In the game of poker, being unpredictable, or bluffing, is an essential skill. When humans play poker, they bluff. However, most works on computer-poker focus on performance metrics such as win rates, while bluffing is overlooked. In this paper we study whether two popular algorithms, DQN (based on reinforcement learning) and CFR (based on game theory), exhibit bluffing behavior in Leduc Hold'em, a simplified version of poker. We designed an experiment where we let the DQN and CFR agent play against each other while we log their actions. We find that both DQN and CFR exhibit bluffing behavior, but they do so in different ways. Although both attempt to perform bluffs at different rates, the percentage of successful bluffs (where the opponent folds) is roughly the same. This suggests that bluffing is an essential aspect of the game, not of the algorithm. Future work should look at different bluffing styles and at the full game of poker. Code at https://github.com/TarikZ03/Bluffing-by-DQN-and-CFR-in-Leduc-Hold-em-Poker-Codebase.
It is well known that in games with imperfect information, such as poker, bluffing with some probability can be a component of the optimal strategy. However, as far as we know, nobody has ever exhibited a Scrabble position in which the optimal strategy involves bluffing, or even a Scrabble position in which the optimal strategy is a mixed (i.e., randomized) strategy. We present a carefully constructed Scrabble position, that could actually arise in a tournament game with no invalid words played, in which the optimal strategy (assuming that a tied score leads to the point being split equally, with no recourse to so-called "spread points" as a tie-breaking mechanism) is to make Move A with probability 1/3 and to make Move B with probability 2/3. Move B can reasonably be called a bluff, in the sense that it sets up a threat which the player cannot in fact execute, but which the opponent may not be able to rule out.
We introduce \textsc{Cattle Trade, a multi-agent benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as agents in strategic reasoning under imperfect information, adversarial interaction, and resource constraints. The benchmark combines auctions, hidden-offer trade challenges (TCs), bargaining, bluffing, opponent modeling, and resource allocation within a single long-horizon game lasting 50--60 turns. Unlike prior agent benchmarks that test these abilities in isolation, \textsc{Cattle Trade} evaluates whether agents integrate them across a competitive, multi-agent economic game with conflicting incentives. The benchmark logs every bid, TC offer, counteroffer, and card selection, enabling behavioural analysis beyond final scores or win rates. We evaluate seven cost-efficient language models and three deterministic code agents across 242 games. Strategic coherence, in particular spending efficiency, resource discipline, and phase-adaptive bidding, is associated with rank more strongly than spending volume or any single subskill. Two heuristic code agents outperform most tested LLMs, and behavioural traces surface recurring LLM failure modes including overbidding, self-bidding, bank
Resources are often limited, therefore it is essential how convincingly competitors present their claims for them. Beside a player's natural capacity, here overconfidence and bluffing may also play a decisive role and influence how to share a restricted reward. While bluff provides clear, but risky advantage, overconfidence, as a form of self-deception, could be harmful to its user. Still, it is a long-standing puzzle why these potentially damaging biases are maintained and evolving to a high level in the human society. Within the framework of evolutionary game theory, we present a simple version of resource competition game in which the coevolution of overconfidence and bluffing is fundamental, which is capable to explain their prevalence in structured populations. Interestingly, bluffing seems apt to evolve to higher level than corresponding overconfidence and in general the former is less resistant to punishment than the latter. Moreover, topological feature of the social network plays an intricate role in the spreading of overconfidence and bluffing. While the heterogeneity of interactions facilitates bluffing, it also increases efficiency of adequate punishment against overcon
