The paper investigates how an informed adversary can influence the optimal signal in a constrained signalling channel. It finds that the adversary‑robust optimum aligns with the salience pole on most items, differing only on a small subset where the salience‑to‑Bayes coordinate is undefined. The study demonstrates that as the adversary’s persuasion budget increases, the optimal signal shifts from a posterior‑maximizing to a margin‑maximizing strategy, and provides a diagnostic check for evaluating adversary‑awareness.
By Cris Huynh
arXiv:2606. 01561v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) with human preferences is often formulated via Direct Preference Optimization (DPO).
By Xiwen Chen, Wenhui Zhu, Jingjing Wang, Peijie Qiu, Zhipeng Wang, Huayu Li, ZhengXiao He, Xuanzhao Dong, Prayag Tiwari, Mingkun Xu, Yujian Xiong, Feng Luo, Abolfazl Razi, Brendan Hogan Rappazzo, Anderson Schneider, Yuriy Nevmyvaka
Translating natural-language planning intent into verified plans is a longstanding challenge: people communicate goals in language, while classical planners require formal PDDL specifications. Recent agentic frameworks bridge this gap by orchestrating a pool of specialized repair agents inside a verifier-checked refinement loop, but the orchestrator at the centre is itself a prompted frontier LLM, paying a frontier-LLM API call at every refinement step.
arXiv:2509. 23102v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has emerged as the standard paradigm for aligning large language models with human preferences.
By Fang Wu, Xu Huang, Weihao Xuan, Zhiwei Zhang, Yijia Xiao, Guancheng Wan, Xiaomin Li, Bing Hu, Peng Xia, Jure Leskovec, Yejin Choi
arXiv:2608.22152v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Multi-agent systems built from large language models are deployed widely, yet how much performance is lost when two LLMs must coordinate rather than ac...
By Weixiang Sun, Zehong Wang, Hong Huang, Colby Nelson, Yanfang Ye
arXiv:2510. 10813v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to domains that require reasoning about other agents' behavior, such as negotiation, policy design, and market simulation.
By Enric Junque de Fortuny, Veronica Roberta Cappelli
The paper introduces a dynamic bipartite matching framework that uses large language model (LLM) agents and contextual bandits to model decentralized, asynchronous matching processes without requiring full preference rankings. In a simulated Chinese marriage market, LLM agents evaluate local candidates while Logistic-UCB models learn reciprocal acceptance, leading to higher mutual welfare and fewer blocking pairs compared to classical Gale–Shapley. The study validates LLM-generated preferences against empirical data and demonstrates gender-differentiated acceptance patterns, supporting the use of decentralized LLM-based matching for economic simulation and computational social science.
The paper investigates why large language models (LLMs) struggle in strategic decision-making under incomplete information. It identifies two key gaps: an observation‑belief gap where LLMs’ internal representations of game states are accurate but brittle, and a belief‑action gap where converting these internal beliefs into actions is weak, leading to suboptimal payoffs. Experiments with Llama 3.1, Qwen3, and gpt‑oss confirm that acting optimally on decoded beliefs would improve outcomes in most games, highlighting a bottleneck in belief‑to‑action conversion.
By Jan Sobotka, Mustafa O. Karabag, Ufuk Topcu
The paper introduces Bayesian backward reasoning as a label‑free anchor for multi‑agent collective decision‑making. By constructing reverse posteriors from explicit likelihoods, the authors obtain differently factorized approximations of the underlying posterior, reducing shared errors among agents. Using Jensen‑Shannon divergence to rank agents, they propose three aggregation strategies—hard selection (MinJS), soft reweighting (FwdJS), and log‑linear fusion (LogLin)—which consistently outperform baseline methods on the DDXPlus benchmark across five LLM backbones, especially when agents disagree.
By Ken Chen, Wei Wang, Sachith Seneviratne, Hansani Weeratunge, Saman Halgamuge
The paper introduces Bayesian Dialectical Argumentation (BDA), a method for aggregating answers from multiple large language models (LLMs) in a council setting. BDA treats each LLM’s typed moves—proposals, challenges, and concessions—as evidence in a classical annotator model, estimating per-agent reliability even when some agents are persistently unreliable. By weighting evidence according to these inferred reliabilities, BDA produces calibrated posterior probabilities for candidate answers and can invert unreliable agents instead of merely outvoting them, achieving superior calibration and robustness on both binary and multi-class benchmarks without extra LLM calls.
By Ionel Eduard Stan, Paolo Napoletano
arXiv:2607. 08012v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This paper studies an online variant of the assistance games framework, where an informed agent and an uninformed agent repeatedly interact over $T$ timesteps to optimize a common reward function.
By Nivasini Ananthakrishnan, Mark Bedaywi, Michael I. Jordan, Stuart Russell, Nika Haghtalab
arXiv:2606. 22974v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent work on preference elicitation in large language models (LLMs) has demonstrated that, when given a series of choices between two outcomes, LLMs reveal a coherent, model-specific utility structure.
By Yujun Zhou, Christopher M. Ackerman