Recent work in iterative voting has defined the additive dynamic price of anarchy (ADPoA) as the difference in social welfare between the truthful and worst-case equilibrium profiles resulting from repeated strategic manipulations. While iterative plurality has been shown to only return alternatives with at most one less initial votes than the truthful winner, it is less understood how agents' welfare changes in equilibrium. To this end, we differentiate agents' utility from their manipulation mechanism and determine iterative plurality's ADPoA in the worst-and average-cases. We first prove that the worst-case ADPoA is linear in the number of agents. To overcome this negative result, we study the average-case ADPoA and prove that equilibrium winners have a constant order welfare advantage over the truthful winner in expectation. Our positive results illustrate the prospect for social welfare to increase due to strategic manipulation.

A major field at the intersection of economics and computer science is the analysis of the efficiency of systems under strategic behavior.

We introduce the Strategic Doubly Robust (SDR) estimator, a novel framework that integrates strategic equilibrium modeling with doubly robust estimation for causal inference in strategic environments. SDR addresses endogenous treatment assignment arising from strategic agent behavior, maintaining double robustness while incorporating strategic considerations. Theoretical analysis confirms SDR's consistency and asymptotic normality under strategic unconfoundedness. Empirical evaluations demonstrate SDR's superior performance over baseline methods, achieving 7.6\%-29.3\% bias reduction across varying strategic strengths and maintaining robust scalability with agent populations. The framework provides a principled approach for reliable causal inference when agents respond strategically to interventions.

Two-sided matching markets have long existed to pair agents in the absence of regulated exchanges.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in socially complex, interaction-driven tasks, yet their ability to mirror human behavior in emotionally and strategically complex contexts remains underexplored. This study assesses the behavioral alignment of personality-prompted LLMs in adversarial dispute resolution by simulating multi-turn conflict dialogues that incorporate negotiation. Each LLM is guided by a matched Five-Factor personality profile to control for individual variation and enhance realism. We evaluate alignment across three dimensions: linguistic style, emotional expression (e.g., anger dynamics), and strategic behavior. GPT-4.1 achieves the closest alignment with humans in linguistic style and emotional dynamics, while Claude-3.7-Sonnet best reflects strategic behavior. Nonetheless, substantial alignment gaps persist. Our findings establish a benchmark for alignment between LLMs and humans in socially complex interactions, underscoring both the promise and the limitations of personality conditioning in dialogue modeling.

Contemporary artificial intelligence (AI) development largely centers on rational decision-making, valued for its measurability and suitability for objective evaluation. Y et in real-world contexts, an intelligent agent's decisions are shaped not only by logic but also by deeper influences such as beliefs, values, and preferences. The diversity of human decision-making styles emerges from these differences, highlighting that "style" is an essential but often overlooked dimension of intelligence. This dissertation introduces playstyle as an alternative lens for observing and analyzing the decision-making behavior of intelligent agents, and examines its foundational meaning and historical context from a philosophical perspective. By analyzing how beliefs and values drive intentions and actions, we construct a two-tier framework for style formation: the external interaction loop with the environment and the internal cognitive loop of deliberation. On this basis, we formalize style-related characteristics and propose measurable indicators such as style capacity, style popularity, and evolutionary dynamics. The study focuses on three core research directions: (1) Defining and measuring playstyle, proposing a general playstyle metric based on discretized state spaces, and extending it to quantify strategic diversity and competitive balance; (2) Expressing and generating playstyle, exploring how reinforcement learning and imitation learning can be used to train agents exhibiting specific stylistic tendencies, and introducing a novel approach for human-like style learning and modeling; and (3) Practical applications, analyzing the potential of these techniques in domains such as game design and interactive entertainment. Finally, the dissertation outlines future extensions, including the role of style as a core element in building artificial general intelligence (AGI). By investigating stylistic variation, we aim to rethink autonomy, value expression, and even offer a tangible perspective on the ultimate i philosophical question: What is the soul?