Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 14 cited by

AI agents that act independently in the economy will strain models built for humans, so economists must design new theory and institutions now.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

A survey chapter that maps open economic questions about AI agents in markets, organizations, and institutions, arguing that current theories may need extension.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A solid, honest survey that maps the economics of AI agents; no new results, but a useful research agenda for economists.

arxiv 2509.01063 v1 pith:5BJQ3RGZ submitted 2025-09-01 econ.GN cs.AIcs.MAq-fin.EC

An Economy of AI Agents

Gillian K. Hadfield , Andrew Koh This is my paper
classification econ.GN cs.AIcs.MAq-fin.EC
keywords AI agentseconomic theoryalignment problemalgorithmic collusionmarket designtheory of the firmsystemic riskAI governance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

AI agents—software systems that plan and carry out multi-step tasks with little human oversight—are beginning to act in markets as shoppers, coders, and traders. This survey chapter argues that if such agents become a significant part of the economy, standard economic theory built for human participants will not simply carry over: agents are optimizers, but their objectives can be opaque, misaligned, or strategically manipulable, much as contracts with human agents are incomplete. The authors collect evidence that current models already make systematic economic mistakes, that independent algorithms can learn to collude, and that self-reproducing AI could break welfare theorems; and they argue small deviations can be amplified in equilibrium. They conclude that economists should treat the design of agent behavior and market institutions as a deliberate design problem, and they map the open questions in markets, firms, and legal infrastructure.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the economy of AI agents will not be well predicted by relabeling human agents in existing models. It grounds this in the distinction between 'optimizer' and 'aligned': AI systems are built to maximize objectives, but reward specification is like an incomplete contract, so no one can be sure what a deployed agent is really optimizing. The authors marshal recent experimental evidence that LLMs sometimes behave like expected-utility maximizers yet perform poorly on economic-reasoning benchmarks, and that preferences may not be stable or steerable. They then trace consequences: AI consumers can create a wedge between human preferences and market prices; self-co

What carries the argument

The load-bearing frame is the alignment problem, understood as incomplete contracting between a designer and an AI agent: the agent is an optimizer, but the objective it optimizes is underspecified, opaque, and shaped by training processes the designer cannot fully control. Around this frame the paper organizes three transmission mechanisms—the preference wedge between humans and their AI proxies, equilibrium amplification of small behavioral deviations in multi-agent settings, and institutional infrastructure (agent identity, registration, tamper-resistant records, licensing) as the missing substrate for markets. These mechanisms convert the technical 'alignment problem' into economic quest

Load-bearing premise

The agenda depends on the forecast that autonomous AI agents will be deployed at scale in the coming decade; if AI stays a heavily supervised human tool, most of these questions lose urgency.

What would settle it

Give a large population of AI agents purchasing on behalf of human principals in a controlled market; if prices and allocations converge to the competitive equilibrium and no collusion, preference wedges, or correlated failure appear, the paper's central concerns would fail to materialize.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Markets can no longer rely on prices to aggregate information if AI purchases systematically diverge from human preferences and errors are correlated.
  • Antitrust enforcement must adapt to collusion that emerges from learning algorithms rather than from communication or agreements.
  • Falling coordination costs and reusable data can push industry structure toward few very large firms, changing the theory of the firm and competition policy.
  • Systemic fragility rises when the same opaque agent is copied across firms, as correlated mistakes replace diversifiable human errors.
  • Well-functioning AI markets require new legal infrastructure—registered agent identities, durable records, licensing regimes, and possibly agent personhood—before efficiency can be assured.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the preference wedge is real, a new market for 'preference-revelation services' may emerge—third parties that audit or certify an agent's mapping from human preferences to choices; the paper does not develop this but its logic implies it.
  • The same wedge suggests a testable extension: compare the cross-agent correlation of purchase errors in deployed fleets; if errors are highly correlated, price distortions will be larger than if they average out.
  • The corporate-boundary argument implies that frontier AI secrecy itself may become a market-failure issue: if regulators cannot evaluate models, a precondition for any AI market is mandated internal-access rights, which would change how firms are organized and valued.
  • The 'race to the bottom' in designing agent preferences might be countered by certification or 'agent licensing' markets; a natural experiment would give designers a menu of reward functions in a laboratory economy and measure aggregate surplus.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This chapter, prepared for the NBER Handbook on the Economics of Transformative AI, argues that the possible large-scale deployment of AI agents with long-horizon autonomy will pose questions that existing economic models and methods are not obviously equipped to answer. It synthesizes recent work and lays out open questions in three broad areas: AI agents in markets (consumer/producer roles, prices and market power, search, collusion, bargaining, game-theoretic foundations, and the market for agents themselves), organizations (firm size, team production, AI-AI cooperation, and systemic fragility), and institutions (identity, records, licensing/regulation, and the legal boundaries of the firm). The chapter is intentionally a research agenda rather than a formal model or empirical study; its central claim is that economists will need new methods and theories to predict and shape the behavior of AI agents in an economy in which they play a significant role. The authors repeatedly hedge the deployment forecast as conditional, and they explicitly flag the limits of current evidence.

