Kostas Stathis

Ha Thanh Nguyen, Randy Goebel, Francesca Toni et al.

Negation is a fundamental aspect of natural language, playing a critical role in communication and comprehension. Our study assesses the negation detection performance of Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) models, specifically GPT-2, GPT-3, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4. We focus on the identification of negation in natural language using a zero-shot prediction approach applied to our custom xNot360 dataset. Our approach examines sentence pairs labeled to indicate whether the second sentence negates the first. Our findings expose a considerable performance disparity among the GPT models, with GPT-4 surpassing its counterparts and GPT-3.5 displaying a marked performance reduction. The overall proficiency of the GPT models in negation detection remains relatively modest, indicating that this task pushes the boundaries of their natural language understanding capabilities. We not only highlight the constraints of GPT models in handling negation but also emphasize the importance of logical reliability in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, science, and law.

Ha-Thanh Nguyen, Randy Goebel, Francesca Toni et al.

The evolution of Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) models has led to significant advancements in various natural language processing applications, particularly in legal textual entailment. We present an analysis of GPT-3.5 (ChatGPT) and GPT-4 performances on COLIEE Task 4 dataset, a prominent benchmark in this domain. The study encompasses data from Heisei 18 (2006) to Reiwa 3 (2021), exploring the models' abilities to discern entailment relationships within Japanese statute law across different periods. Our preliminary experimental results unveil intriguing insights into the models' strengths and weaknesses in handling legal textual entailment tasks, as well as the patterns observed in model performance. In the context of proprietary models with undisclosed architectures and weights, black-box analysis becomes crucial for evaluating their capabilities. We discuss the influence of training data distribution and the implications on the models' generalizability. This analysis serves as a foundation for future research, aiming to optimize GPT-based models and enable their successful adoption in legal information extraction and entailment applications.

Benedict Wilkins, Kostas Stathis

We present World of Bugs (WOB), an open platform that aims to support Automated Bug Detection (ABD) research in video games. We discuss some open problems in ABD and how they relate to the platform's design, arguing that learning-based solutions are required if further progress is to be made. The platform's key feature is a growing collection of common video game bugs that may be used for training and evaluating ABD approaches.

Agnieszka Mensfelt, Kostas Stathis, Vince Trencsenyi

Game theory is a powerful framework for reasoning about strategic interactions, with applications in domains ranging from day-to-day life to international politics. However, applying formal reasoning tools in such contexts is challenging, as these scenarios are often expressed in natural language. To address this, we introduce a framework for the autoformalization of game-theoretic scenarios, which translates natural language descriptions into formal logic representations suitable for formal solvers. Our approach utilizes one-shot prompting and a solver that provides feedback on syntactic correctness to allow LLMs to refine the code. We evaluate the framework using GPT-4o and a dataset of natural language problem descriptions, achieving 98% syntactic correctness and 88% semantic correctness. These results show the potential of LLMs to bridge the gap between real-life strategic interactions and formal reasoning.

Agnieszka Mensfelt, Kostas Stathis, Vince Trencsenyi

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored as general-purpose reasoners, particularly in agentic contexts. However, their outputs remain prone to mathematical and logical errors. This is especially challenging in open-ended tasks, where unstructured outputs lack explicit ground truth and may contain subtle inconsistencies. To address this issue, we propose Logic-Enhanced Language Model Agents (LELMA), a framework that integrates LLMs with formal logic to enable validation and refinement of natural language reasoning. LELMA comprises three components: an LLM-Reasoner, an LLM-Translator, and a Solver, and employs autoformalization to translate reasoning into logic representations, which are then used to assess logical validity. Using game-theoretic scenarios such as the Prisoner's Dilemma as testbeds, we highlight the limitations of both less capable (Gemini 1.0 Pro) and advanced (GPT-4o) models in generating logically sound reasoning. LELMA achieves high accuracy in error detection and improves reasoning correctness via self-refinement, particularly in GPT-4o. The study also highlights challenges in autoformalization accuracy and in evaluation of inherently ambiguous open-ended reasoning tasks.

