Many real-world multi-agent or multi-task evaluation scenarios can be naturally modelled as normal-form games due to inherent strategic (adversarial, cooperative, and mixed motive) interactions. These strategic interactions may be agentic (e.g. In such a formulation, it is the strategies (actions, policies, agents, models, tasks, prompts, etc.) that are rated. However, the rating problem is complicated by redundancy and complexity of N-player strategic interactions. Repeated or similar strategies can distort ratings for those that counter or complement them. Previous work proposed "clone invariant" ratings to handle such redundancies, but this was limited to two-player zero-sum (i.e. This work introduces the first N-player generalsum clone invariant rating, called deviation ratings, based on coarse correlated equilibria. The rating is explored on several domains including LLMs evaluation. Data often captures relationships within a set (e.g., chess match outcomes) or between sets (e.g., film ratings by demographics). These sets can represent anything including human players, machine learning models, tasks, or features. The interaction data, often scalar (win rates, scores, or other metrics), may be symmetric, asymmetric or arbitrary. These interactions can be strategic, either in an agentic sense (e.g., players aiming to win) or due to inherent trade-offs (e.g., cost vs quality). This can lead to a game-theoretic interpretation: sets as players, elements as strategies, and interaction statistics as payoffs. This framing is common in analyzing strategic interactions between entities like Premier League teams, chess players (Sanjaya et al., 2022), reinforcement learning agents and tasks (Balduzzi et al., 2018), or even language models (Chiang et al., 2024). More generally, the idea of formulating real-world interactions as normal-form games, empirical game-theoretic analysis (Wellman, 2006), is well explored.

We introduce a novel non-cooperative game to analyse opinion formation and resistance, incorporating principles from social psychology such as confirmation bias, resource constraints, and influence penalties. Our simulation features Large Language Model (LLM) agents competing to influence a population, with penalties imposed for generating messages that propagate or counter misinformation. This framework integrates resource optimisation into the agents' decision-making process. Our findings demonstrate that while higher confirmation bias strengthens opinion alignment within groups, it also exacerbates overall polarisation. Conversely, lower confirmation bias leads to fragmented opinions and limited shifts in individual beliefs. Investing heavily in a high-resource debunking strategy can initially align the population with the debunking agent, but risks rapid resource depletion and diminished long-term influence.

Metacognitive education plays a crucial role in cultivating students' self-regulation and reflective thinking, providing essential support for those with learning difficulties through academic advising. Simulating students with insufficient learning capabilities using large language models offers a promising approach to refining pedagogical methods without ethical concerns. However, existing simulations often fail to authentically represent students' learning struggles and face challenges in evaluation due to the lack of reliable metrics and ethical constraints in data collection. To address these issues, we propose a pipeline for automatically generating and filtering high-quality simulated student agents. Our approach leverages a two-round automated scoring system validated by human experts and employs a score propagation module to obtain more consistent scores across the student graph. Experimental results demonstrate that our pipeline efficiently identifies high-quality student agents, and we discuss the traits that influence the simulation's effectiveness. By simulating students with varying degrees of learning difficulties, our work paves the way for broader applications in personalized learning and educational assessment.

The design and application of multi-agent systems (MAS) require reasoning about the effects of modifications on their underlying structure. In particular, such changes may impact the satisfaction of system specifications and the strategic abilities of their autonomous components. In this paper, we are concerned with the problem of verifying and synthesising modifications (or \textit{updates}) of MAS. We propose an extension of the Alternating-Time Temporal Logic ($\mathsf{ATL}$) that enables reasoning about the dynamics of model change, called the \textit{Logic for $\mathsf{ATL}$ Model Building} ($\mathsf{LAMB}$). We show how $\mathsf{LAMB}$ can express various intuitions and ideas about the dynamics of MAS, from normative updates to mechanism design. As the main technical result, we prove that, while being strictly more expressive than $\mathsf{ATL}$, $\mathsf{LAMB}$ enjoys a P-complete model-checking procedure.

Despite the remarkable capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in various reasoning tasks, they still struggle with table reasoning tasks, particularly in maintaining consistency throughout multi-step reasoning processes. While existing approaches have explored various decomposition strategies, they often lack effective mechanisms to identify and correct errors in intermediate reasoning steps, leading to cascading error propagation. To address these issues, we propose Table-Critic, a novel multi-agent framework that facilitates collaborative criticism and iterative refinement of the reasoning process until convergence to correct solutions. Our framework consists of four specialized agents: a Judge for error identification, a Critic for comprehensive critiques, a Refiner for process improvement, and a Curator for pattern distillation. To effectively deal with diverse and unpredictable error types, we introduce a self-evolving template tree that systematically accumulates critique knowledge through experience-driven learning and guides future reflections. Extensive experiments have demonstrated that Table-Critic achieves substantial improvements over existing methods, achieving superior accuracy and error correction rates while maintaining computational efficiency and lower solution degradation rate.

