Dean Mobbs

John P. Agapiou, Alexander Sasha Vezhnevets, Edgar A. Duéñez-Guzmán et al. · deepmind

Multi-agent artificial intelligence research promises a path to develop intelligent technologies that are more human-like and more human-compatible than those produced by "solipsistic" approaches, which do not consider interactions between agents. Melting Pot is a research tool developed to facilitate work on multi-agent artificial intelligence, and provides an evaluation protocol that measures generalization to novel social partners in a set of canonical test scenarios. Each scenario pairs a physical environment (a "substrate") with a reference set of co-players (a "background population"), to create a social situation with substantial interdependence between the individuals involved. For instance, some scenarios were inspired by institutional-economics-based accounts of natural resource management and public-good-provision dilemmas. Others were inspired by considerations from evolutionary biology, game theory, and artificial life. Melting Pot aims to cover a maximally diverse set of interdependencies and incentives. It includes the commonly-studied extreme cases of perfectly-competitive (zero-sum) motivations and perfectly-cooperative (shared-reward) motivations, but does not stop with them. As in real-life, a clear majority of scenarios in Melting Pot have mixed incentives. They are neither purely competitive nor purely cooperative and thus demand successful agents be able to navigate the resulting ambiguity. Here we describe Melting Pot 2.0, which revises and expands on Melting Pot. We also introduce support for scenarios with asymmetric roles, and explain how to integrate them into the evaluation protocol. This report also contains: (1) details of all substrates and scenarios; (2) a complete description of all baseline algorithms and results. Our intention is for it to serve as a reference for researchers using Melting Pot 2.0.

Jayd Matyas, William A. Cunningham, Alexander Sasha Vezhnevets et al.

Attitude change - the process by which individuals revise their evaluative stances - has been explained by a set of influential but competing verbal theories. These accounts often function as mechanism sketches: rich in conceptual detail, yet lacking the technical specifications and operational constraints required to run as executable systems. We present a generative actor-based modelling workflow for "rendering" these sketches as runnable actor - environment simulations using the Concordia simulation library. In Concordia, actors operate by predictive pattern completion: an operation on natural language strings that generates a suffix which describes the actor's intended action from a prefix containing memories of their past and observations of the present. We render the theories of cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957), self-consistency (Aronson 1969), and self-perception (Bem 1972) as distinct decision logics that populate and process the prefix through theory-specific sequences of reasoning steps. We evaluate these implementations across classic psychological experiments. Our implementations generate behavioural patterns consistent with known results from the original empirical literature. However, we find that achieving stable reproduction requires resolving the inherent underdetermination of the verbal accounts and the conflicts between modern linguistic priors and historical experimental assumptions. And, we document how this manual process of iterative model "stabilisation" surfaces specific operational and socio-ecological dependencies that were largely undocumented in the original verbal accounts. Ultimately, we argue that the manual stabilisation process itself should be regarded as a core part of the methodology functioning to clarify situational and representational commitments needed to generate characteristic effects.

Pengrui Han, Rafal Kocielnik, Peiyang Song et al.

Personality traits have long been studied as predictors of human behavior. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) suggest similar patterns may emerge in artificial systems, with advanced LLMs displaying consistent behavioral tendencies resembling human traits like agreeableness and self-regulation. Understanding these patterns is crucial, yet prior work primarily relied on simplified self-reports and heuristic prompting, with little behavioral validation. In this study, we systematically characterize LLM personality across three dimensions: (1) the dynamic emergence and evolution of trait profiles throughout training stages; (2) the predictive validity of self-reported traits in behavioral tasks; and (3) the impact of targeted interventions, such as persona injection, on both self-reports and behavior. Our findings reveal that instructional alignment (e.g., RLHF, instruction tuning) significantly stabilizes trait expression and strengthens trait correlations in ways that mirror human data. However, these self-reported traits do not reliably predict behavior, and observed associations often diverge from human patterns. While persona injection successfully steers self-reports in the intended direction, it exerts little or inconsistent effect on actual behavior. By distinguishing surface-level trait expression from behavioral consistency, our findings challenge assumptions about LLM personality and underscore the need for deeper evaluation in alignment and interpretability.