Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 86 references

A Survey on Hypergame Theory: Modelling Misaligned Perceptions and Nested Beliefs for Multi-Agent Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Surveying 44 agent-compatible applications, this review argues hypergame theory has settled into a cybersecurity-heavy, graph-based mainstream: practical models simplify the formalism, and no formal hypergame language exists.

desk verdict A useful first systematic map of agent-compatible hypergame applications, with plausible but method-sensitive trend claims; the 44/49 count and single-engine manually filtered corpus should be fixed before the roadmap is taken as established. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19593 v3 pith:BIHNLYKK submitted 2025-07-25 cs.AI cs.MA

Vince Trencsenyi , Agnieszka Mensfelt , Kostas Stathis This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.MA
keywords hypergametheorymulti-agentsystemsperceptualgamesmisalignedperceptionsnestedbeliefsofminddeceptionmodelingsystematicreview
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This survey sets out to establish how hypergame theory—game theory in which each agent plays its own subjective 'perceptual game' rather than a shared game—has been turned into a working tool for multi-agent systems. Screening 320 papers down to 44 agent-compatible applications across cybersecurity, robotics, social simulation, communications, and general game theory, it classifies each by domain, model type, integration fidelity, and computational task. Its central finding is that the field shows clear prevailing tendencies: hierarchical and graph-based hypergames dominate deceptive reasoning, practical deployments tend to flatten or simplify the theoretical frameworks, the hypergame normal form has barely spread beyond cybersecurity, and no formal hypergame description language exists. It also finds that human-agent and agent-agent misalignment remain largely unexplored territory. If this assessment is right, it gives researchers a concrete roadmap for moving hypergames from post-hoc conflict analysis into dynamic agent architectures.

What carries the argument

The central object is the hypergame, a tuple $H=(N,\{G_i\})$ in which each player $i$ acts inside its own perceptual game $G_i=(N_i, A_i, R_i)$—its subjective list of who is playing, what actions exist, and how outcomes are ranked. Two formalisms carry the theory and the survey's taxonomy: hierarchical multi-level hypergames, which nest viewpoints through perceptual functions $f_i: \Gamma_i \to \Gamma_{ij}$ so that a third-level hypergame encodes what $i$ believes $j$ believes about $k$'s game, analyzed with the Hypergame Nash Equilibrium (HNE), a strategy profile that is a Nash equilibrium in every player's subjective game; and the hypergame normal form (HNF), a decision-theoretic matrix in which a row player assigns belief-context probabilities to candidate opponent mixed strategies and evaluates hyperstrategies by hypergame expected utility (HEU), which mixes expected utility with a fear-of-being-outguessed parameter. The survey also distinguishes underperceived, overperceived, and misperceived game components, and caps nested reasoning at level three on the empirical ground that human strategic reasoning seldom goes deeper.

What would settle it

Run the same screening funnel on a multi-database search (Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, dblp) using 'hypergame' and variants such as 'perceptual game,' 'subjective game,' and 'misperception,' with forward and backward citation chasing: if this surfaces many agent-compatible applications the single-query corpus missed—especially HNF-based models outside cybersecurity, or an existing agent-oriented hypergame language—then the survey's prevalence and gap claims would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is an empirical map of a small field: after a keyword search, deduplication, language filtering, and manual relevance and agent-compatibility screening, 44 papers remain in which hypergames actually shape an agent's reasoning, decisions, or learning. The survey shows that multi-level hypergames dominate (35 papers), with graph-based models the single most common formalization (14 papers), concentrated in cybersecurity attack-defense and defensive deception; only nine works use HNF-based solutions, all inside cybersecurity; reasoning is the dominant task (33 papers); and while 35 of the 44 works are 'complete' integrations of a hypergame model, theoretical papers still outnumber experimental and practical ones combined, and practical systems disproportionately resort to flattened, perceptual, or HEU-based simplifications. From this distribution the paper argues that hypergame theory is being adopted selectively—deeply where deception and nested beliefs are mission-critical, shallowly elsewhere—and that the missing infrastructure (a formal language and dynamic belief-update support) is what keeps it from broader deployment in multi-agent systems.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that one Google Scholar keyword search for the exact phrase 'hypergame theory,' plus the authors' manual judgments of relevance and 'agent-compatibility,' captured the whole relevant literature—if studies using other terminology or outside that index were missed, the trends and gaps the survey reports could be artifacts of the search rather than facts about the field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cybersecurity is the proving ground: 24 of the 44 agent-compatible papers sit there, and it is the only domain in which HNF-based models appear.
  • Practical applications in the corpus benefit most from simplified formalisms—perceptual games, flattened L-th order models, and HEU-based heuristics—rather than from full analytical frameworks.
  • The absence of a formal hypergame language is a structural gap: existing tools such as HML and HAT are static or single-formalism, and future languages should draw on epistemic logic, GDL-III, and theory-of-mind formalisms.
  • Graph-based and HEU-based models are the scalable formulations that integrate with learning algorithms, making them the natural carriers for hypergame-based learning.
  • Planning is the least-used task (4 papers), which the survey attributes to the lack of expressive agent-compatible formalisms, marking planning support as a clear next step.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A 'minimal viable hypergame' pattern—one perceptual game per agent plus a belief-update rule—could be distilled from the flattened and perceptual models in the corpus, giving practitioners a standard starting point the survey itself does not extract.
  • The graph-based dominance suggests a concrete unification test: whether hypergames on graphs with temporal-logic objectives can be re-expressed in HNF belief-context terms, which would give the normal form the scalability it currently lacks.
  • The single-keyword corpus leaves a checkable opening: an expanded search using terms such as 'subjective game,' 'misperception game,' and 'theory of mind' would show whether HNF's confinement to cybersecurity is a real property of the literature or an artifact of the query.
  • The human-agent misalignment gap points toward an untried use: hypergame models of AI systems that misperceive human goals would give alignment failures a game-theoretic vocabulary that purely probabilistic frameworks only approximate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a systematic review of hypergame theory applications in multi-agent systems (MAS). It provides a formal introduction to hypergame theory, hierarchical hypergames, and the Hypergame Normal Form (HNF), then defines agent-compatibility criteria and applies them to build a corpus of 44 selected papers (49 in the arXiv metadata abstract). The authors classify each paper by domain, sub-domain, hypergame formalism, integration fidelity, and computational task, and report trends: hierarchical and graph-based models dominate deceptive-reasoning applications, practical deployments simplify the theoretical frameworks, HNF adoption is limited, and no agent-based hypergame modeling language has emerged. The paper concludes with a roadmap for hypergame-based MAS research, including formal languages and human-agent misalignment.

