Proportional solutions to bargaining situations: interpersonal utility comparisons

    Ehud Kalai. Proportional solutions to bargaining situations: interpersonal utility comparisons. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pp.\ 1623--1630, 1977

    1977

  22. [30]

    Other solutions to nash's bargaining problem

    Ehud Kalai and Meir Smorodinsky. Other solutions to nash's bargaining problem. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pp.\ 513--518, 1975

    1975

  23. [31]

    Bayesian persuasion and information design

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

    2019

  24. [32]

    Bayesian persuasion

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

    2011

  25. [33]

    Debating with more persuasive llms leads to more truthful answers

    Akbir Khan, John Hughes, Dan Valentine, Laura Ruis, Kshitij Sachan, Ansh Radhakrishnan, Edward Grefenstette, Samuel R Bowman, Tim Rockt \"a schel, and Ethan Perez. Debating with more persuasive llms leads to more truthful answers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.06782, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    wisdom of the crowd

    Ilan Kremer, Yishay Mansour, and Motty Perry. Implementing the “wisdom of the crowd”. Journal of Political Economy, 122 0 (5): 0 988--1012, 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    Speeding, terrorism, and teaching to the test

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

    2006

  28. [36]

    Bargaining and repeated games

    Jonathan Levin. Bargaining and repeated games. no. February, pp.\ 1--14, 2002

    2002

  29. [37]

    Sequential persuasion

    Fei Li and Peter Norman. Sequential persuasion. Theoretical Economics, 16 0 (2): 0 639--675, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Evidence of general economic principles of bargaining and trade from 2,000 classroom experiments

    Po-Hsuan Lin, Alexander L Brown, Taisuke Imai, Joseph Tao-yi Wang, Stephanie W Wang, and Colin F Camerer. Evidence of general economic principles of bargaining and trade from 2,000 classroom experiments. Nature Human Behaviour, 4 0 (9): 0 917--927, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Information design in multi-agent reinforcement learning

    Yue Lin, Wenhao Li, Hongyuan Zha, and Baoxiang Wang. Information design in multi-agent reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 0 25584--25597, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Bargaining games, pp.\ 622–658

    Michael Maschler, Eilon Solan, and Shmuel Zamir. Bargaining games, pp.\ 622–658. Cambridge University Press, 2013

    2013

  33. [41]

    One quarter of gdp is persuasion

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

    1995

  34. [42]

    Modelling political coalition negotiations using llm-based agents

    Farhad Moghimifar, Yuan-Fang Li, Robert Thomson, and Gholamreza Haffari. Modelling political coalition negotiations using llm-based agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11712, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08901, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Two-person cooperative games

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

    1953

  37. [45]

    The bargaining problem

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

    1950

  38. [46]

    Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game

    Martin A Nowak, Karen M Page, and Karl Sigmund. Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game. Science, 289 0 (5485): 0 1773--1775, 2000

    2000

  39. [47]

    Introducing openai o3 and o4-mini, 2025

    OpenAI. Introducing openai o3 and o4-mini, 2025. URL https://openai.com/index/introducing-o3-and-o4-mini/. Accessed: 2025-05-02

    2025

  40. [48]

    Information disclosure and unraveling in matching markets

    Michael Ostrovsky and Michael Schwarz. Information disclosure and unraveling in matching markets. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2 0 (2): 0 34--63, 2010

    2010

  41. [49]

    Chatgpt and open-ai models: A preliminary review

    Konstantinos I Roumeliotis and Nikolaos D Tselikas. Chatgpt and open-ai models: A preliminary review. Future Internet, 15 0 (6): 0 192, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model

    Ariel Rubinstein. Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pp.\ 97--109, 1982

    1982

  43. [51]

    Sequential information design: Markov persuasion process and its efficient reinforcement learning

    Jibang Wu, Zixuan Zhang, Zhe Feng, Zhaoran Wang, Zhuoran Yang, Michael I Jordan, and Haifeng Xu. Sequential information design: Markov persuasion process and its efficient reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.10678, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Sequential bayesian persuasion

    Wenhao Wu. Sequential bayesian persuasion. Journal of Economic Theory, 214: 0 105763, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15813, 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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