We consider the problem of how a trusted, but computationally bounded agent (a 'verifier') can learn to interact with one or more powerful but untrusted agents ('provers') in order to solve a given task. More specifically, we study the case in which agents are represented using neural networks and refer to solutions of this problem as neural interactive proofs. First we introduce a unifying framework based on prover-verifier games (Anil et al., 2021), which generalises previously proposed interaction protocols. We then describe several new protocols for generating neural interactive proofs, and provide a theoretical comparison of both new and existing approaches. Finally, we support this theory with experiments in two domains: a toy graph isomorphism problem that illustrates the key ideas, and a code validation task using large language models. In so doing, we aim to create a foundation for future work on neural interactive proofs and their application in building safer AI systems.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents have demonstrated impressive capabilities for social interaction and are increasingly being deployed in situations where they might engage with both human and artificial agents. These interactions represent a critical frontier for LLM-based agents, yet existing evaluation methods fail to measure how well these capabilities generalize to novel social situations. In this paper, we introduce a method for evaluating the ability of LLM-based agents to cooperate in zero-shot, mixed-motive environments using Concordia, a natural language multi-agent simulation environment. Our method measures general cooperative intelligence by testing an agent's ability to identify and exploit opportunities for mutual gain across diverse partners and contexts. We present empirical results from the NeurIPS 2024 Concordia Contest, where agents were evaluated on their ability to achieve mutual gains across a suite of diverse scenarios ranging from negotiation to collective action problems. Our findings reveal significant gaps between current agent capabilities and the robust generalization required for reliable cooperation, particularly in scenarios demanding persuasion and norm enforcement.

Causal reasoning and game-theoretic reasoning are fundamental topics in artificial intelligence, among many other disciplines: this paper is concerned with their intersection. Despite their importance, a formal framework that supports both these forms of reasoning has, until now, been lacking. We offer a solution in the form of (structural) causal games, which can be seen as extending Pearl's causal hierarchy to the game-theoretic domain, or as extending Koller and Milch's multi-agent influence diagrams to the causal domain. We then consider three key questions: i) How can the (causal) dependencies in games – either between variables, or between strategies – be modelled in a uniform, principled manner? ii) How may causal queries be computed in causal games, and what assumptions does this require? iii) How do causal games compare to existing formalisms? To address question i), we introduce mechanised games, which encode dependencies between agents' decision rules and the distributions governing the game. In response to question ii), we present definitions of predictions, interventions, and counterfactuals, and discuss the assumptions required for each. Regarding question iii), we describe correspondences between causal games and other formalisms, and explain how causal games can be used to answer queries that other causal or game-theoretic models do not support. Finally, we highlight possible applications of causal games, aided by an extensive open-source Python library.

Recent advancements in generative AI suggest the potential for large-scale interaction between autonomous agents and humans across platforms such as the internet. While such interactions could foster productive cooperation, the ability of AI agents to circumvent security oversight raises critical multi-agent security problems, particularly in the form of unintended information sharing or undesirable coordination. In our work, we establish the subfield of secret collusion, a form of multi-agent deception, in which two or more agents employ steganographic methods to conceal the true nature of their interactions, be it communicative or otherwise, from oversight. We propose a formal threat model for AI agents communicating steganographically and derive rigorous theoretical insights about the capacity and incentives of large language models (LLMs) to perform secret collusion, in addition to the limitations of threat mitigation measures. We complement our findings with empirical evaluations demonstrating rising steganographic capabilities in frontier single and multi-agent LLM setups and examining potential scenarios where collusion may emerge, revealing limitations in countermeasures such as monitoring, paraphrasing, and parameter optimization. Our work is the first to formalize and investigate secret collusion among frontier foundation models, identifying it as a critical area in AI Safety and outlining a comprehensive research agenda to mitigate future risks of collusion between generative AI systems.