Pallavi Bagga, Kostas Stathis

This paper bridges the gap between mathematical heuristic strategies learned from Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) in automated agent negotiation, and comprehensible, natural language explanations. Our aim is to make these strategies more accessible to non-experts. By leveraging traditional Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques and Large Language Models (LLMs) equipped with Transformers, we outline how parts of DRL strategies composed of parts within strategy templates can be transformed into user-friendly, human-like English narratives. To achieve this, we present a top-level algorithm that involves parsing mathematical expressions of strategy templates, semantically interpreting variables and structures, generating rule-based primary explanations, and utilizing a Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) model to refine and contextualize these explanations. Subsequent customization for varied audiences and meticulous validation processes in an example illustrate the applicability and potential of this approach.

Vince Trencsenyi, Agnieszka Mensfelt, Kostas Stathis

LLM-driven multi-agent-based simulations have been gaining traction with applications in game-theoretic and social simulations. While most implementations seek to exploit or evaluate LLM-agentic reasoning, they often do so with a weak notion of agency and simplified architectures. We implement a role-based multi-agent strategic interaction framework tailored to sophisticated recursive reasoners, providing the means for systematic in-depth development and evaluation of strategic reasoning. Our game environment is governed by the umpire responsible for facilitating games, from matchmaking through move validation to environment management. Players incorporate state-of-the-art LLMs in their decision mechanism, relying on a formal hypergame-based model of hierarchical beliefs. We use one-shot, 2-player beauty contests to evaluate the recursive reasoning capabilities of the latest LLMs, providing a comparison to an established baseline model from economics and data from human experiments. Furthermore, we introduce the foundations of an alternative semantic measure of reasoning to the k-level theory. Our experiments show that artificial reasoners can outperform the baseline model in terms of both approximating human behaviour and reaching the optimal solution.

Vince Trencsenyi, Agnieszka Mensfelt, Kostas Stathis

The rapid rise of large language models (LLMs) has shifted artificial intelligence (AI) research toward agentic systems, motivating the use of weaker and more flexible notions of agency. However, this shift raises key questions about the extent to which LLM-based agents replicate human strategic reasoning, particularly in game-theoretic settings. In this context, we examine the role of agentic sophistication in shaping artificial reasoners' performance by evaluating three agent designs: a simple game-theoretic model, an unstructured LLM-as-agent model, and an LLM integrated into a traditional agentic framework. Using guessing games as a testbed, we benchmarked these agents against human participants across general reasoning patterns and individual role-based objectives. Furthermore, we introduced obfuscated game scenarios to assess agents' ability to generalise beyond training distributions. Our analysis, covering over 2000 reasoning samples across 25 agent configurations, shows that human-inspired cognitive structures can enhance LLM agents' alignment with human strategic behaviour. Still, the relationship between agentic design complexity and human-likeness is non-linear, highlighting a critical dependence on underlying LLM capabilities and suggesting limits to simple architectural augmentation.

Agnieszka Mensfelt, Kostas Stathis, Vince Trencsenyi

Multi-agent simulations are versatile tools for exploring interactions among natural and artificial agents, but their development typically demands domain expertise and manual effort. This work introduces the Generative Agents for Multi-Agent Autoformalization (GAMA) framework, which automates the formalization of interaction scenarios in simulations using agents augmented with large language models (LLMs). To demonstrate the application of GAMA, we use natural language descriptions of game-theoretic scenarios representing social interactions, and we autoformalize them into executable logic programs defining game rules, with syntactic correctness enforced through a solver-based validation. To ensure runtime validity, an iterative, tournament-based procedure tests the generated rules and strategies, followed by exact semantic validation when ground truth outcomes are available. In experiments with 110 natural language descriptions across five 2x2 simultaneous-move games, GAMA achieves 100% syntactic and 76.5% semantic correctness with Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and 99.82% syntactic and 77% semantic correctness with GPT-4o. The framework also shows high semantic accuracy in autoformalizing agents' strategies.

Ha-Thanh Nguyen, Ken Satoh, Francesca Toni et al.