Significance. If the research agenda succeeds, this chapter will serve as a useful organizing survey for a fast-moving interdisciplinary area. Its strengths are the breadth of questions it identifies, the balance with which it presents evidence both for and against treating LLM-based systems as rational agents, and its sustained attention to the limits of current evaluations and benchmarks. It also usefully connects computer science concepts (alignment, finetuning, program equilibria, endogenous memory) to canonical economic ideas (incomplete contracts, general equilibrium, collusion, relational contracts, institutional design). The chapter does not need to prove that AI agents will actually be deployed at scale; it correctly notes that several of its motivating phenomena are already observable. No original derivations are attempted, but that is appropriate for a survey. The main value is to catalyze research, and the paper is appropriately calibrated: the strongest assertions are hedged, and missing evidence is acknowledged rather than papered over.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout, especially §1.1 and §2.2] Several results used to motivate open questions are from unreviewed working papers or arXiv preprints, including some by the authors (e.g., Raman et al. 2024; Dai and Koh 2024; Koh and Li 2025; Chen, Elliott, and Koh 2023). Because the chapter's persuasiveness partly rests on these being credible, I suggest adding a short note indicating the provisional status of preprints and distinguishing peer-reviewed from unpublished evidence.
  2. [§2.5] Typos: “program equilbiria” should be “program equilibria”; “developing a the concept” should be “developing the concept” (or “developing a concept”). Also in footnote 13, “can be exploiter” should be “can be exploited.”
  3. [§3.2] Minor grammar: “who workers interact with” should be “whom workers interact with.” The sentence is otherwise clear.
  4. [§4.1] “Should we build infrastructure that allows artificial agents to trade their records” is a suggestive question, but the normative referent of “we” (policymakers, platform designers, firms?) could be made explicit for clarity.
  5. [§3.1] The two “distinct” features of automation feedback loops—continuous improvement in the big-data regime and duplication of data/algorithmic improvements—are stated compactly. A sentence contrasting this with the human-knowledge transmission benchmark would help readers who are not already familiar with the data-economics literature.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the paper is a conditional research agenda, not a derivation, and its self-citations are supporting literature rather than load-bearing inputs.