LLMs agents are increasingly used in multi-agent settings, yet their behaviour in sustainability games remains largely unexplored. This work investigates whether lying can emerge among LLM agents in a competitive sustainability game in which agents are informed that common resources can regenerate, although regeneration does not actually occur. We develop an agent-based model of a sustainability game in which agents manage industrial, military, and ecological resources, and interact through a network. LLM agents can observe neighbours' status, declare future attacks, receive permission to lie, and access reputation information, while rule-based agents provide an interpretable behavioural baseline. The results show that neighbour information strongly changes system dynamics, increasing attacks while improving biosphere retention and coexistence. Also, the presence of future declarations reduce extinction risk without suppressing conflict. Behaviourally, deception emerges even when agents are not explicitly allowed to lie, and explicit permission mainly increases bluffing and diversion rather than direct backstabbing. Finally, the presence of reputation memory and information about t
Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed as evaluators in tasks requiring nuanced image understanding, yet their reliability in scoring alignment between images and text descriptions remains underexplored. We investigate whether small, open-weight VLMs exhibit \emph{sycophantic} behavior when evaluating image-text alignment: assigning high scores without grounding their judgments in visual evidence. To quantify this phenomenon, we introduce the \emph{Bluffing Coefficient} (\bc), a metric that measures the mismatch between a model's score and its evidence recall. We evaluate six open-weight VLMs ranging from 450M to 8B parameters on a benchmark of 173,810 AI-generated character portraits paired with detailed textual descriptions. Our analysis reveals a significant inverse correlation between model size and sycophancy rate ($r = -0.96$, $p = 0.002$), with smaller models exhibiting substantially higher rates of unjustified high scores. The smallest model tested (LFM2-VL, 450M) produced sycophantic evaluations in 22.3\% of cases, compared to 6.0\% for the largest (LLaVA-1.6, 7B). These findings have direct implications for the deployment of small, open-weight VLMs as aut
We introduce and analyze Limit Continuous Poker, a variant of Von Neumann's Continuous Poker with variable but limited bet sizes. This simplified variant of poker captures aspects of information asymmetry, bluffing, balancing, and the impact of bet size limits while still being simple enough to solve analytically. We derive the Nash equilibrium strategy profile for this game, showing how the bettor's and caller's strategies depend on the bet size limits. We demonstrate that as the bet size limits approach extreme values, the strategy profile converges to those of other continuous poker variants. Finally, we connect these results to strategic implications of limited bet sizing in real-world poker.
Existing deception datasets label completed outputs as honest or deceptive, treating deception as a property of the final response rather than a function of the model's reasoning trace. This obscures a more fundamental question: when does a language model become committed to deception? We introduce counterfactual localization: for each sentence prefix in a reasoning trace, we fix the prefix, resample continuations, and estimate the probability of a deceptive outcome. To scale this, we construct five environments (spanning strategic bluffing, maze guidance, financial advice, used-car sales, and offer negotiation) in which deception is never prompted but emerges from strategic incentives and labels follow mechanically from environment state rather than subjective human judgment. The resulting corpus localizes $\sim$1.46M sentences across four reasoning models, drawn from over 94.1M sampled continuations, 91.5B generated tokens, and over 100K scenarios. Sentence-level human evaluation confirms that detected commitment points correspond to interpretable shifts in decision state. Using this resource, we show that lexical cues for commitment prediction transfer poorly across environments
Explainable AI (XAI) in high-stakes domains should help stakeholders trust and verify system outputs. Yet Chain-of-Thought methods reason before concluding, and logical gaps or hallucinations can yield conclusions that do not reliably align with their rationale. Thus, we propose "Result -> Justify", which constrains the output communication to present a conclusion before its structured justification. We introduce SEF (Structured Explainability Framework), operationalizing professional conventions (e.g., CREAC, BLUF) via six metrics for structure and grounding. Experiments across four tasks in three domains validate this approach: all six metrics correlate with correctness (r=0.20-0.42; p<0.001), and SEF achieves 83.9% accuracy (+5.3 over CoT). These results suggest structured justification can improve verifiability and may also improve reliability.