Significance. The survey fills a genuine gap: no prior systematic review examines hypergame theory from an MAS/agent perspective. The detailed classification tables (Tables 3 and 4) and the author-level co-authorship analysis are useful resources, and the explicit selection funnel in Section 3.1 is a strength for reproducibility. If the corpus is representative, the observed tendencies and gaps provide actionable guidance for researchers. However, because the central claims are prevalence claims over a manually filtered corpus from a single Google Scholar query, the value of the roadmap depends on the robustness of the corpus construction; the current manuscript does not yet establish that robustness.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1 and §4.1.1] The agent-compatibility filter is not neutral with respect to model type, and this threatens the central prevalence claims. Section 3.1 excludes 69 of 113 papers because they used hypergames 'solely from an analyst perspective,' but HNF and hierarchical hypergames were originally developed as post-hoc analytical frameworks (Vane and Lehner, 2000; Wang et al., 1988), whereas the graph-based LTL-synthesis line of work (Kulkarni and Fu, 2019–2024) is designed for reactive agent controllers. Consequently, the observations in §4.1.1 that 'graph-based models in particular stand out as the most popular implementation' and that 'HNF has seen limited use in agentic contexts' may be partly consequences of the inclusion rule rather than properties of the literature. The authors should provide a sensitivity analysis: re-run the prevalence statistics in Figures 4, 9, 10, and 12 on the full 113 relevant papers (including the 69 analyst-perspective papers), or at least report the model-type distribution within the excluded set, and ideally reconstruct an independent corpus using additional search terms such as 'hypergame normal form,' 'hierarchical hypergame,' and 'hypergames on graphs.'
  2. [§3.1 and Figure 1] The funnel numbers are internally inconsistent, which undermines the reproducibility of the systematic review. The text reports 320 unique results, 30 duplicates removed, 17 non-English papers excluded, 154 papers excluded by relevance filtering, and then 'From the remaining 113 works' 69 papers excluded by the agent-compatibility filter, giving 44. Figure 1, however, reports 29 duplicates, 16 non-English, 153 irrelevant, 119 relevant, 44 agentic, 69 analytical, and 6 surveys; 119 + 198 = 317, not 320. The relationship between the '113 works' in the text and the '119 relevant' in the figure is unexplained, and the handling of the 6 survey papers (retained for comparison but not in the core set) should be made explicit in the funnel. Because the corpus is the evidence base for all prevalence claims, these arithmetic and procedural inconsistencies must be corrected.
  3. [§4.2] The claim that 'an agent-based hypergame modeling language or simulation platform has not emerged' is presented as a structural gap, but the evidence base is the 44-paper filtered corpus, and the paper itself names HML (Brumley, 2003), HAT (Gibson, 2013), and SPA (Vane, cited in Kovach et al., 2015) in the same section. Absence from this pre-selected, agent-compatible corpus is weak evidence of absence in the broader literature. A targeted search for hypergame languages and tools—for example, querying 'hypergame markup language,' 'HYPANT,' 'hypergame analysis tool,' and 'hypergame normal form' in addition to 'hypergame theory'—should be conducted before concluding that no formal language exists. At minimum, the paper should distinguish 'no language in our corpus' from 'no language in the literature.'
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and §3.1] The arXiv metadata abstract says 49 selected studies while the full-text abstract, Section 3.1, and the conclusion all say 44; this discrepancy must be resolved.
  2. [§2.2] In the hypergame definition, the relation R_{ij} is defined as a subset of A_i × A_j, but preferences are over joint outcomes, not over an opponent's action set; the rock-paper-scissors example uses ordered pairs of outcomes, so the definition should read R_{ij} ⊆ A_i × A_i.
  3. [§3.3 and §4.1.1] Section 3.3 reports 7 papers referring to HNF and 2 hybrid papers, while Section 4.1.1 states that 'only 9 works adopt HNF-based solutions'; the paper should clarify whether the 9 includes the hybrid category and make the terminology consistent across Figures 4 and 9.
  4. [§3.4.2 and §4.1.1] Section 3.4.2 says experimental and practical works each number 11, but Section 4.1.1 refers to 'the 14 works we classified as practical' in connection with Figure 11; these counts should be reconciled.
  5. [§3.1 and Figure 1] The text and the figure give slightly different counts for duplicates (30 vs. 29), non-English papers (17 vs. 16), and irrelevant papers (154 vs. 153); the numbers should be made to match exactly or the rounding should be explained.
  6. [§2.3] There is a typo in the phrase 'a standard game-theoretic without misaligned perceptions'—the word 'model' or 'game' appears to be missing—and '0 th' should be formatted consistently as '0th'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: this is a survey that classifies external literature rather than deriving predictions from its own definitions or fitted parameters.