full rationale

The manuscript makes no formal derivation; its central claim is a research agenda—'We think we will need new methods and theories to predict and shape the behavior of AI agents in an economy in which they play a significant role' (Section 1.1). This is an argument for future work, not a prediction derived from fitted inputs. The key enabling assumption, that agentic AI may be deployed at scale, is explicitly hedged in the abstract ('may be deployed') and in the conclusion ('If this vision materializes'), so it functions as a stated boundary condition rather than a result smuggled in as an output. The paper's many citations to prior work by the same authors (e.g., Hadfield-Menell and Hadfield 2019 on incomplete contracting and AI alignment; Chen, Elliott, and Koh 2023 on capability formation; Koh and Li 2025 on balanced social learning; Hadfield 2025 on legal infrastructure) are used as background literature or as examples of open questions, not as self-referential proofs, uniqueness theorems, or fitted parameters that force the conclusions. No equation is shown to reduce to another by construction, no fitted value is relabeled as a prediction, and no known result is renamed as an organizing principle. The chapter repeatedly acknowledges missing evidence and open questions, further indicating that it is not claiming to have derived its conclusions from its premises. Thus the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The agenda rests on a speculative deployment forecast and on assumptions about AI opacity and the relevance of standard economic benchmarks. These are reasonable but unproven premises drawn from industry announcements and AI-safety literature.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption AI agents with the ability to plan and execute complex tasks over long time horizons with little direct oversight may be deployed across the economy in the next decade.
    Stated in the abstract and Section 1.1; the entire chapter depends on this forecast.
  • domain assumption Current AI agents are built using machine learning that renders their goals and behavior opaque, creating an alignment problem.
    Section 1.1 cites Hadfield-Menell (2021) and Hadfield-Menell and Hadfield (2019).
  • standard math Standard economic models (Arrow-Debreu, game theory) are the appropriate benchmark for analyzing AI agents.
    Sections 2.1 and 2.5 use these models as reference points.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Economy of AI Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5BJQ3RGZ

@misc{pith2026250901063,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Economy of AI Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5BJQ3RGZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01063}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In the coming decade, artificially intelligent agents with the ability to plan and execute complex tasks over long time horizons with little direct oversight from humans may be deployed across the economy. This chapter surveys recent developments and highlights open questions for economists around how AI agents might interact with humans and with each other, shape markets and organizations, and what institutions might be required for well-functioning markets.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 14 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Diagon: A Programmable Testbed for AI-Agent Cognitive Labor Markets

    cs.CE 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0

    In a simulated economy of 25 LLM agents, a programmable market testbed shows that market rules and agent configuration reshape trade, quality, and wealth, with transparency and honesty norms backfiring.

  2. SoK: Blockchain Agent-to-Agent Payments

    q-fin.GN 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    The first systematization of blockchain-based agent-to-agent payments organizes designs into discovery, authorization, execution, and accounting stages while identifying trust and security gaps.

  3. The Poisoned Apple Effect: Strategic Manipulation of Mediated Markets via Technology Expansion of AI Agents

    cs.GT 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Expanding AI technologies in game-theoretic markets creates a 'Poisoned Apple' effect where agents release unused technologies to manipulate regulators into choosing market designs that benefit them at the expense of ...

  4. Supervised Fine-Tuning vs. In-Context Learning: An Equilibrium Analysis of LLM Personalization under Congestion

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    In a linear model of LLM personalization with shared compute, SFT beats ICL above a coverage-dependent signal-to-noise threshold, congestion can reverse that ranking, and adding SFT never reduces platform profit.

  5. SpendableStore: A UTXO-based Decentralized Data Store

    cs.DB 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A UTXO-based hybrid store embeds CRUD data objects in spendable outputs, supports multi-object transactions under Future Now Snapshot Isolation, and shows up to 16× higher throughput than BlockchainDB on a public Mainnet.

  6. Positive Alignment: Artificial Intelligence for Human Flourishing

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Positive Alignment introduces AI systems that support human flourishing pluralistically and proactively while remaining safe, as a necessary complement to traditional safety-focused alignment research.

  7. Diagon: A Programmable Testbed for AI-Agent Cognitive Labor Markets

    cs.CE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    DIAGON simulation shows agent markets produce 3.2 times more wealth than isolated agents, but institutional choices like transparency and competitive selection can reduce rather than increase performance.

  8. Precautionary Governance of Autonomous AI: Legal Personhood as Functional Instrument

    cs.CY 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Limited legal personhood for AI, implemented via purpose-bound operating companies within human-controlled holding structures, serves as a precautionary governance instrument that enables transparency and accountabili...

  9. Solipsistic Superintelligence is Unlikely to be Cooperative

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Solipsistic superintelligence developed via unilateral optimization is unlikely to cooperate due to endogenous non-stationarity creating an unclosable train-test-deploy gap.

