The rapid development of advanced AI agents and the imminent deployment of many instances of these agents will give rise to multi-agent systems of unprecedented complexity. These systems pose novel and under-explored risks. In this report, we provide a structured taxonomy of these risks by identifying three key failure modes (miscoordination, conflict, and collusion) based on agents' incentives, as well as seven key risk factors (information asymmetries, network effects, selection pressures, destabilising dynamics, commitment problems, emergent agency, and multi-agent security) that can underpin them. We highlight several important instances of each risk, as well as promising directions to help mitigate them. By anchoring our analysis in a range of real-world examples and experimental evidence, we illustrate the distinct challenges posed by multi-agent systems and their implications for the safety, governance, and ethics of advanced AI.

Strategic interactions can be represented more concisely, and analyzed and solved more efficiently, if we are aware of the symmetries within the multiagent system. Symmetries also have conceptual implications, for example for equilibrium selection. We study the computational complexity of identifying and using symmetries. Using the classical framework of normal-form games, we consider game symmetries that can be across some or all players and/or actions. We find a strong connection between game symmetries and graph automorphisms, yielding graph automorphism and graph isomorphism completeness results for characterizing the symmetries present in a game. On the other hand, we also show that the problem becomes polynomial-time solvable when we restrict the consideration of actions in one of two ways. Next, we investigate when exactly game symmetries can be successfully leveraged for Nash equilibrium computation. We show that finding a Nash equilibrium that respects a given set of symmetries is PPAD- and CLS-complete in general-sum and team games respectively -- that is, exactly as hard as Brouwer fixed point and gradient descent problems. Finally, we present polynomial-time methods for the special cases where we are aware of a vast number of symmetries, or where the game is two-player zero-sum and we do not even know the symmetries.

We study partially observable assistance games (POAGs), a model of the human-AI value alignment problem which allows the human and the AI assistant to have partial observations. Motivated by concerns of AI deception, we study a qualitatively new phenomenon made possible by partial observability: would an AI assistant ever have an incentive to interfere with the human's observations? First, we prove that sometimes an optimal assistant must take observation-interfering actions, even when the human is playing optimally, and even when there are otherwise-equivalent actions available that do not interfere with observations. Though this result seems to contradict the classic theorem from single-agent decision making that the value of perfect information is nonnegative, we resolve this seeming contradiction by developing a notion of interference defined on entire policies. This can be viewed as an extension of the classic result that the value of perfect information is nonnegative into the cooperative multiagent setting. Second, we prove that if the human is simply making decisions based on their immediate outcomes, the assistant might need to interfere with observations as a way to query the human's preferences. We show that this incentive for interference goes away if the human is playing optimally, or if we introduce a communication channel for the human to communicate their preferences to the assistant. Third, we show that if the human acts according to the Boltzmann model of irrationality, this can create an incentive for the assistant to interfere with observations. Finally, we use an experimental model to analyze tradeoffs faced by the AI assistant in practice when considering whether or not to take observation-interfering actions.

In Tennenholtz's program equilibrium, players of a game submit programs to play on their behalf. Each program receives the other programs' source code and outputs an action. This can model interactions involving AI agents, mutually transparent institutions, or commitments. Tennenholtz (2004) proves a folk theorem for program games, but the equilibria constructed are very brittle. We therefore consider simulation-based programs -- i.e., programs that work by running opponents' programs. These are relatively robust (in particular, two programs that act the same are treated the same) and are more practical than proof-based approaches. Oesterheld's (2019) $\epsilon$Grounded$\pi$Bot is such an approach. Unfortunately, it is not generally applicable to games of three or more players, and only allows for a limited range of equilibria in two player games. In this paper, we propose a generalisation to Oesterheld's (2019) $\epsilon$Grounded$\pi$Bot. We prove a folk theorem for our programs in a setting with access to a shared source of randomness. We then characterise their equilibria in a setting without shared randomness. Both with and without shared randomness, we achieve a much wider range of equilibria than Oesterheld's (2019) $\epsilon$Grounded$\pi$Bot. Finally, we explore the limits of simulation-based program equilibrium, showing that the Tennenholtz folk theorem cannot be attained by simulation-based programs without access to shared randomness.

We introduce a dataset of natural-language questions in the decision theory of so-called Newcomb-like problems. Newcomb-like problems include, for instance, decision problems in which an agent interacts with a similar other agent, and thus has to reason about the fact that the other agent will likely reason in similar ways. Evaluating LLM reasoning about Newcomb-like problems is important because interactions between foundation-model-based agents will often be Newcomb-like. Some ways of reasoning about Newcomb-like problems may allow for greater cooperation between models. Our dataset contains both capabilities questions (i.e., questions with a unique, uncontroversially correct answer) and attitude questions (i.e., questions about which decision theorists would disagree). We use our dataset for an investigation of decision-theoretical capabilities and expressed attitudes and their interplay in existing models (different models by OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, GDM, Reka, etc.), as well as models under simple prompt-based interventions. We find, among other things, that attitudes vary significantly between existing models; that high capabilities are associated with attitudes more favorable toward so-called evidential decision theory; and that attitudes are consistent across different types of questions.