full rationale

The paper is a systematic review, not a derivation. Its central outputs are classification counts and prevalence claims over a 44-paper corpus selected by a documented funnel (keyword query, duplicate removal, language filter, relevance filter, agent-compatibility filter). None of these claims are obtained by fitting a parameter to data and then renaming that fit as a prediction, and no formal result is defined in terms of the conclusion it is said to support. The formal background in Sections 2.2-2.4 (hypergame tuples, hierarchical hypergames, HNF, HEU) is standard material attributed to Bennett, Wang et al., and Vane, and the survey does not claim to derive new theorems from these definitions. The authors do include two of their own prior papers (Trencsenyi et al., 2025a,b) in the reviewed corpus and in the social-simulations discussion, but these entries are classified like any other surveyed work and are not used to justify the review's classification framework or prevalence claims; the self-citation is therefore not load-bearing. The skeptical concern that the agent-compatibility filter may correlate with model type and thereby shape the observed prevalence of graph-based versus HNF models is a legitimate threat to external validity and corpus representativeness, but it is not circularity: the filter is applied externally to the literature, and the resulting claims are empirical generalizations that could in principle be tested against a differently constructed corpus. Similarly, the abstract/full-text discrepancy between 49 and 44 selected studies is a reproducibility issue, not a circular step. No equation in the paper reduces to an earlier fitted quantity, no solution concept is assumed to be what the survey sets out to prove, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' own prior work is imported to force a choice. The survey is therefore self-contained as a descriptive review, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities appear in the survey. The central claims rest on standard game-theoretic background, the cited hypergame formalisms, and the authors' own screening and classification choices.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math Standard game-theoretic definitions (players, actions, payoffs, Nash equilibrium) in Section 2.1 are assumed as background.
    These definitions position hypergames as an extension of classical game theory and are not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The hypergame formalisms of Bennett (1980), Wang et al. (1988), and Vane and Lehner (2000) are accepted as accurate representations of those theories.
    The survey classifies papers according to these formalisms without re-deriving or independently validating them.
  • ad hoc to paper The author-defined agent-compatibility criteria and domain/task categories in Section 3.1 are a valid lens for assessing the literature.
    These criteria determine which 44 papers are included and therefore underpin all prevalence and gap claims in the review.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Survey on Hypergame Theory: Modelling Misaligned Perceptions and Nested Beliefs for Multi-Agent Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BIHNLYKK

@misc{pith2026250719593,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Survey on Hypergame Theory: Modelling Misaligned Perceptions and Nested Beliefs for Multi-Agent Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BIHNLYKK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19593}
}
read the original abstract

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 49 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.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , Benke , L

    bchapter Aitchison , M. , Benke , L. , Sweetser , P. : Learning to deceive in multi-agent hidden role games . In: Sarkadi , S. , Wright , B. , Masters , P. , McBurney , P. (eds.) Deceptive AI , pp. 55 -- 75 . Springer , Cham ( 2021 ) bchapter

    2021

  2. [2]

    , Zhu , M

    bchapter Anwar , A.H. , Zhu , M. , Wan , Z. , Cho , J.-H. , Kamhoua , C.A. , Singh , M.P. : Honeypot-based cyber deception against malicious reconnaissance via hypergame theory . In: GLOBECOM 2022 - 2022 IEEE Global Communications Conference , pp. 3393 -- 3398 ( 2022 ). 10.1109/GLOBECOM48099.2022.10000813 bchapter

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    , Andersen , M.B

    barticle Bolander , T. , Andersen , M.B. : Epistemic planning for single-and multi-agent systems . Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 21 ( 1 ), 9 -- 34 ( 2011 ) 10.3166/jancl.21.9-34 barticle

    doi:10.3166/jancl.21.9-34 2011

  4. [4]