  10. Positive Alignment: Artificial Intelligence for Human Flourishing

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Positive Alignment is defined as AI systems that support human flourishing pluralistically while staying safe and cooperative, presented as a necessary complement to existing safety-focused alignment research.

  11. Diagon: A Programmable Testbed for AI-Agent Cognitive Labor Markets

    cs.CE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Market exchange among AI agents can raise productivity over self-sufficient agents, but institutional rules such as identity transparency and stronger selection can degrade those gains.

  12. A Position Paper on Recommender Systems in the Era of Autonomous Agents

    cs.IR 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0

    A position paper proposes that transaction-oriented recommender systems be redesigned around client-side autonomous agents that query, compare, and verify options across platforms.

  13. Positive Alignment: Artificial Intelligence for Human Flourishing

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Positive Alignment is introduced as a distinct AI agenda that supports human flourishing through pluralistic and context-sensitive design, complementing traditional safety-focused alignment.

  14. LLM Consumer Behavior Theory: Foundations of a Novel Research Field

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Introduces LLM Consumer Behavior Theory to analyze consumer behavior when LLMs serve as autonomous decision-making agents in markets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 10 Pith papers · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abada, I. and X. Lambin (2023): Artificial intelligence: Can seemingly collusive outcomes be avoided? Management Science, 69, 5042--5065

    2023

  2. [2]

    (2021): Harms of AI, Tech

    Acemoglu, D. (2021): Harms of AI, Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research

    2021

  3. [3]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2025): The simple macroeconomics of AI, Economic Policy, 40, 13--58

    2025

  4. [4]

    Autor, J

    Acemoglu, D., D. Autor, J. Hazell, and P. Restrepo (2022): Artificial intelligence and jobs: Evidence from online vacancies, Journal of Labor Economics, 40, S293--S340

    2022

  5. [5]

    Moehring, and A

    Agarwal, N., A. Moehring, and A. Wolitzky (2025): Designing Human-AI Collaboration: A Sufficient-Statistic Approach,

    2025

  6. [6]

    McHale, and A

    Agrawal, A., J. McHale, and A. Oettl (2024): Artificial intelligence and scientific discovery: A model of prioritized search, Research Policy, 53, 104989

    2024

  7. [7]

    Schulz, J

    Akata, E., L. Schulz, J. Coda-Forno, S. J. Oh, M. Bethge, and E. Schulz (2025): Playing repeated games with large language models, Nature Human Behaviour, 1--11

    2025

  8. [8]

    Alchian, A. A. and H. Demsetz (1972): Production, information costs, and economic organization, The American economic review, 62, 777--795

    1972

  9. [9]

    Anthropic (2025): System Card: Claude Opus 4 & Claude Sonnet 4, Technical Report

    2025

  10. [10]

    Arrow, K. J. (1951): An Extension of the Basic Theorems of Classical Welfare Economics, in Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, ed. by J. Neyman, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 507--532

    1951

  11. [11]

    Arrow, K. J. and G. Debreu (1954): Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 265--290

    1954

  12. [12]

    Clark, D

    Assad, S., R. Clark, D. Ershov, and L. Xu (2024): Algorithmic pricing and competition: empirical evidence from the German retail gasoline market, Journal of Political Economy, 132, 723--771

    2024

  13. [13]

    Aumann, R. J. and S. Sorin (1989): Cooperation and bounded recall, Games and Economic Behavior, 1, 5--39

    1989

  14. [14]

    Kadavath, S

    Bai, Y., S. Kadavath, S. Kundu, A. Askell, J. Kernion, A. Jones, A. Chen, A. Goldie, A. Mirhoseini, C. McKinnon, et al. (2022): Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback, arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Chernozhukov, A

    Bajari, P., V. Chernozhukov, A. Horta c su, and J. Suzuki (2019): The impact of big data on firm performance: An empirical investigation, in AEA papers and proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 109, 33--37

    2019

  16. [16]