Reasoning is an essential component of human intelligence in that it plays a fundamental role in our ability to think critically, support responsible decisions, and solve challenging problems. Traditionally, AI has addressed reasoning in the context of logic-based representations of knowledge. However, the recent leap forward in natural language processing, with the emergence of language models based on transformers, is hinting at the possibility that these models exhibit reasoning abilities, particularly as they grow in size and are trained on more and more data. Still, despite ongoing discussions about what reasoning is in language models, it is still not easy to articulate to what extent these models are actually capable of reasoning. The goal of this workshop is to create a platform for researchers from different disciplines and/or AI perspectives to explore approaches and techniques with the aim to reconcile reasoning between language models using transformers and logic-based representations. The specific objectives include analysing the reasoning abilities of language models measured alongside KR methods, injecting KR-style reasoning abilities into language models (including by neuro-symbolic means), and formalising the kind of reasoning language models carry out. This exploration aims to uncover how language models can effectively integrate and leverage knowledge and reasoning with it, thus improving their application and utility in areas where precision and reliability are key requirements.

Agnieszka Mensfelt, David Tena Cucala, Santiago Franco et al.

Autoformalization has emerged as a term referring to the automation of formalization - specifically, the formalization of mathematics using interactive theorem provers (proof assistants). Its rapid development has been driven by progress in deep learning, especially large language models (LLMs). More recently, the term has expanded beyond mathematics to describe the broader task of translating informal input into formal logical representations. At the same time, a growing body of research explores using LLMs to translate informal language into formal representations for reasoning, planning, and knowledge representation - often without explicitly referring to this process as autoformalization. As a result, despite addressing similar tasks, the largely independent development of these research areas has limited opportunities for shared methodologies, benchmarks, and theoretical frameworks that could accelerate progress. The goal of this paper is to review - explicit or implicit - instances of what can be considered autoformalization and to propose a unified framework, encouraging cross-pollination between different fields to advance the development of next generation AI systems.

Vince Trencsenyi, Agnieszka Mensfelt, Kostas Stathis

Classical game-theoretic models typically assume rational agents, complete information, and common knowledge of payoffs - assumptions that are often violated in real-world MAS characterized by uncertainty, misaligned perceptions, and nested beliefs. To overcome these limitations, researchers have proposed extensions that incorporate models of cognitive constraints, subjective beliefs, and heterogeneous reasoning. Among these, hypergame theory extends the classical paradigm by explicitly modeling agents' subjective perceptions of the strategic scenario, known as perceptual games, in which agents may hold divergent beliefs about the structure, payoffs, or available actions. We present a systematic review of agent-compatible applications of hypergame theory, examining how its descriptive capabilities have been adapted to dynamic and interactive MAS contexts. We analyze 44 selected studies from cybersecurity, robotics, social simulation, communications, and general game-theoretic modeling. Building on a formal introduction to hypergame theory and its two major extensions - hierarchical hypergames and HNF - we develop agent-compatibility criteria and an agent-based classification framework to assess integration patterns and practical applicability. Our analysis reveals prevailing tendencies, including the prevalence of hierarchical and graph-based models in deceptive reasoning and the simplification of extensive theoretical frameworks in practical applications. We identify structural gaps, including the limited adoption of HNF-based models, the lack of formal hypergame languages, and unexplored opportunities for modeling human-agent and agent-agent misalignment. By synthesizing trends, challenges, and open research directions, this review provides a new roadmap for applying hypergame theory to enhance the realism and effectiveness of strategic modeling in dynamic multi-agent environments.

Benedict Wilkins, Kostas Stathis

Automated Bug Detection (ABD) in video games is composed of two distinct but complementary problems: automated game exploration and bug identification. Automated game exploration has received much recent attention, spurred on by developments in fields such as reinforcement learning. The complementary problem of identifying the bugs present in a player's experience has for the most part relied on the manual specification of rules. Although it is widely recognised that many bugs of interest cannot be identified with such methods, little progress has been made in this direction. In this work we show that it is possible to identify a range of perceptual bugs using learning-based methods by making use of only the rendered game screen as seen by the player. To support our work, we have developed World of Bugs (WOB) an open platform for testing ABD methods in 3D game environments.