    , Bhattacharya , A

    barticle Bakker , C. , Bhattacharya , A. , Chatterjee , S. , Vrabie , D.L. : Learning and information manipulation: Repeated hypergames for cyber-physical security . IEEE Control Systems Letters 4 ( 2 ), 295 -- 300 ( 2020 ) 10.1109/LCSYS.2019.2925681 barticle

    work page arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    , Bhattacharya , A

    botherref Bakker , C. , Bhattacharya , A. , Chatterjee , S. , Vrabie , D.L. : Metagames and hypergames for deception-robust control. ACM Trans. Cyber-Phys. Syst. 5(3) (2021) 10.1145/3439430 botherref

    work page doi:10.1145/3439430 2021

  6. [6]

    , Dando , M.R

    barticle Bennett , P.G. , Dando , M.R. : Complex strategic analysis: A hypergame study of the fall of france . The Journal of the Operational Research Society 30 ( 1 ), 23 -- 32 ( 1979 ) barticle

    1979

  7. [7]

    : Toward a theory of hypergames

    barticle Bennett , P. : Toward a theory of hypergames . Omega 5 ( 6 ), 749 -- 751 ( 1977 ) 10.1016/0305-0483(77)90056-1 barticle

    work page doi:10.1016/0305-0483(77)90056-1 1977

  8. [8]

    : Hypergames: Developing a model of conflict

    barticle Bennett , P.G. : Hypergames: Developing a model of conflict . Futures 12 ( 6 ), 489 -- 507 ( 1980 ) 10.1016/0016-3287(80)90005-1 barticle

    work page doi:10.1016/0016-3287(80)90005-1 1980

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    , Huxham , C

    barticle Bennett , P. , Huxham , C. , Dando , M. : Shipping in crisis: A trial run for ‘live’ application of the hypergame approach . Omega 9 ( 6 ), 579 -- 594 ( 1981 ) 10.1016/0305-0483(81)90046-3 barticle

    1981 doi

  2. [10]

    , Jaffe , S

    botherref Batzilis , D. , Jaffe , S. , Levitt , S. , List , J.A. , Picel , J. : Behavior in strategic settings: Evidence from a million rock-paper-scissors games. Games 10(2) (2019) 10.3390/g10020018 botherref

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    , Memon , Z.A

    barticle Bosse , T. , Memon , Z.A. , Treur , J. : A recursive bdi agent model for theory of mind and its applications . Applied Artificial Intelligence 25 ( 1 ), 1 -- 44 ( 2011 ) 10.1080/08839514.2010.529259 barticle

    2011

  4. [12]

    : Hypant: a hypergame analysis tool

    botherref Brumley , L. : Hypant: a hypergame analysis tool. PhD thesis, Monash University (2003) botherref

    2003

  5. [13]

    , Smets , S

    barticle Baltag , A. , Smets , S. : A qualitative theory of dynamic interactive belief revision . Logic and the foundations of game and decision theory (LOFT 7) 3 , 9 -- 58 ( 2008 ) 10.1007/978-3-319-20451-2_39 barticle

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    , Chen , G

    barticle Cheng , Z. , Chen , G. , Hong , Y. : Single-leader-multiple-followers stackelberg security game with hypergame framework . IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 17 , 954 -- 969 ( 2022 ) 10.1109/TIFS.2022.3155294 barticle

    2022

  7. [15]

    , Ho , T.-H

    barticle Camerer , C.F. , Ho , T.-H. , Chong , J.-K. : A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games* . The Quarterly Journal of Economics 119 ( 3 ), 861 -- 898 ( 2004 ) 10.1162/0033553041502225 barticle

    2004 doi

  8. [16]

    : Computable analysis and game theory: From foundations to applications

    botherref Crook , T. : Computable analysis and game theory: From foundations to applications. Phd thesis, Swansea University, Wales, UK (2024). 10.23889/SUThesis.67150 . https://doi.org/10.23889/SUThesis.67150 botherref

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    , Zhu , M

    bbook Cho , J.-H. , Zhu , M. , Singh , M. : In: Al-Shaer , E. , Wei , J. , Hamlen , K.W. , Wang , C. (eds.) Modeling and Analysis of Deception Games Based on Hypergame Theory , pp. 49 -- 74 . Springer , Cham ( 2019 ). 10.1007/978-3-030-02110-8_4 bbook

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    , Deshpande , H

    bchapter Dharmadhikari , M. , Deshpande , H. , Dang , T. , Alexis , K. : Hypergame-based adaptive behavior path planning for combined exploration and visual search . In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 269 -- 275 ( 2021 ). 10.1109/ICR...

    2021

  11. [19]

    , Eldosouky , A.R

    bchapter Das , T. , Eldosouky , A.R. , Sengupta , S. : Think smart, play dumb: Analyzing deception in hardware trojan detection using game theory . In: 2020 International Conference on Cyber Security and Protection of Digital Services (Cyber Security) , pp. 1 -- 8 ( 2020 ). 10...