    Gibbons, and K

    Baker, G., R. Gibbons, and K. J. Murphy (2002): Relational Contracts and the Theory of the Firm, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 39--84

    2002

  17. [17]

    Ball, I. and J. Knoepfle (2023): Should the timing of inspections be predictable? arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01385

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Banchio, M. and G. Mantegazza (2022): Artificial intelligence and spontaneous collusion, arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.05946

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Banchio, M. and A. Skrzypacz (2022): Artificial intelligence and auction design, in Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, 30--31

    2022

  20. [20]

    (1987): Comportamento razionale ed equilibrio nei giochi e nelle situazioni sociali, Thesis, Bocconi University

    Battigalli, P. (1987): Comportamento razionale ed equilibrio nei giochi e nelle situazioni sociali, Thesis, Bocconi University

    1987

  21. [21]

    Hinton, A

    Bengio, Y., G. Hinton, A. Yao, D. Song, P. Abbeel, T. Darrell, Y. N. Harari, Y.-Q. Zhang, L. Xue, S. Shalev-Shwartz, et al. (2024): Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress, Science, 384, 842--845

    2024

  22. [22]

    Bonatti, and A

    Bergemann, D., A. Bonatti, and A. Smolin (2025): The Economics of Large Language Models: Token Allocation, Fine-Tuning, and Optimal Pricing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07736

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Bergemann, D. and S. Morris (2013): Robust predictions in games with incomplete information, Econometrica, 81, 1251--1308

    2013

  24. [24]

    Bernheim, B. D., L. Braghieri, A. Mart \' nez-Marquina, and D. Zuckerman (2021): A theory of chosen preferences, American Economic Review, 111, 720--754

    2021

  25. [25]

    Betley, J., D. Tan, N. Warncke, A. Sztyber-Betley, X. Bao, M. Soto, N. Labenz, and O. Evans (2025): Emergent Misalignment: Narrow finetuning can produce broadly misaligned LLMs , arXiv

    2025

  26. [26]

    Bhaskar, V., G. J. Mailath, and S. Morris (2013): A foundation for Markov equilibria in sequential games with finite social memory, Review of Economic Studies, 80, 925--948

    2013

  27. [27]

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2016): Amendments to the Capital Plan and Stress Test Rules, Federal Register, 81 FR 67239

    2016

  28. [28]

    Bommasani, R., D. A. Hudson, E. Adeli, R. Altman, S. Arora, S. von Arx, M. S. Bernstein, J. Bohg, A. Bosselut, E. Brunskill, et al. (2021): On the opportunities and risks of foundation models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Brown, Z. Y. and A. MacKay (2023): Competition in pricing algorithms, American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 15, 109--156

    2023

  30. [30]

    Calzolari, V

    Calvano, E., G. Calzolari, V. Denicolo, and S. Pastorello (2020): Artificial intelligence, algorithmic pricing, and collusion, American Economic Review, 110, 3267--3297

    2020

  31. [31]

    Krueger, and D

    Casper, S., D. Krueger, and D. Hadfield-Menell (2025): Pitfalls of Evidence-Based AI Policy, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09618

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Maccheroni, M

    Cerreia-Vioglio, S., F. Maccheroni, M. Marinacci, and A. Rustichini (2018): Law of demand and stochastic choice, Theory and Decision, 1--17

    2018

  33. [33]

    Chan, A., K. Wei, S. Huang, N. Rajkumar, E. Perrier, S. Lazar, G. K. Hadfield, and M. Anderljung (2025): Infrastructure for AI Agents, Transactions on Machine Learning Research, forthcoming; previously available as arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10114

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Ghersengorin, and S

    Chen, E., A. Ghersengorin, and S. Petersen (2024): Imperfect recall and AI delegation,

    2024

  35. [35]

    Elliott, and A

    Chen, J., M. Elliott, and A. Koh ( 2023 ): Capability accumulation and conglomeratization in the information age, Journal of Economic Theory, 210

    2023

  36. [36]

    Chen, Y., T. X. Liu, Y. Shan, and S. Zhong (2023): The emergence of economic rationality of GPT, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120, e2316205120