Multi-agent AI research promises a path to develop human-like and human-compatible intelligent technologies that complement the solipsistic view of other approaches, which mostly do not consider interactions between agents. Aiming to make progress in this direction, the Melting Pot contest 2023 focused on the problem of cooperation among interacting agents and challenged researchers to push the boundaries of multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) for mixed-motive games. The contest leveraged the Melting Pot environment suite to rigorously evaluate how well agents can adapt their cooperative skills to interact with novel partners in unforeseen situations. Unlike other reinforcement learning challenges, this challenge focused on social rather than environmental generalization. In particular, a population of agents performs well in Melting Pot when its component individuals are adept at finding ways to cooperate both with others in their population and with strangers. Thus Melting Pot measures cooperative intelligence.The contest attracted over 600 participants across 100+ teams globally and was a success on multiple fronts: (i) it contributed to our goal of pushing the frontiers of MARL towards building more cooperatively intelligent agents, evidenced by several submissions that outperformed established baselines; (ii) it attracted a diverse range of participants, from independent researchers to industry affiliates and academic labs, both with strong background and new interest in the area alike, broadening the field’s demographic and intellectual diversity; and (iii) analyzing the submitted agents provided important insights, highlighting areas for improvement in evaluating agents' cooperative intelligence. This paper summarizes the design aspects and results of the contest and explores the potential of Melting Pot as a benchmark for studying Cooperative AI. We further analyze the top solutions and conclude with a discussion on promising directions for future research.

Causal reasoning and game-theoretic reasoning are fundamental topics in artificial intelligence, among many other disciplines: this paper is concerned with their intersection. Despite their importance, a formal framework that supports both these forms of reasoning has, until now, been lacking. We offer a solution in the form of (structural) causal games, which can be seen as extending Pearl's causal hierarchy to the game-theoretic domain, or as extending Koller and Milch's multi-agent influence diagrams to the causal domain. We then consider three key questions: How can the (causal) dependencies in games – either between variables, or between strategies – be modelled in a uniform, principled manner? How may causal queries be computed in causal games, and what assumptions does this require? How do causal games compare to existing formalisms?

In this work we introduce reinforcement learning techniques for solving lexicographic multi-objective problems. These are problems that involve multiple reward signals, and where the goal is to learn a policy that maximises the first reward signal, and subject to this constraint also maximises the second reward signal, and so on. We present a family of both action-value and policy gradient algorithms that can be used to solve such problems, and prove that they converge to policies that are lexicographically optimal. We evaluate the scalability and performance of these algorithms empirically, and demonstrate their applicability in practical settings. As a more specific application, we show how our algorithms can be used to impose safety constraints on the behaviour of an agent, and compare their performance in this context with that of other constrained reinforcement learning algorithms.

Rational verification is the problem of determining which temporal logic properties will hold in a multi-agent system, under the assumption that agents in the system act rationally, by choosing strategies that collectively form a game-theoretic equilibrium. Previous work in this area has largely focussed on deterministic systems. In this paper, we develop the theory and algorithms for rational verification in probabilistic systems. We focus on concurrent stochastic games (CSGs), which can be used to model uncertainty and randomness in complex multi-agent environments. We study the rational verification problem for both non-cooperative games and cooperative games in the qualitative probabilistic setting. In the former case, we consider LTL properties satisfied by the Nash equilibria of the game and in the latter case LTL properties satisfied by the core. In both cases, we show that the problem is 2EXPTIME-complete, thus not harder than the much simpler verification problem of model checking LTL properties of systems modelled as Markov decision processes (MDPs).

Abstract We provide a survey of the state of the art ofrational verification: the problem of checking whether a given temporal logic formulaϕis satisfied in some or all game-theoretic equilibria of a multi-agent system – that is, whether the system will exhibit the behaviorϕrepresents under the assumption that agents within the system act rationally in pursuit of their preferences. After motivating and introducing the overall framework of rational verification, we discuss key results obtained in the past few years as well as relevant related work in logic, AI, and computer science.

Abstract Moral responsibility is a major concern in autonomous systems, with applications ranging from self-driving cars to kidney exchanges. Although there have been recent attempts to formalise responsibility and blame, among similar notions, the problem of learning within these formalisms has been unaddressed. From the viewpoint of such systems, the urgent questions are: (a) How can models of moral scenarios and blameworthiness be extracted and learnt automatically from data? (b) How can judgements be computed effectively and efficiently, given the split-second decision points faced by some systems? By building on constrained tractable probabilistic learning, we propose and implement a hybrid (between data-driven and rule-based methods) learning framework for inducing models of such scenarios automatically from data and reasoning tractably from them. We report on experiments that compare our system with human judgement in three illustrative domains: lung cancer staging, teamwork management, and trolley problems.