Democratic societies increasingly rely on communication networks to aggregate citizen preferences and information, yet these same networks can systematically mislead voters under certain conditions. We introduce an agent-based model that captures two rival forces in partisan networks: honest noise filtering that lifts accuracy and strategic bluffing that embeds bias. Extensive simulations show that communication architecture shapes voting accuracy more than any individual-level trait. When candidate quality gaps are moderate, partisan bluffing overpowers honest signals and steers supporters of weaker contenders into collective error. However, positioning independents in central network roles serves as an epistemic circuit breaker, preventing echo chambers from spiraling toward systematic error. Counterintuitively, we discover that competitive elections with meaningful quality differences prove most vulnerable to collective delusion. Small numbers of extreme partisans can contaminate entire communities through cascading bias effects that persist across hundreds of communication rounds. Our findings challenge conventional wisdom about information aggregation in democracy and provide
Unsupervised feature selection (UFS) is an important task in data engineering. However, most UFS methods construct models from a single perspective and often fail to simultaneously evaluate feature importance and preserve their inherent data structure, thus limiting their performance. To address this challenge, we propose a novel bi-level unsupervised feature selection (BLUFS) method, including a clustering level and a feature level. Specifically, at the clustering level, spectral clustering is used to generate pseudo-labels for representing the data structure, while a continuous linear regression model is developed to learn the projection matrix. At the feature level, the $\ell_{2,0}$-norm constraint is imposed on the projection matrix for more effectively selecting features. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to combine a bi-level framework with the $\ell_{2,0}$-norm. To solve the proposed bi-level model, we design an efficient proximal alternating minimization (PAM) algorithm, whose subproblems either have explicit solutions or can be computed by fast solvers. Furthermore, we establish the convergence result and computational complexity. Finally, extensive expe
Misdirection can be defined as the intentional action of causing some misrepresentation in an agent, or in a group of agents. Such misrepresentations may result from verbal actions, as in linguistic deception, or from visual actions, as in visual misdirection. Examples of visual misdirection abound (e.g. in nature, in the military), with magic tricks providing a vivid illustration. So far, various types of verbal misdirection have been investigated from a formal perspective (e.g. lying, bluffing) but little attention has been paid to the particular case of visual misdirection. In this paper, we introduce a dynamic epistemic logic to represent not only verbal misdirection on agents' beliefs but also visual misdirection on agents' observations. We illustrate the dynamics of the logic by modelling a classic magic trick known as the French Drop. We also provide a sound and complete axiom system for the logic, and discuss the expressivity and scope of the setting.
As multimodal machine intelligence systems started achieving average animal-level and average human-level fluency in many measurable tasks in processing images, language, and sound, they began to exhibit a new class of cognitive aberrations: machine mirages. These include delusion, illusion, confabulation, hallucination, misattribution error, semantic drift, semantic compression, exaggeration, causal inference failure, uncanny valley of perception, bluffing-patter-bullshitting, cognitive stereotypy, pragmatic misunderstanding, hypersignification, semantic reheating-warming, simulated authority effect, fallacious abductive leap, contextual drift, referential hallucination, semiotic Frankenstein effect, calibration failure, spurious correlation, bias amplification, concept drift sensitivity, misclassification under uncertainty, adversarial vulnerability, overfitting, prosodic misclassification, accent bias, turn boundary failure, semantic boundary confusion, noise overfitting, latency-induced decision drift, ambiguity collapse and other forms of error that mimic but do not replicate human or animal fallibility. This article presents some of the errors and argues that these failures m
Multi-agent interactions, such as communication, teaching, and bluffing, often rely on higher-order social inference, i.e., understanding how others infer oneself. Such intricate reasoning can be effectively modeled through nested multi-agent reasoning. Nonetheless, the computational complexity escalates exponentially with each level of reasoning, posing a significant challenge. However, humans effortlessly perform complex social inferences as part of their daily lives. To bridge the gap between human-like inference capabilities and computational limitations, we propose a novel approach: leveraging neural networks to amortize high-order social inference, thereby expediting nested multi-agent reasoning. We evaluate our method in two challenging multi-agent interaction domains. The experimental results demonstrate that our method is computationally efficient while exhibiting minimal degradation in accuracy.
We examine the complexity of the ``Texas Hold'em'' variant of poker from a topological perspective. We show that there exists a natural simplicial complex governing the multi-way winning probabilities between various hands, and that this simplicial complex contains $4$-dimensional spheres as induced subcomplexes. We deduce that evaluating the strength of a pair of cards in Texas Hold'em is an intricate problem, and that even the notion of who is bluffing against whom is ill-defined in some situations.