Game-theoretic dynamics between AI agents could differ from traditional human-human interactions in various ways. One such difference is that it may be possible to accurately simulate an AI agent, for example because its source code is known. Our aim is to explore ways of leveraging this possibility to achieve more cooperative outcomes in strategic settings. In this paper, we study an interaction between AI agents where the agents run a recursive joint simulation. That is, the agents first jointly observe a simulation of the situation they face. This simulation in turn recursively includes additional simulations (with a small chance of failure, to avoid infinite recursion), and the results of all these nested simulations are observed before an action is chosen. We show that the resulting interaction is strategically equivalent to an infinitely repeated version of the original game, allowing a direct transfer of existing results such as the various folk theorems.

As machine learning agents act more autonomously in the world, they will increasingly interact with each other. Unfortunately, in many social dilemmas like the one-shot Prisoner's Dilemma, standard game theory predicts that ML agents will fail to cooperate with each other. Prior work has shown that one way to enable cooperative outcomes in the one-shot Prisoner's Dilemma is to make the agents mutually transparent to each other, i.e., to allow them to access one another's source code (Rubinstein 1998, Tennenholtz 2004) -- or weights in the case of ML agents. However, full transparency is often unrealistic, whereas partial transparency is commonplace. Moreover, it is challenging for agents to learn their way to cooperation in the full transparency setting. In this paper, we introduce a more realistic setting in which agents only observe a single number indicating how similar they are to each other. We prove that this allows for the same set of cooperative outcomes as the full transparency setting. We also demonstrate experimentally that cooperation can be learned using simple ML methods.

The dominant theories of rational choice assume logical omniscience. That is, they assume that when facing a decision problem, an agent can perform all relevant computations and determine the truth value of all relevant logical/mathematical claims. This assumption is unrealistic when, for example, we offer bets on remote digits of pi or when an agent faces a computationally intractable planning problem. Furthermore, the assumption of logical omniscience creates contradictions in cases where the environment can contain descriptions of the agent itself. Importantly, strategic interactions as studied in game theory are decision problems in which a rational agent is predicted by its environment (the other players). In this paper, we develop a theory of rational decision making that does not assume logical omniscience. We consider agents who repeatedly face decision problems (including ones like betting on digits of pi or games against other agents). The main contribution of this paper is to provide a sensible theory of rationality for such agents. Roughly, we require that a boundedly rational inductive agent tests each efficiently computable hypothesis infinitely often and follows those hypotheses that keep their promises of high rewards. We then prove that agents that are rational in this sense have other desirable properties. For example, they learn to value random and pseudo-random lotteries at their expected reward. Finally, we consider strategic interactions between different agents and prove a folk theorem for what strategies bounded rational inductive agents can converge to.

Proper scoring rules incentivize experts to accurately report beliefs, assuming predictions cannot influence outcomes. We relax this assumption and investigate incentives when predictions are performative, i.e., when they can influence the outcome of the prediction, such as when making public predictions about the stock market. We say a prediction is a fixed point if it accurately reflects the expert's beliefs after that prediction has been made. We show that in this setting, reports maximizing expected score generally do not reflect an expert's beliefs, and we give bounds on the inaccuracy of such reports. We show that, for binary predictions, if the influence of the expert's prediction on outcomes is bounded, it is possible to define scoring rules under which optimal reports are arbitrarily close to fixed points. However, this is impossible for predictions over more than two outcomes. We also perform numerical simulations in a toy setting, showing that our bounds are tight in some situations and that prediction error is often substantial (greater than 5-10%). Lastly, we discuss alternative notions of optimality, including performative stability, and show that they incentivize reporting fixed points.

It turns out there are a number of reasons why imperfect recall is relevant for AI agents; moreover, in cases where it is We study single-player extensive-form games with relevant, it is clear what the agent will and will not remember imperfect recall, such as the Sleeping Beauty problem - unlike in the case of human memory, which is harder to predict or the Absentminded Driver game. For such and consequently to model in standard representations of games, two natural equilibrium concepts have been imperfect recall. Imperfect-recall games already appear in the proposed as alternative solution concepts to ex-ante AI literature in the context of solving very large games such optimality. One equilibrium concept uses generalized as poker: one technique for solving such games is abstraction double halving (GDH) as a belief system and - i.e., reducing the game to a smaller, simplified one to solve evidential decision theory (EDT), and another one instead - and this process can give rise to imperfect recall in uses generalized thirding (GT) as a belief system the abstracted game [Waugh et al., 2009; Lanctot et al., 2012; and causal decision theory (CDT).