Newfoundland dogs are still practicing the same lifesaving skills they would have used in the 19th century. Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. It's a dark and stormy night and you've suddenly found yourself swept off of your wooden vessel into the wild Atlantic Ocean. It's 1893, so your woolen clothes are pulling you down to Davy Jones' locker. What kind of dog would want to rescue you?

Negotiation requires dynamically balancing self-interest and cooperation to maximize one's own utility. Yet, existing agents struggle due to bounded rationality in human data, low adaptability to counterpart behavior, and limited strategic reasoning. To address this, we introduce principle-driven negotiation agents, powered by ASTRA, a novel framework for turn-level offer optimization grounded in two core principles: opponent modeling and Tit-for-Tat reciprocity. ASTRA operates in three stages: (1) interpreting counterpart behavior, (2) optimizing counteroffers via a linear programming (LP) solver, and (3) selecting offers based on negotiation tactics and the partner's acceptance probability. Through simulations and human evaluations, our agent effectively adapts to an opponent's shifting stance and achieves favorable outcomes through enhanced adaptability and strategic reasoning. Beyond improving negotiation performance, it also serves as a powerful coaching tool, offering interpretable strategic feedback and optimal offer recommendations.

Natural language interaction with agentic Artificial Intelligence (AI), driven by Large Language Models (LLMs), is expected to remain a dominant paradigm in the near future. While humans instinctively align their communication with mental states -- an ability known as Theory of Mind (ToM), current LLM powered systems exhibit significant limitations in this regard. This study examines the extent to which open source language models (LLaMA) can capture and preserve ToM related information and how effectively it contributes to consistent ToM reasoning in generated responses. We further investigate whether explicit manipulation of ToM related components, such as beliefs, desires, and intentions, can enhance response alignment. Experiments on two LLaMA 3 variants demonstrate that incorporating ToM informed alignment improves response quality, achieving win rates of 67 and 63 percent for the 3B and 8B models, respectively. These findings highlight the potential of ToM driven strategies to improve alignment in LLM based conversational agents.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked substantial interest and debate concerning their potential emergence of Theory of Mind (ToM) ability. Theory of mind evaluations currently focuses on testing models using machine-generated data or game settings prone to shortcuts and spurious correlations, which lacks evaluation of machine ToM ability in real-world human interaction scenarios. This poses a pressing demand to develop new real-world scenario benchmarks. We introduce NegotiationToM, a new benchmark designed to stress-test machine ToM in real-world negotiation surrounding covered multi-dimensional mental states (i.e., desires, beliefs, and intentions). Our benchmark builds upon the Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) agent modeling theory and conducts the necessary empirical experiments to evaluate large language models. Our findings demonstrate that NegotiationToM is challenging for state-of-the-art LLMs, as they consistently perform significantly worse than humans, even when employing the chain-of-thought (CoT) method.

A successful negotiation demands a deep comprehension of the conversation context, Theory-of-Mind (ToM) skills to infer the partner's motives, as well as strategic reasoning and effective communication, making it challenging for automated systems. Given the remarkable performance of LLMs across a variety of NLP tasks, in this work, we aim to understand how LLMs can advance different aspects of negotiation research, ranging from designing dialogue systems to providing pedagogical feedback and scaling up data collection practices. To this end, we devise a methodology to analyze the multifaceted capabilities of LLMs across diverse dialogue scenarios covering all the time stages of a typical negotiation interaction. Our analysis adds to the increasing evidence for the superiority of GPT-4 across various tasks while also providing insights into specific tasks that remain difficult for LLMs. For instance, the models correlate poorly with human players when making subjective assessments about the negotiation dialogues and often struggle to generate responses that are contextually appropriate as well as strategically advantageous.

Automated systems that negotiate with humans have broad applications in pedagogy and conversational AI. To advance the development of practical negotiation systems, we present CaSiNo: a novel corpus of over a thousand negotiation dialogues in English. Participants take the role of campsite neighbors and negotiate for food, water, and firewood packages for their upcoming trip. Our design results in diverse and linguistically rich negotiations while maintaining a tractable, closed-domain environment. Inspired by the literature in human-human negotiations, we annotate persuasion strategies and perform correlation analysis to understand how the dialogue behaviors are associated with the negotiation performance. We further propose and evaluate a multi-task framework to recognize these strategies in a given utterance. We find that multi-task learning substantially improves the performance for all strategy labels, especially for the ones that are the most skewed. We release the dataset, annotations, and the code to propel future work in human-machine negotiations: https://github.com/kushalchawla/CaSiNo