Reaching consensus and convergence to equilibrium are two major challenges of multi-agent systems. Although each has attracted significant attention, relatively few studies address both challenges at the same time. This paper examines the connection between the notions of consensus and equilibrium in a multi-agent system where multiple interacting sub-populations coexist. We argue that consensus can be seen as an intricate component of intra-population stability, whereas equilibrium can be seen as encoding inter-population stability. We show that smooth fictitious play, a well-known learning model in game theory, can achieve both consensus and convergence to equilibrium in diverse multi-agent settings. Moreover, we show that the consensus formation process plays a crucial role in the seminal thorny problem of equilibrium selection in multi-agent learning.

This paper addresses a motion planning problem to achieve spatio-temporal-logical tasks, expressed by syntactically co-safe linear temporal logic specifications (scLTL\next), in uncertain environments. Here, the uncertainty is modeled as some probabilistic knowledge on the semantic labels of the environment. For example, the task is "first go to region 1, then go to region 2"; however, the exact locations of regions 1 and 2 are not known a priori, instead a probabilistic belief is available. We propose a novel automata-theoretic approach, where a special product automaton is constructed to capture the uncertainty related to semantic labels, and a reward function is designed for each edge of this product automaton. The proposed algorithm utilizes value iteration for online replanning. We show some theoretical results and present some simulations/experiments to demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed approach.

Reaching consensus and convergence to equilibrium are two major challenges of multi-agent systems. Although each has attracted significant attention, relatively few studies address both challenges at the same time. This paper examines the connection between the notions of consensus and equilibrium in a multi-agent system where multiple interacting sub-populations coexist. We argue that consensus can be seen as an intricate component of intra-population stability, whereas equilibrium can be seen as encoding inter-population stability. We show that smooth fictitious play, a well-known learning model in game theory, can achieve both consensus and convergence to equilibrium in diverse multi-agent settings. Moreover, we show that the consensus formation process plays a crucial role in the seminal thorny problem of equilibrium selection in multi-agent learning.

This section presents results on RockSample (8, 4, 10, 1) when the suggester is not always all-knowing. In our approach, we formulated the belief update based on assuming the suggester observed the environment. These results demonstrate that our approach extends beyond an all-knowing suggester and can incorporate information from suggestions developed from different beliefs of the state. Table 3 contains the mean rewards and table 4 contains the mean number of suggestions considered by the agent. The details of the agents are provided in section 4.2.

Deterministic partially observable Markov decision processes (DetPOMDPs) often arise in planning problems where the agent is uncertain about its environmental state but can act and observe de-terministically. In this paper, we propose DetM-CVI, an adaptation of the Monte Carlo V alue Iteration (MCVI) algorithm for DetPOMDPs, which builds policies in the form of finite-state controllers (FSCs). DetMCVI solves large problems with a high success rate, outperforming existing baselines for DetPOMDPs. We also verify the performance of the algorithm in a real-world mobile robot forest mapping scenario.

The world is entering an unprecedented period of critical mineral demand, driven by the global transition to renewable energy technologies and electric vehicles. This transition presents unique challenges in mineral resource development, particularly due to geological uncertainty-a key characteristic that traditional supply chain optimization approaches do not adequately address. To tackle this challenge, we propose a novel application of Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes (POMDPs) that optimizes critical mineral sourcing decisions while explicitly accounting for the dynamic nature of geological uncertainty. Through a case study of the U.S. lithium supply chain, we demonstrate that POMDP-based policies achieve superior outcomes compared to traditional approaches, especially when initial reserve estimates are imperfect. Our framework provides quantitative insights for balancing domestic resource development with international supply diversification, offering policymakers a systematic approach to strategic decision-making in critical mineral supply chains.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into our everyday lives, understanding their ability to comprehend human mental states becomes critical for ensuring effective interactions. However, despite the recent attempts to assess the Theory-of-Mind (ToM) reasoning capabilities of LLMs, the degree to which these models can align with human ToM remains a nuanced topic of exploration. This is primarily due to two distinct challenges: (1) the presence of inconsistent results from previous evaluations, and (2) concerns surrounding the validity of existing evaluation methodologies. To address these challenges, we present a novel framework for procedurally generating evaluations with LLMs by populating causal templates. Using our framework, we create a new social reasoning benchmark (BigToM) for LLMs which consists of 25 controls and 5,000 model-written evaluations. We find that human participants rate the quality of our benchmark higher than previous crowd-sourced evaluations and comparable to expert-written evaluations. Using BigToM, we evaluate the social reasoning capabilities of a variety of LLMs and compare model performances with human performance. Our results suggest that GPT4 has ToM capabilities that mirror human inference patterns, though less reliable, while other LLMs struggle.

Accurately simulating human opinion dynamics is crucial for understanding a variety of societal phenomena, including polarization and the spread of misinformation. However, the agent-based models (ABMs) commonly used for such simulations lack fidelity to human behavior. We propose a new approach to simulating opinion dynamics based on populations of Large Language Models (LLMs). Our findings reveal a strong inherent bias in LLM agents towards accurate information, leading to consensus in line with scientific reality. However, this bias limits the simulation of individuals with resistant views on issues like climate change. After inducing confirmation bias through prompt engineering, we observed opinion fragmentation in line with existing agent-based research. These insights highlight the promise and limitations of LLM agents in this domain and suggest a path forward: refining LLMs with real-world discourse to better simulate the evolution of human beliefs.

Belief revision and update, two significant types of belief change, both focus on how an agent modify her beliefs in presence of new information. The most striking difference between them is that the former studies the change of beliefs in a static world while the latter concentrates on a dynamically-changing world. The famous AGM and KM postulates were proposed to capture rational belief revision and update, respectively. However, both of them are too permissive to exclude some unreasonable changes in the iteration. In response to this weakness, the DP postulates and its extensions for iterated belief revision were presented. Furthermore, Rodrigues integrated these postulates in belief update. Unfortunately, his approach does not meet the basic requirement of iterated belief update. This paper is intended to solve this problem of Rodrigues's approach. Firstly, we present a modification of the original KM postulates based on belief states. Subsequently, we migrate several well-known postulates for iterated belief revision to iterated belief update. Moreover, we provide the exact semantic characterizations based on partial preorders for each of the proposed postulates. Finally, we analyze the compatibility between the above iterated postulates and the KM postulates for belief update.

Belief contraction is the operation of removing from the set K of initial beliefs a particular belief φ . One reason for doing so is, for example, the discovery that some previously trusted evidence supporting φ was faulty. For instance, a prosecutor might form the belief that the defendant is guilty on the basis of his confession; if the prosecutor later discovers that the confession was extorted, she might abandon the belief of guilt, that is, become open minded about whether the defendant is guilty or not. In their seminal contribution to belief change, Alchourrón, Gärdenfors and Makinson ([1]) defined the notion of "rational and minimal" contraction by means of a set of eight properties, known as the AGM axioms or postulates. They did so within a syntactic approach where the initial belief set K is a consistent and deductively closed set of propositional formulas and the result of removing φ from K is a new set of propositional formulas, denoted by K φ . We provide a new characterization of AGM belief contraction based on a so-far-unnoticed connection between the notion of belief contraction and the Stalnaker-Lewis theory of conditionals ([34, 21]).