In this research, we explore the efficacy and potential of Generative AI models, specifically focusing on their application in role-playing simulations exemplified through Spyfall, a renowned mafia-style game. By leveraging GPT-4's advanced capabilities, the study aimed to showcase the model's potential in understanding, decision-making, and interaction during game scenarios. Comparative analyses between GPT-4 and its predecessor, GPT-3.5-turbo, demonstrated GPT-4's enhanced adaptability to the game environment, with significant improvements in posing relevant questions and forming human-like responses. However, challenges such as the model;s limitations in bluffing and predicting opponent moves emerged. Reflections on game development, financial constraints, and non-verbal limitations of the study were also discussed. The findings suggest that while GPT-4 exhibits promising advancements over earlier models, there remains potential for further development, especially in instilling more human-like attributes in AI.
Kyle (1985) proposes two types of rumors: informed rumors which are based on some private information and uninformed rumors which are not based on any information (i.e. bluffing). Also, prior studies find that when people have credible source of information, they are likely to use a more confident textual tone in their spreading of rumors. Motivated by these theoretical findings, we propose a double-channel structure to determine the ex-ante veracity of rumors on social media. Our ultimate goal is to classify each rumor into true, false, or unverifiable category. We first assign each text into either certain (informed rumor) or uncertain (uninformed rumor) category. Then, we apply lie detection algorithm to informed rumors and thread-reply agreement detection algorithm to uninformed rumors. Using the dataset of SemEval 2019 Task 7, which requires ex-ante threefold classification (true, false, or unverifiable) of social media rumors, our model yields a macro-F1 score of 0.4027, outperforming all the baseline models and the second-place winner (Gorrell et al., 2019). Furthermore, we empirically validate that the double-channel structure outperforms single-channel structures which use
The act of bluffing confounds game designers to this day. The very nature of bluffing is even open for debate, adding further complication to the process of creating intelligent virtual players that can bluff, and hence play, realistically. Through the use of intelligent, learning agents, and carefully designed agent outlooks, an agent can in fact learn to predict its opponents reactions based not only on its own cards, but on the actions of those around it. With this wider scope of understanding, an agent can in learn to bluff its opponents, with the action representing not an illogical action, as bluffing is often viewed, but rather as an act of maximising returns through an effective statistical optimisation. By using a tee dee lambda learning algorithm to continuously adapt neural network agent intelligence, agents have been shown to be able to learn to bluff without outside prompting, and even to learn to call each others bluffs in free, competitive play.
How are the advantage relations between a set of agents playing a game organized and how do they reflect the structure of the game? In this paper, we illustrate "Principal Trade-off Analysis" (PTA), a decomposition method that embeds games into a low-dimensional feature space. We argue that the embeddings are more revealing than previously demonstrated by developing an analogy to Principal Component Analysis (PCA). PTA represents an arbitrary two-player zero-sum game as the weighted sum of pairs of orthogonal 2D feature planes. We show that the feature planes represent unique strategic trade-offs and truncation of the sequence provides insightful model reduction. We demonstrate the validity of PTA on a quartet of games (Kuhn poker, RPS+2, Blotto, and Pokemon). In Kuhn poker, PTA clearly identifies the trade-off between bluffing and calling. In Blotto, PTA identifies game symmetries, and specifies strategic trade-offs associated with distinct win conditions. These symmetries reveal limitations of PTA unaddressed in previous work. For Pokemon, PTA recovers clusters that naturally correspond to Pokemon types, correctly identifies the designed trade-off between those types, and discove
Confidence is an essential ingredient of success in a wide range of domains ranging from job performance and mental health, to sports, business, and combat. Some authors have suggested that not just confidence but overconfidence-believing you are better than you are in reality-is advantageous because it serves to increase ambition, morale, resolve, persistence, or the credibility of bluffing, generating a self-fulfilling prophecy in which exaggerated confidence actually increases the probability of success. However, overconfidence also leads to faulty assessments, unrealistic expectations, and hazardous decisions, so it remains a puzzle how such a false belief could evolve or remain stable in a population of competing strategies that include accurate, unbiased beliefs. Here, we present an evolutionary model showing that, counter-intuitively, overconfidence maximizes individual fitness and populations will tend to become overconfident, as long as benefits from contested resources are sufficiently large compared to the cost of competition. In contrast, "rational" unbiased strategies are only stable under limited conditions. The fact that overconfident populations are evolutionarily s