    2020

  12. [20]

    , Siniscalchi , M

    bchapter Dekel , E. , Siniscalchi , M. : Chapter 12 - epistemic game theory . In: Young , H.P. , Zamir , S. (eds.) Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications vol. 4 , pp. 619 -- 702 . Elsevier , North Holland ( 2015 ). 10.1016/B978-0-444-53766-9.00012-4 bchapter

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    , Dignum , F

    barticle Erdogan , E. , Dignum , F. , Verbrugge , R. , Yolum , P. : Toma: Computational theory of mind with abstractions for hybrid intelligence . Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 82 , 285 -- 311 ( 2025 ) 10.1613/jair.1.16402 barticle

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    , Ferguson-Walter , K

    barticle Fugate , S. , Ferguson-Walter , K. : Artificial intelligence and game theory models for defending critical networks with cyber deception . AI Magazine 40 ( 1 ), 49 -- 62 ( 2019 ) 10.1609/aimag.v40i1.2849 barticle

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    , Almeshekah , M.H

    bchapter Gutierrez , C.N. , Almeshekah , M.H. , Bagchi , S. , Spafford , E.H. : A hypergame analysis for ersatzpasswords . In: Janczewski , L.J. , Kuty owski , M. (eds.) ICT Systems Security and Privacy Protection , pp. 47 -- 61 . Springer , Cham ( 2018 ) bchapter

    2018

  16. [24]

    , Cortés , J

    bchapter Gharesifard , B. , Cortés , J. : Evolution of the perception about the opponent in hypergames . In: 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pp. 1076 -- 1081 ( 2010 ). 10.1109/CDC.2010.5718174 bchapter

    2010

  17. [25]

    , Cortes , J

    bchapter Gharesifard , B. , Cortes , J. : Exploration of misperceptions in hypergames . In: 2011 49th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton) , pp. 1565 -- 1570 ( 2011 ). 10.1109/Allerton.2011.6120354 bchapter

    2011

  18. [26]

    , Cortés , J

    bchapter Gharesifard , B. , Cortés , J. : Learning of equilibria and misperceptions in hypergames with perfect observations . In: Proceedings of the 2011 American Control Conference , pp. 4045 -- 4050 ( 2011 ). 10.1109/ACC.2011.5991206 bchapter

    2011

  19. [27]

    , Cortés , J

    bchapter Gharesifard , B. , Cortés , J. : Stealthy strategies for deception in hypergames with asymmetric information . In: 2011 50th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference , pp. 5762 -- 5767 ( 2011 ). 10.1109/CDC.2011.6160979 bchapter

    2011

  20. [28]

    , Cortes , J

    barticle Gharesifard , B. , Cortes , J. : Evolution of players' misperceptions in hypergames under perfect observations . IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 57 ( 7 ), 1627 -- 1640 ( 2012 ) 10.1109/TAC.2011.2180113 barticle

    2012

  21. [29]

    , Cortés , J

    barticle Gharesifard , B. , Cortés , J. : Stealthy deception in hypergames under informational asymmetry . IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems 44 ( 6 ), 785 -- 795 ( 2014 ) 10.1109/TSMC.2013.2277695 barticle

    2014

  22. [30]

    : A Primer in Game Theory

    bbook Gibbons , R. : A Primer in Game Theory . Pearson Education Limited , Harlow, Essex, United Kingdom ( 1992 ) bbook

    1992

  23. [31]

    : Applied hypergame theory for network defense

    botherref Gibson , A.S. : Applied hypergame theory for network defense. M.s. thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology (2013). Theses and Dissertations botherref

    2013

  24. [32]

    : Decision theory: An overview

    bchapter Hansson , S.O. : Decision theory: An overview . In: International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science ( 2011 ) bchapter

    2011

  25. [33]

    : Games with incomplete information played by 'bayesian' players, parts i-iii

    barticle Harsanyi , J. : Games with incomplete information played by 'bayesian' players, parts i-iii . Management Science 14 , 159 -- 182320334486502 ( 1967-1968 ) barticle

    1967

  26. [34]

    , Cybenko , G

    bchapter House , J.T. , Cybenko , G. : Hypergame theory applied to cyber attack and defense . In: Sensors, and Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I) Technologies for Homeland Security and Homeland Defense IX , vol. 7666 , pp. 39 -- 49 ( 2010 ). 10.1117/12.85...

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    , Gao , J

    bchapter He , B. , Gao , J. , Guan , X. , Cheng , Z. : Leader-follower security games in uav communication with deception . In: Third International Conference on Computer Science and Communication Technology (ICCSCT 2022) , vol. 12506 , pp. 347 -- 352 ( 2022 ). 10.1117/12.2662...

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    , Ma , X

    bchapter Hai , X. , Ma , X. , Zhang , W. : The influence of the uncertainty on drones’ cognition in unmanned aerial vehicles communication network . In: Proceedings of the 2023 9th International Conference on Computing and Artificial Intelligence . ICCAI '23 , pp. 589 -- 594 ....