Pallavi Bagga, Nicola Paoletti, Kostas Stathis

We present a novel bilateral negotiation model that allows a self-interested agent to learn how to negotiate over multiple issues in the presence of user preference uncertainty. The model relies upon interpretable strategy templates representing the tactics the agent should employ during the negotiation and learns template parameters to maximize the average utility received over multiple negotiations, thus resulting in optimal bid acceptance and generation. Our model also uses deep reinforcement learning to evaluate threshold utility values, for those tactics that require them, thereby deriving optimal utilities for every environment state. To handle user preference uncertainty, the model relies on a stochastic search to find user model that best agrees with a given partial preference profile. Multi-objective optimization and multi-criteria decision-making methods are applied at negotiation time to generate Pareto-optimal outcomes thereby increasing the number of successful (win-win) negotiations. Rigorous experimental evaluations show that the agent employing our model outperforms the winning agents of the 10th Automated Negotiating Agents Competition (ANAC'19) in terms of individual as well as social-welfare utilities.

Benedict Wilkins, Chris Watkins, Kostas Stathis

With the aim of designing automated tools that assist in the video game quality assurance process, we frame the problem of identifying bugs in video games as an anomaly detection (AD) problem. We develop State-State Siamese Networks (S3N) as an efficient deep metric learning approach to AD in this context and explore how it may be used as part of an automated testing tool. Finally, we show by empirical evaluation on a series of Atari games, that S3N is able to learn a meaningful embedding, and consequently is able to identify various common types of video game bugs.

Pallavi Bagga, Nicola Paoletti, Bedour Alrayes et al.

We present a novel negotiation model that allows an agent to learn how to negotiate during concurrent bilateral negotiations in unknown and dynamic e-markets. The agent uses an actor-critic architecture with model-free reinforcement learning to learn a strategy expressed as a deep neural network. We pre-train the strategy by supervision from synthetic market data, thereby decreasing the exploration time required for learning during negotiation. As a result, we can build automated agents for concurrent negotiations that can adapt to different e-market settings without the need to be pre-programmed. Our experimental evaluation shows that our deep reinforcement learning-based agents outperform two existing well-known negotiation strategies in one-to-many concurrent bilateral negotiations for a range of e-market settings.

Ulrich Schaechtle, Ben Zinberg, Alexey Radul et al.

Gaussian Processes (GPs) are widely used tools in statistics, machine learning, robotics, computer vision, and scientific computation. However, despite their popularity, they can be difficult to apply; all but the simplest classification or regression applications require specification and inference over complex covariance functions that do not admit simple analytical posteriors. This paper shows how to embed Gaussian processes in any higher-order probabilistic programming language, using an idiom based on memoization, and demonstrates its utility by implementing and extending classic and state-of-the-art GP applications. The interface to Gaussian processes, called gpmem, takes an arbitrary real-valued computational process as input and returns a statistical emulator that automatically improve as the original process is invoked and its input-output behavior is recorded. The flexibility of gpmem is illustrated via three applications: (i) robust GP regression with hierarchical hyper-parameter learning, (ii) discovering symbolic expressions from time-series data by fully Bayesian structure learning over kernels generated by a stochastic grammar, and (iii) a bandit formulation of Bayesian optimization with automatic inference and action selection. All applications share a single 50-line Python library and require fewer than 20 lines of probabilistic code each.

Antonis Kakas, Paolo Mancarella, Fariba Sadri et al.

This paper presents the computational logic foundations of a model of agency called the KGP (Knowledge, Goals and Plan model. This model allows the specification of heterogeneous agents that can interact with each other, and can exhibit both proactive and reactive behaviour allowing them to function in dynamic environments by adjusting their goals and plans when changes happen in such environments. KGP provides a highly modular agent architecture that integrates a collection of reasoning and physical capabilities, synthesised within transitions that update the agents state in response to reasoning, sensing and acting. Transitions are orchestrated by cycle theories that specify the order in which transitions are executed while taking into account the dynamic context and agent preferences, as well as selection operators for providing inputs to transitions.