Melting Pot 2.0
Open accessAbstract
Multi-agent artificial intelligence research promises a path to develop intelligent technologies that are more human-like and more human-compatible than those produced by "solipsistic" approaches, which do not consider interactions between agents. Melting Pot is a research tool developed to facilitate work on multi-agent artificial intelligence, and provides an evaluation protocol that measures generalization to novel social partners in a set of canonical test scenarios. Each scenario pairs a physical environment (a "substrate") with a reference set of co-players (a "background population"), to create a social situation with substantial interdependence between the individuals involved. For instance, some scenarios were inspired by institutional-economics-based accounts of natural resource management and public-good-provision dilemmas. Others were inspired by considerations from evolutionary biology, game theory, and artificial life. Melting Pot aims to cover a maximally diverse set of interdependencies and incentives. It includes the commonly-studied extreme cases of perfectly-competitive (zero-sum) motivations and perfectly-cooperative (shared-reward) motivations, but does not stop with them. As in real-life, a clear majority of scenarios in Melting Pot have mixed incentives. They are neither purely competitive nor purely cooperative and thus demand successful agents be able to navigate the resulting ambiguity. Here we describe Melting Pot 2.0, which revises and expands on Melting Pot. We also introduce support for scenarios with asymmetric roles, and explain how to integrate them into the evaluation protocol. This report also contains: (1) details of all substrates and scenarios; (2) a complete description of all baseline algorithms and results. Our intention is for it to serve as a reference for researchers using Melting Pot 2.0.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The sheer number and variance of behaviours that can be exhibited by other agents means that multi-agent systems pose an especially challenging generalisation problem for individual learners.
“Indeed, the sheer number and variance of behaviours that can be exhibited other agents means that multi-agent systems pose an especially challenging generalisation problem for individual learners (Agapiou et al., 2022; Leibo et al., 2021; Stone et al., 2010).”
From Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI (2025) · cites this paper as Agapiou et al., 2022
The evaluation protocol (pp. 3–4) treats unfamiliar social partners as a generalization challenge, and the Results summary (p. 12) reports that agents failed to generalize on several groups of tasks. The paper does not explicitly attribute that difficulty to the sheer number and variety of behaviours other agents can exhibit. (LLM, conf=0.80)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn multi-principal settings, agents may not have been trained together and therefore need to generalise to new co-players and collaborators based on their prior experience.
“in multi-principal settings, agents may not have been trained together and therefore need to generalise to new co-players and collaborators based on their prior experience (Agapiou et al., 2022; Leibo et al., 2021; Stone et al., 2010).”
From Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI (2025) · cites this paper as Agapiou et al., 2022
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [2]2. A.-B. Haidich. Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia , 14(Suppl 1):29, 2010. - T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, J. H. Friedman, and J. H. Friedman. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction , volume 2. Springer, 2009. - J. Henrich and M. Muthukrishna. The origins and psychology of human cooperation. Annual Review of Psychology , 72:207-240, 2021. - J. Hernández-Orallo. Evaluation in artificial intelligence: from task-oriented to ability-oriented measurement. Artificial Intelligence Review , 48: 397-447, 2017. - M. Hessel, H. Soyer, L. Espeholt, W. Czarnecki, S. Schmitt, and H. van Hasselt. Multi-task deep reinforcement learning with popart. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 33, pages 3796-3803, 2019. - M. Hessel, M. Kroiss, A. Clark, I. Kemaev, J. Quan, T. Keck, F. Viola, and H. van Hasselt. Podracer architectures for scalable reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.06272 , 2021. - E. Hughes, J. Z. Leibo, M. G. Philips, K. Tuyls, E. A. Duéñez-Guzmán, A. G. Castañeda, I. Dunning, T. Zhu, K. R. McKee, R. Koster, H. Roff, and T. Graepel. Inequity aversion improves cooperation in intertemporal social dilemmas. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , pages 3330-3340. 2018. - D. Hume. A treatise of human nature . Courier Corporation, 1739/2012. - M. Jaderberg, V. Mnih, W. M. Czarnecki, T. Schaul, J. Z. Leibo, D. Silver, and K. Kavukcuoglu. Reinforcement learning with unsupervised auxiliary tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.05397 , 2016. - M. Jaderberg, W. M. Czarnecki, I. Dunning, L. Marris, G. Lever, A. G. Castaneda, C. Beattie, N. C. Rabinowitz, A. S. Morcos, A. Ruderman, · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Inter-brain neural dynamics in biological and artificial intelligence systems
Zhang, X., Phi, N. T., Li, Q., Gorzek, R. C., Zwingenberger, N., Huang, S., Zhou, J. L., Kingsbury, L., Raam, T., Wu, Y. E., et al. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09196-4 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI
Hammond, L., Chan, A., Clifton, J., Hoelscher-Obermaier, J., Khan, A., McLean, E., Smith, C., Barfuss, W., Foerster, J., Gavenčiak, T., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.14143 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Self-citationObjective-Informed Diversity for Multi-Objective Multiagent Coordination
Dixit, G., & Tumer, K. (2024) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia240923 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Emergent Resource Exchange and Tolerated Theft Behavior Using Multiagent Reinforcement Learning
Garbus, J., & Pollack, J. B. (2024) · Artificial Life · doi:10.1162/artl_a_00423 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Agapiou, J. P., Vezhnevets, A. S., Duéñez-Guzmán, E. A., Matyas, J., Mao, Y., Sunehag, P., Köster, R., Madhushani, U., Kopparapu, K., Comanescu, R., Strouse, D., Johanson, M. B., Singh, S., Haas, J., Mordatch, I., Mobbs, D., & Leibo, J. Z.
- Affiliations
- California Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2211.13746
- OpenAlex
- W4310280911
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
- Keywords
- evaluation protocol, mixed-motive games, public goods, natural resource management
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