    2023

  29. [37]

    , Wang , X

    bchapter Jia , G. , Wang , X. , Liu , H. , Wu , H. : A deception defense strategy based on game theory . In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Security, Privacy, Anonymity in Computation and Communication and Storage (SpaCCS) , pp. 27 -- 33 ( 2024 ). 10.1109/SpaCCS63173.20...

    2024

  30. [38]

    , Al-Kadhimi , A.A

    botherref Khalid , M.N.A. , Al-Kadhimi , A.A. , Singh , M.M. : Recent developments in game-theory approaches for the detection and defense against advanced persistent threats (apts): A systematic review. Mathematics 11(6) (2023) 10.3390/math11061353 botherref

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    , Cohen , M.S

    botherref Kulkarni , A.N. , Cohen , M.S. , Kamhoua , C.A. , Fu , J. : Integrated Resource Allocation and Strategy Synthesis in Safety Games on Graphs with Deception (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.14436 botherref

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    , Fu , J

    bchapter Kulkarni , A.N. , Fu , J. : Opportunistic synthesis in reactive games under information asymmetry . In: 2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pp. 5323 -- 5329 ( 2019 ). 10.1109/CDC40024.2019.9029851 bchapter

    2019

  33. [41]

    , Fu , J

    bchapter Kulkarni , A.N. , Fu , J. : Synthesis of deceptive strategies in reachability games with action misperception . In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence . IJCAI'20 ( 2021 ) bchapter

    2021

  34. [42]

    , Fu , J

    bchapter Kulkarni , A.N. , Fu , J. : A theory of hypergames on graphs for synthesizing dynamic cyber defense with deception . In: Kamhoua , C.A. , Kiekintveld , C.D. , Fang , F. , Zhu , Q. (eds.) Game Theory and Machine Learning for Cyber Security , pp. 97 -- 112 . John Wiley ...

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    , Fu , J

    bchapter Kulkarni , A.N. , Fu , J. , Luo , H. , Kamhoua , C.A. , Leslie , N.O. : Decoy allocation games on graphs with temporal logic objectives . In: Zhu , Q. , Baras , J.S. , Poovendran , R. , Chen , J. (eds.) Decision and Game Theory for Security , pp. 168 -- 187 . Springer...

    2020

  36. [44]

    , Ghosh , A

    barticle Kierans , A. , Ghosh , A. , Hazan , H. , Dori-Hacohen , S. : Quantifying misalignment between agents: Towards a sociotechnical understanding of alignment . Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 39 ( 26 ), 27365 -- 27373 ( 2025 ) 10.1609/aaai.v3...

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    , Gibson , A.S

    barticle Kovach , N.S. , Gibson , A.S. , Lamont , G.B. : Hypergame theory: A model for conflict, misperception, and deception . Game Theory 2015 ( 1 ), 570639 ( 2015 ) 10.1155/2015/570639 barticle

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    , Liu , A

    bchapter Kulkarni , A.N. , Liu , A. , Gaglione , J.-R. , Fried , D. , Topcu , U. : Dynamic coalition structure detection in natural-language-based interactions . In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems . AAMAS '25 , pp. ...

    2025

  39. [47]

    , Luo , H

    barticle Kulkarni , A.N. , Luo , H. , Leslie , N.O. , Kamhoua , C.A. , Fu , J. : Deceptive labeling: Hypergames on graphs for stealthy deception . IEEE Control Systems Letters 5 ( 3 ), 977 -- 982 ( 2021 ) 10.1109/LCSYS.2020.3008078 barticle

    2021

  40. [48]

    , Sarkar , A

    bchapter Kahn , M. , Sarkar , A. , Czarnecki , K. : I know you can't see me: Dynamic occlusion-aware safety validation of strategic planners for autonomous vehicles using hypergames . In: 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 11202 -- 11208 ( 20...

    2022

  41. [49]

    , Li , S

    barticle Lv , P. , Li , S. , Yin , X. : Optimal deceptive strategy synthesis for autonomous systems under asymmetric information . IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles 9 ( 10 ), 6108 -- 6121 ( 2024 ) 10.1109/TIV.2024.3362585 barticle

    2024

  42. [50]

    , Ma , H

    barticle Li , L. , Ma , H. , Kulkarni , A.N. , Fu , J. : Dynamic hypergames for synthesis of deceptive strategies with temporal logic objectives . IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 20 ( 1 ), 334 -- 345 ( 2023 ) 10.1109/TASE.2022.3150167 barticle

    2023

  43. [51]

    , Raiffa , H

    bbook Luce , R.D. , Raiffa , H. : Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey . Dover Books on Mathematics . Dover Publications , United Kingdom ( 1989 ) bbook

    1989

  44. [52]

    , Zhang , H

    bchapter Li , Y. , Zhang , H. , Liang , S. : Hyper q-learning algorithm for pursuit-evasion games with misperceptions . In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Unmanned Systems (ICUS) , pp. 1317 -- 1322 ( 2024 ). 10.1109/ICUS61736.2024.10839768 bchapter

    2024

  45. [53]