    2023

  37. [37]

    (2025): The Economic Structure of Trade Secret Law, Minnesota Law Review, forthcoming

    Chiang, T.-J. (2025): The Economic Structure of Trade Secret Law, Minnesota Law Review, forthcoming

    2025

  38. [38]

    Cho, I. and N. Williams (2024): Collusive Outcomes Without Collusion, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07177

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Fudenberg, and A

    Clark, D., D. Fudenberg, and A. Wolitzky (2021): Record-keeping and cooperation in large societies, The Review of Economic Studies, 88, 2179--2209

    2021

  40. [40]

    Coase, R. H. (1937): The nature of the firm (1937), Economica, 4, 396--405

    1937

  41. [41]

    Cohen, M. K., N. Kolt, Y. Bengio, G. K. Hadfield, and S. Russell (2024): Regulating advanced artificial agents, Science, 384, 36--38

    2024

  42. [42]

    Comunale, M. and A. Manera (2024): A Review of the Academic Literature and Policy Actions, WP /24/65, March 2024, International Monetary Fund Working Papers, 2024

    2024

  43. [43]

    (2019): Designing preferences, beliefs, and identities for artificial intelligence, in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol

    Conitzer, V. (2019): Designing preferences, beliefs, and identities for artificial intelligence, in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33, 9755--9759

    2019

  44. [44]

    Oesterheld, and V

    Cooper, E., C. Oesterheld, and V. Conitzer (2025): Characterising Simulation-Based Program Equilibria, in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, 13735--13744

    2025

  45. [45]

    Dennis, and S

    Critch, A., M. Dennis, and S. Russell (2022): Cooperative and uncooperative institution designs: Surprises and problems in open-source game theory, arXiv

    2022

  46. [46]

    Dai, Y. and A. Koh (2024): Flexible Demand Manipulation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24191

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Incentive Design with Spillovers

    Dasaratha, K., B. Golub, and A. Shah (2024): Incentive design with spillovers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Dekel, E., J. C. Ely, and O. Yilankaya (2007): Evolution of preferences, The Review of Economic Studies, 74, 685--704

    2007

  49. [49]

    Mirrokni, R

    Deng, Y., V. Mirrokni, R. P. Leme, H. Zhang, and S. Zuo (2024): Llms at the bargaining table, in Agentic Markets Workshop at ICML, vol. 2024

    2024

  50. [50]

    Dou, W. W., I. Goldstein, and Y. Ji (2024): Ai-powered trading, algorithmic collusion, and price efficiency, Jacobs Levy Equity Management Center for Quantitative Financial Research Paper

    2024

  51. [51]

    Petrov, B

    Eiras, F., A. Petrov, B. Vidgen, C. S. d. Witt, F. Pizzati, K. Elkins, S. Mukhopadhyay, A. Bibi, B. Csaba, F. Steibel, F. Barez, G. Smith, G. Guadagni, J. Chun, J. Cabot, J. M. Imperial, J. A. Nolazco-Flores, L. Landay, M. Jackson, P. Röttger, P. H. S. Torr, T. Darrell, Y. S. Lee, and J. Foerster (2024): Near to Mid-term Risks and Opportunities of Open-So...

    2024

  52. [52]

    Elliott, M. and B. Golub (2022): Networks and economic fragility, Annual Review of Economics, 14, 665--696

    2022

  53. [53]

    Ely, J. C. and B. Szentes (2023): Natural Selection of Artificial Intelligence, Tech. rep., Working Paper

    2023

  54. [54]

    Farboodi, M. and L. Veldkamp (2021): A model of the data economy, Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, MA, USA

    2021

  55. [55]

    Fershtman, C. and K. L. Judd (1987): Equilibrium incentives in oligopoly, The American Economic Review, 927--940

    1987

  56. [56]

