EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Marko Tesic
dblp:237/4914
· DBLP profile ↗
9ranked-venue papers
2as first author
6since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0003-3368-7024ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 9 · 2 first-author · 6 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 5 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
3 papers |
Reinforcement learning · 57% Multi-agent systems · 33% Language models and text generation · 10% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › multi-agent reinforcement learning › markov games
mixed-motive games |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Melting Pot Contest: Charting the Future of Generalized Cooperative Intelligence · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
multi-agent reinforcement learning |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Melting Pot Contest: Charting the Future of Generalized Cooperative Intelligence · NeurIPS 2024 |
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
LLM agents |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Evaluating Generalization Capabilities of LLM-Based Agents in Mixed-Motive Scenarios Using Concordia · NeurIPS 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
zero-shot evaluation · 0.9survey · 0.9natural language multi-agent simulation · 0.9multi-agent reinforcement learning · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Paradigms of AI Evaluation: Mapping Goals, Methodologies and CultureabstractResearch in AI evaluation has grown increasingly complex and multidisciplinary, attracting researchers with diverse backgrounds and objectives. As a result, divergent evaluation paradigms have emerged, often developing in isolation, adopting conflicting terminologies, and overlooking each other's contributions. This fragmentation has led to insular research trajectories and communication barriers both among different paradigms and with the general public, contributing to unmet expectations for deployed AI systems. To help bridge this insularity, in this paper we survey recent work in the AI evaluation landscape and identify six main paradigms. We characterise major recent contributions within each paradigm across key dimensions related to their goals, methodologies and research cultures. By clarifying the unique combination of questions and approaches associated with each paradigm, we aim to increase awareness of the breadth of current evaluation approaches and foster cross-pollination between different paradigms. We also identify potential gaps in the field to inspire future research directions. John Burden, Marko Tesic, Lorenzo Pacchiardi, José Hernández-Orallo |
IJCAI | 2 |
| 2025 | Evaluating Generalization Capabilities of LLM-Based Agents in Mixed-Motive Scenarios Using ConcordiaabstractLarge 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. Chandler Smith, Marwa Abdulhai, Manfred Diaz, Marko Tesic, Rakshit S. Trivedi, Alexander Vezhnevets, Lewis Hammond, Jesse Clifton, Minsuk Chang, Edgar A. Duéñez-Guzmán, John P. Agapiou, Jayd Matyas, Danny Karmon, Beining Zhang, Jim Dilkes, Akash Kundu, Emanuel Tewolde, Jebish Purbey, Ram Mohan Rao Kadiyala, Siddhant Gupta, Aliaksei Korshuk, Buyantuev Alexander, Ilya Makarov, Rolando Fernandez, Zhihan Wang, Caroline Wang, Jiaxun Cui, Lingyun Xiao, Yoonchang Sung, Muhammad Arrasy Rahman, Peter Stone 0001, Yipeng Kang, Hyeonggeun Yun, Ananya, Taehun Cha, Elizaveta Tennant, Olivia Macmillan-Scott, Marta Segura, Diana Riazi, Fuyang Cui, Sriram Ganapathi, Toryn Q. Klassen, Nico Schiavone, Mogtaba Alim, Sheila A. McIlraith, Manuel Ríos, Oswaldo Peña, Manuela Chacon-Chamorro, Rubén Manrique, Luis Felipe Giraldo, Nicanor Quijano, Fangwei Zhong, Wenming Tu, Zhaowei Zhang 0001, Zixia Jia, Zilong Zheng, Chichen Lin, Weijian Fan, Chenao Liu, Sneheel Sarangi, Shuqing Shi, Yali Du 0001, Avinaash Anand Kulandaivel, Yang Liu 0266, Ruiyang Wu 0007, Chetan Talele, Sunjia Lu, Gema Parreno, Shamika Dhuri, Bain McHale, Tim Baarslag, Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Natasha Jaques, José Hernández-Orallo, Joel Z. Leibo |
NeurIPS | 4 |
| 2025 | A Little Less Conversation, a Little More Action, Please: Investigating the Physical Common-Sense of LLMs in a 3D Embodied Environment
Matteo G. Mecattaf, Ben Slater, Marko Tesic, Jonathan E. Prunty, Konstantinos Voudouris, Lucy Cheke |
PRICAI | 3 |
| 2024 | Testing the Maximum Entropy Approach to Awareness Growth in Bayesian Epistemology and Decision Theory
Rafael Fuchs, Marko Tesic, Ulrike Hahn |
CogSci | 2 |
| 2024 | Melting Pot Contest: Charting the Future of Generalized Cooperative IntelligenceabstractMulti-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. Rakshit S. Trivedi, Akbir Khan, Jesse Clifton, Lewis Hammond, Edgar A. Duéñez-Guzmán, Dipam Chakraborty, John P. Agapiou, Jayd Matyas, Alexander Vezhnevets, Barna Pásztor, Yunke Ao, Omar G. Younis, Benjamin Swain, Haoyuan Qin, Mian Deng, Ziwei Deng, Utku Erdoganaras, Yue Zhao 0023, Marko Tesic, Natasha Jaques, Jakob N. Foerster, Vincent Conitzer, José Hernández-Orallo, Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Joel Z. Leibo |
NeurIPS | 20 |
| 2023 | Causal Structure and Argumentative Value
Ulrike Hahn, Borut Trpin, Stephan Hartmann 0001, Marko Tesic, Anita Keshmirian, Corina Strößner |
CogSci | 4 |
| 2020 | Human-Generated Explanations of Inferences in Bayesian Networks: A Case Study
Marko Tesic, Ulrike Hahn |
CogSci | 1 |
| 2019 | Sequential diagnostic reasoning with independent causes
Marko Tesic, Ulrike Hahn |
CogSci | 1 |
| 2018 | Explaining away: significance of priors, diagnostic reasoning and structural complexity
Alice Liefgreen, Marko Tesic, David A. Lagnado |
CogSci | 2 |