    : An introduction to game theory

    botherref Myerson , R.B. : An introduction to game theory. Discussion Papers 623, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science (1984) botherref

    1984

  46. [54]

    : Unraveling in guessing games: An experimental study

    barticle Nagel , R. : Unraveling in guessing games: An experimental study . The American Economic Review 85 ( 5 ), 1313 -- 1326 ( 1995 ) barticle

    1995

  47. [55]

    : Equilibrium points in n-person games

    barticle Nash , J.F. : Equilibrium points in n-person games . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 36 ( 1 ), 48 -- 49 ( 1950 ) barticle

    1950

  48. [56]

    , Rubinstein , A

    bbook Osborne , M. , Rubinstein , A. : A Course in Game Theory vol. 1 , 1 st edn. The MIT Press , Cambridge,Massachusetts ( 1994 ) bbook

    1994

  49. [57]

    , Woodruff , G

    barticle Premack , D. , Woodruff , G. : Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1 ( 4 ), 515 -- 526 ( 1978 ) 10.1017/S0140525X00076512 barticle

    1978 doi

  50. [58]

    : Games and information

    barticle Rasmusen , E. : Games and information. an introduction to game theory . Theory and Decision 29 ( 2 ), 161 ( 1990 ) barticle

    1990

  51. [59]

    , Silva , H.H

    bchapter Rocha , M. , Silva , H.H. , Morales , A.S. , Sarkadi , S. , Panisson , A.R. : Applying theory of mind to multi-agent systems: A systematic review . In: Naldi , M.C. , Bianchi , R.A.C. (eds.) Intelligent Systems , pp. 367 -- 381 . Springer , Cham ( 2023 ). 10.1007/978-...

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    , Albergo , D

    barticle Strachan , J.W. , Albergo , D. , Borghini , G. , Pansardi , O. , Scaliti , E. , Gupta , S. , Saxena , K. , Rufo , A. , Panzeri , S. , Manzi , G. , : Testing theory of mind in large language models and humans . Nature Human Behaviour 8 ( 7 ), 1285 -- 1295 ( 2024 ) 10.1...

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    : In: Metcalf , G.S

    bbook Sasaki , Y. : In: Metcalf , G.S. , Kijima , K. , Deguchi , H. (eds.) Multi-agent Decision System , pp. 337 -- 352 . Springer , Singapore ( 2021 ). 10.1007/978-981-15-0720-5\_49 bbook

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    , Han , S

    bchapter Shi , C. , Han , S. , Fu , J. : Quantitative planning with action deception in concurrent stochastic games . In: Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems . AAMAS '23 , pp. 122 -- 130 . International Foundation for Au...

    2023

  55. [63]

    : Theories of bounded rationality

    bchapter Simon , H.A. : Theories of bounded rationality . In: McGuire , C.B. , Radner , R. (eds.) Decision and Organization , pp. 161 -- 176 . North-Holland , Amsterdam ( 1972 ) bchapter

    1972

  56. [64]

    , Li , W

    bchapter Song , Y. , Li , W. , Zeng , X. : λ-equilibrium of hypergame with fuzzy strategy and preference perceptions . In: 2009 IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Intelligent Systems , vol. 2 , pp. 641 -- 645 ( 2009 ). 10.1109/ICICISYS.2009.5358298 bchapter

    2009

  57. [65]

    , Parsons , S.D

    bbook Simari , G.I. , Parsons , S.D. : An Empirical Comparison of Models , pp. 11 -- 25 . Springer , New York, NY ( 2011 ). 10.1007/978-1-4614-1472-8_3 bbook

    2011 doi

  58. [66]

    , Shepherd , C

    barticle Shen , Y. , Shepherd , C. , Ahmed , C.M. , Shen , S. , Yu , S. : Integrating deep spiking q-network into hypergame-theoretic deceptive defense for mitigating malware propagation in edge intelligence-enabled iot systems . IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 18 ( 3 ...

    2025

  59. [67]

    : Gdl-iii: A description language for epistemic general game playing

    bchapter Thielscher , M. : Gdl-iii: A description language for epistemic general game playing. In: IJCAI , pp. 1276 -- 1282 ( 2017 ). 10.24963/ijcai.2017/177 bchapter

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    , Ichalkaranje , N

    barticle Tweedale , J. , Ichalkaranje , N. , Sioutis , C. , Jarvis , B. , Consoli , A. , Phillips-Wren , G. : Innovations in multi-agent systems . Journal of Network and Computer Applications 30 ( 3 ), 1089 -- 1115 ( 2007 ) 10.1016/j.jnca.2006.04.005 barticle

    2007 doi

  61. [69]

    , Mensfelt , A

    botherref Trencsenyi , V. , Mensfelt , A. , Stathis , K. : Approximating Human Strategic Reasoning with LLM-Enhanced Recursive Reasoners Leveraging Multi-agent Hypergames (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.07443 botherref

    2025

  62. [70]

    , Mensfelt , A

    botherref Trencsenyi , V. , Mensfelt , A. , Stathis , K. : The Influence of Human-inspired Agentic Sophistication in LLM-driven Strategic Reasoners (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09396 botherref

    2025

  63. [71]

    , Saad , W

    botherref Thomas , C.K. , Saad , W. : Hypergame Theory for Decentralized Resource Allocation in Multi-user Semantic Communications (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.17985 botherref

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    , Sun , J

    barticle Tang , Y. , Sun , J. , Wang , H. , Deng , J. , Tong , L. , Xu , W. : A method of network attack-defense game and collaborative defense decision-making based on hierarchical multi-agent reinforcement learning . Computers & Security 142 , 103871 ( 2024 ) 10.1016/j.cose....