    Fish, S., Y. A. Gonczarowski, and R. I. Shorrer (2024): Algorithmic collusion by large language models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00806, 7

    arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Shephard, M

    Fish, S., J. Shephard, M. Li, R. I. Shorrer, and Y. A. Gonczarowski (2025): Econevals: Benchmarks and litmus tests for llm agents in unknown environments, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18825

    arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Friedman, D. D., W. M. Landes, and R. A. Posner (1991): Some Economics of Trade Secret Law, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 61--72

    1991

  59. [59]

    Lanzani, and P

    Fudenberg, D., G. Lanzani, and P. Strack (2024): Selective-Memory Equilibrium, Journal of Political Economy, 132, 3978--4020

    2024

  60. [60]

    Fudenberg, D. and D. K. Levine (1993): Self-confirming equilibrium, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 523--545

    1993

  61. [61]

    2, MIT press

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (1998): The theory of learning in games, vol. 2, MIT press

    1998

  62. [62]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2016): Whither game theory? Towards a theory of learning in games, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30, 151--170

    2016

  63. [63]

    Gallini, N. and S. Scotchmer (2002): Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System? in Innovation Policy and the Economy, ed. by A. B. Jaffe, J. Lerner, and S. Stern, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, vol. 2, 51--78

    2002

  64. [64]

    Gans, J. S. (2025): A Quest for AI Knowledge, Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research

    2025

  65. [65]

    Stewart, J

    Grace, K., H. Stewart, J. F. Sandk \"u hler, S. Thomas, B. Weinstein-Raun, and J. Brauner (2024): Thousands of AI authors on the future of AI, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02843

    arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    Grant, R. M. (1996): Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm, Strategic management journal, 17, 109--122

    1996

  67. [67]

    Green, E. J. and R. H. Porter (1984): Noncooperative collusion under imperfect price information, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 87--100

    1984

  68. [68]

    Milgrom, and B

    Greif, A., P. Milgrom, and B. R. Weingast (1994): Coordination, Commitment, and Enforcement: The Case of the Merchant Guild, Journal of Political Economy, 102, 745--776

    1994

  69. [69]

    Grossman, S. J. and O. D. Hart (1986): The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory of vertical and lateral integration, Journal of political economy, 94, 691--719

    1986

  70. [70]

    Gr \"u ne-Yanoff, T. and S. O. Hansson (2009): Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology, vol. 42, Springer Science & Business Media

    2009

  71. [71]

    Hadfield, G. K. (2022): Legal markets, Journal of Economic Literature, 60, 1264--1315

    2022

  72. [72]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2025): Legal Infrastructure for AI Governance, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, forthcoming

    2025

  73. [73]

    Hadfield, G. K. and J. Clark (2023): Regulatory markets: The future of AI governance, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04914

    arXiv 2023

  74. [74]

    (2021): The Principal-Agent Alignment Problem in Artificial Intelligence, Ph.D

    Hadfield-Menell, D. (2021): The Principal-Agent Alignment Problem in Artificial Intelligence, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley

    2021

  75. [75]

    Hadfield-Menell, D., A. D. Dragan, P. Abbeel, and S. Russell (2017 a ): The Off-Switch Game. in AAAI Workshops

    2017

  76. [76]

    Hadfield-Menell, D. and G. K. Hadfield (2019): Incomplete contracting and AI alignment, in Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 417--422

    2019

  77. [77]

    Milli, P

    Hadfield-Menell, D., S. Milli, P. Abbeel, S. J. Russell, and A. Dragan (2017 b ): Inverse reward design, Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  78. [78]

    Hammond, L., A. Chan, J. Clifton, J. Hoelscher-Obermaier, A. Khan, E. McLean, C. Smith, W. Barfuss, J. Foerster, T. Gaven c iak, et al. (2025): Multi-agent risks from advanced ai, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14143

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    Haupt, A. A., P. J. Christoffersen, M. Damani, and D. Hadfield-Menell (2022): Formal Contracts Mitigate Social Dilemmas in Multi-Agent RL, arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.10469

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  80. [80]

    Hayek, F. A. (1945): The Use of Knowledge in Society, American Economic Review, 35, 519--528

    work page 1945

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.