arXiv:2603.06977v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) is increasingly used to design learning-enabled agents that interact in shared environments. However, training MARL algorithms in general-sum games remains challenging: learning dynamics can become unstable, and convergence guarantees typically hold only in restricted settings such as two-player zero-sum or fully cooperative games. Moreover, when agents have heterogeneous and potentially conflicting preferences, it is unclear what system-level objective should guide learning. In this paper, we propose a new MARL pipeline called Near-Potential Policy Optimization (NePPO) for computing approximate Nash equilibria in mixed cooperative--competitive environments. The core idea is to learn a player-independent potential function such that the Nash equilibrium of a cooperative game with this potential as the common utility approximates a Nash equilibrium of the original game. To this end, we introduce a novel MARL objective such that minimizing this objective yields the best possible potential function candidate and consequently an approximate Nash equilibrium of the original game. We develop an algorithmic pipeline that minimizes this objective using zeroth-order gradient descent and returns an approximate Nash equilibrium policy. We empirically show the superior performance of this approach compared to popular baselines such as MAPPO, IPPO and MADDPG.

arXiv:2603.06984v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent work has proposed powerful frameworks, rooted in causal theory, to quantify fairness. Causal inference has primarily emphasized the detection of \emph{average} treatment effects (ATEs), and subsequent notions of fairness have inherited this focus. In this paper, we build on previous concerns about regulation based on averages. In particular, we formulate the "causal masking problem" as a linear program that optimizes an alternative objective, such as maximizing profit or minimizing crime, while retaining a zero ATE (i.e., the ATE between a protected attribute and a decision). By studying the capabilities and limitations of causal masking, we show that optimization under ATE-based regulation may induce significant unequal treatment. We demonstrate that the divergence between true and causally masked fairness is driven by confounding, underscoring the importance of full conditional-independence testing when assessing fairness. Finally, we discuss statistical and information-theoretic limitations that make causally masked solutions very difficult to detect, allowing them to persist for long periods. These results argue that we must regulate fairness at the model-level, rather than at the decision level.

arXiv:2603.08679v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The celebrated Myerson--Satterthwaite theorem shows that in bilateral trade, no mechanism can be simultaneously fully efficient, Bayesian incentive compatible (BIC), and budget balanced (BB). This naturally raises the question of how closely the gains from trade (GFT) achievable by a BIC and BB mechanism can approximate the first-best (fully efficient) benchmark. The optimal BIC and BB mechanism is typically complex and highly distribution-dependent, making it difficult to characterize directly. Consequently, much of the literature analyzes simpler mechanisms such as the Random-Offerer (RO) mechanism and establishes constant-factor guarantees relative to the first-best GFT. An important open question concerns the worst-case performance of the RO mechanism relative to first-best (FB) efficiency. While it was originally hypothesized that the approximation ratio $\frac{\text{GFT}_{\text{FB}}}{\text{GFT}_{\text{RO}}}$ is bounded by $2$, recent work provided counterexamples to this conjecture: Cai et al. proved that the ratio can be strictly larger than $2$, and Babaioff et al. exhibited an explicit example with ratio approximately $2.02$. In this work, we employ AlphaEvolve, an AI-guided evolutionary search framework, to explore the space of value distributions. We identify a new worst-case instance that yields an improved lower bound of $\frac{\text{GFT}_{\text{FB}}}{\text{GFT}_{\text{RO}}} \ge \textbf{2.0749}$. This establishes a new lower bound on the worst-case performance of the Random-Offerer mechanism, demonstrating a wider efficiency gap than previously known.

arXiv:2509.22989v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong persuasive capabilities comparable to those of humans, offering promising benefits while raising societal concerns. However, systematically evaluating the persuasive capabilities of LLMs is inherently challenging, as the effectiveness of persuasion among humans varies significantly across different domains. In this paper, we take a theory-driven approach to provide a scalable and principled framework for studying the persuasive capabilities of LLMs. Grounded in Bayesian persuasion theory, we repurpose human-human persuasion datasets to construct environments for evaluating and training LLMs as strategic persuaders. Our results reveal that frontier models can consistently achieve high persuasion gains and exhibit sophisticated persuasion strategies that align with theoretical characterizations. Building on this, we use reinforcement learning to train LLMs for strategic persuasion in our environments. Our results also demonstrate that even small LLMs can obtain significantly higher persuasion gains through reinforcement learning.

arXiv:2603.01290v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The 2026 Formula 1 technical regulations introduce a fundamental change to energy strategy: under a 50/50 internal combustion engine / battery power split with unlimited regeneration and a driver-controlled Override Mode (abbreviated MOM throughout), the optimal energy deployment policy depends not only on a driver's own state but on the hidden state of rival cars. This creates a Partially Observable Stochastic Game that cannot be solved by single-agent optimisation methods. We present a tractable two-layer inference and decision framework. The first layer is a 30-state Hidden Markov Model (HMM) that infers a probability distribution over each rival's ERS charge level, Override Mode status, and tyre degradation state from five publicly observable telemetry signals. The second layer is a Deep Q-Network (DQN) policy that takes the HMM belief state as input and selects between energy deployment strategies. We formally characterise the counter-harvest trap -- a deceptive strategy in which a car deliberately suppresses observable deployment signals to induce a rival into a failed attack -- and show that detecting it requires belief-state inference rather than reactive threshold rules. On synthetic races generated from the model's own assumptions, the HMM achieves 92.3% ERS inference accuracy (random baseline: 33.3%) and detects counter-harvest trap conditions with 95.7% recall. Pre-registration -- empirical validation begins Australian Grand Prix, 8 March 2026.

arXiv:2411.16574v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Algorithmic agents are used in a variety of competitive decision-making settings, including pricing contexts that range from online retail to residential home rental. We study the emergence of algorithmic collusion when competing agents employ multi-armed bandit algorithms and competition is modeled as a repeated Prisoner's Dilemma game. Notably, agents in our setting perform online learning with no prior model of game structure and have no direct knowledge of competitor states or actions, thus they cannot learn strategies that depend on these factors. These context-free bandits nonetheless frequently learn seemingly collusive behavior, a phenomenon we term naive collusion. Our results reveal that whether naive collusion emerges depends starkly on the choice of behavior policy employed by bandit learners. The mechanism underpinning the emergence of collusive outcomes is synchronicity in agent action plays, where synchronicity captures how often agents play the same action. We show that in the long-run, naive algorithmic collusion never emerges when both agents use a broad class of persistently random algorithms, including the epsilon-greedy algorithm without epsilon decay, sometimes emerges when both agents use greedy-in-the-limit algorithms which feature randomness during exploration but are asymptotically deterministic, and always emerges when both agents use deterministic bandit learning algorithms like those in the well-known upper confidence bound (UCB) family. We highlight market and algorithmic conditions under which one can and cannot predict a priori whether collusion will occur. Our findings have several policy implications: preventing pricing algorithms from conditioning their actions on competitor prices may not preclude algorithmic collusion, symmetry in algorithms may increase collusion potential, and the emergence of algorithmic collusion is path dependent.