    2024

  65. [73]

    , Yoon , H.J

    bchapter Thukkaraju , A.R. , Yoon , H.J. , Matsumoto , S. , Ferrari , J.F. , Lee , D. , Ahn , M.K. , Costa , P. , Cho , J.-H. : Interdependent mission impact assessment of an iot system with hypergame-theoretic attack-defense behavior modeling . In: 2023 31st International Sym...

    2023

  66. [74]

    , Hemida , A

    botherref Udupa , S. , Hemida , A. , Kamhoua , C.A. , Fu , J. : Reactive Synthesis of Sensor Revealing Strategies in Hypergames on Graphs (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.01975 botherref

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    : Hypergame theory for dtgt agents

    bchapter Vane , R.R. : Hypergame theory for dtgt agents . In: American Association for Artificial Intelligence ( 2000 ) bchapter

    2000

  68. [76]

    : Advances in hypergame theory

    bchapter Vane , R. : Advances in hypergame theory . In: Workshop on Game Theoretic and Decision Theoretic Agents—Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems ( 2006 ) bchapter

    2006

  69. [77]

    , Lehner , P.E

    botherref Vane , R.R. , Lehner , P.E. : Using hypergames to select plans in competitive environments. PhD thesis, George Mason University, USA (2000). 10.5555/932798 botherref

    2000 doi

  70. [78]

    , Morgenstern , O

    bbook Neumann , J. , Morgenstern , O. : Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (60th Anniversary Commemorative Edition) . Princeton University Press , Princeton, New Jersey ( 1944 ) bbook

    1944

  71. [79]

    , Cho , J.-H

    botherref Wan , Z. , Cho , J.-H. , Zhu , M. , Anwar , A.H. , Kamhoua , C. , Singh , M.P. : Foureye: Defensive Deception based on Hypergame Theory Against Advanced Persistent Threats (2021). https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.02863 botherref

    2021 arXiv

  72. [80]

    , Cho , J.-H

    barticle Wan , Z. , Cho , J.-H. , Zhu , M. , Anwar , A.H. , Kamhoua , C.A. , Singh , M.P. : Resisting multiple advanced persistent threats via hypergame-theoretic defensive deception . IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management 20 ( 3 ), 3816 -- 3830 ( 2023 ) 10.1109/...

    2023

  73. [81]

    , Hipel , K.W

    barticle Wang , M. , Hipel , K.W. , Fraser , N.M. : Modeling misperceptions in games . Behavioral Science 33 ( 3 ), 207 -- 223 ( 1988 ) 10.1002/bs.3830330305 barticle

    1988 doi

  74. [82]

    , Kamhoua , C.A

    bchapter Xi , B. , Kamhoua , C.A. : 3 . A Hypergame-Based Defense Strategy Toward Cyber Deception in Internet of Battlefield Things (IoBT) , pp. 59 -- 77 . John Wiley & Sons, Ltd , USA ( 2020 ). 10.1002/9781119593386.ch3 bchapter

    2020 doi

  75. [83]

    , Cheng , Z

    barticle Yuan , M. , Cheng , Z. , Ma , T. : Equilibrium analysis of distributed aggregative game with misinformation . Kybernetika 60 ( 6 ), 754 -- 778 ( 2024 ) 10.14736/kyb-2024-6-0754 barticle

    2024 doi

  76. [84]

    , Thukkaraju , A.R

    barticle Yoon , H.J. , Thukkaraju , A.R. , Matsumoto , S. , Ferrari , J.F. , Lee , D. , Ahn , M.K. , Costa , P. , Cho , J.-H. : Subjective-bayesian-network-based interdependent mission impact assessment with game-theoretic attack–defense interactions . IEEE Internet of Things ...

    2025

  77. [85]

    , Anwar , A.H

    barticle Zhu , M. , Anwar , A.H. , Wan , Z. , Cho , J.-H. , Kamhoua , C.A. , Singh , M.P. : A survey of defensive deception: Approaches using game theory and machine learning . IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 23 ( 4 ), 2460 -- 2493 ( 2021 ) 10.1109/COMST.2021.3102874 barticle

    2021

  78. [86]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION string.to.integer 't := t text.length 'k := #1 'char.num := t char.num #1 substring 's := s is.num s "." = or char.num k = not and char.num #1 + 'char.num := while char.num #1 - 'char.num := t #1 char.num substring FUNCTI...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.