In order to adapt to the issues of climate change and public health, urban policies are trying to encourage soft mobility, but the share of the car remains significant. Beyond known constraints, we study here the impact of perception biases on individual choices. We designed a multi-criteria decision model, integrating the influence of habits and biases. We then conducted an online survey, which received 650 responses. We used these to calculate realistic mobility perception values, in order to initialise the environment and the population of a modal choice simulator, implemented in Netlogo. This allows us to visualize the adaptation of the modal distribution in reaction to the evolution of urban planning, depending on whether or not we activate biases and habits in individual reasoning. This is an extended and translated version of a demo paper published in French at JFSMA-JFMS 2024 "Un simulateur multi-agent de choix modal subjectif"

How we should design and interact with social artificial intelligence depends on the socio-relational role the AI is meant to emulate or occupy. In human society, relationships such as teacher-student, parent-child, neighbors, siblings, or employer-employee are governed by specific norms that prescribe or proscribe cooperative functions including hierarchy, care, transaction, and mating. These norms shape our judgments of what is appropriate for each partner. For example, workplace norms may allow a boss to give orders to an employee, but not vice versa, reflecting hierarchical and transactional expectations. As AI agents and chatbots powered by large language models are increasingly designed to serve roles analogous to human positions - such as assistant, mental health provider, tutor, or romantic partner - it is imperative to examine whether and how human relational norms should extend to human-AI interactions. Our analysis explores how differences between AI systems and humans, such as the absence of conscious experience and immunity to fatigue, may affect an AI's capacity to fulfill relationship-specific functions and adhere to corresponding norms. This analysis, which is a collaborative effort by philosophers, psychologists, relationship scientists, ethicists, legal experts, and AI researchers, carries important implications for AI systems design, user behavior, and regulation. While we accept that AI systems can offer significant benefits such as increased availability and consistency in certain socio-relational roles, they also risk fostering unhealthy dependencies or unrealistic expectations that could spill over into human-human relationships. We propose that understanding and thoughtfully shaping (or implementing) suitable human-AI relational norms will be crucial for ensuring that human-AI interactions are ethical, trustworthy, and favorable to human well-being.

We investigate factors contributing to LLM agents' success in competitive multi-agent environments, using auctions as a testbed where agents bid to maximize profit. The agents are equipped with bidding domain knowledge, distinct personas that reflect item preferences, and a memory of auction history. Our work extends the classic auction scenario by creating a realistic environment where multiple agents bid on houses, weighing aspects such as size, location, and budget to secure the most desirable homes at the lowest prices. Particularly, we investigate three key questions: (a) How does a persona influence an agent's behavior in a competitive setting? (b) Can an agent effectively profile its competitors' behavior during auctions? (c) How can persona profiling be leveraged to create an advantage using strategies such as theory of mind? Through a series of experiments, we analyze the behaviors of LLM agents and shed light on new findings. Our testbed, called HARBOR, offers a valuable platform for deepening our understanding of multi-agent workflows in competitive environments.

We extend concurrent game structures (CGSs) with a simple notion of preference over computations and define a minimal notion of rationality for agents based on the concept of dominance. We use this notion to interpret a CL and an ATL languages that extend the basic CL and ATL languages with modalities for rational capability, namely, a coalition's capability to rationally enforce a given property. For each of these languages, we provide results about the complexity of satisfiability checking and model checking as well as about axiomatization.

We address the problem of optimising the average payoff for a large number of cooperating agents, where the payoff function is unknown and treated as a black box. While standard Bayesian Optimisation (BO) methods struggle with the scalability required for high-dimensional input spaces, we demonstrate how leveraging the mean-field assumption on the black-box function can transform BO into an efficient and scalable solution. Specifically, we introduce MF-GP-UCB, a novel efficient algorithm designed to optimise agent payoffs in this setting. Our theoretical analysis establishes a regret bound for MF-GP-UCB that is independent of the number of agents, contrasting sharply with the exponential dependence observed when naive BO methods are applied. We evaluate our algorithm on a diverse set of tasks, including real-world problems, such as optimising the location of public bikes for a bike-sharing programme, distributing taxi fleets, and selecting refuelling ports for maritime vessels. Empirical results demonstrate that MF-GP-UCB significantly outperforms existing benchmarks, offering substantial improvements in performance and scalability, constituting a promising solution for mean-field, black-box optimisation. The code is available at https://github.com/petarsteinberg/MF-BO.