PreprintCited by 1Multi-Agent Systems and NegotiationGame Theory and Voting SystemsGame Theory and Applications

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Shapley-Coop: Credit Assignment for Emergent Cooperation in Self-Interested LLM Agents

Open access

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) show strong collaborative performance in multi-agent systems with predefined roles and workflows. However, in open-ended environments lacking coordination rules, agents tend to act in self-interested ways. The central challenge in achieving coordination lies in credit assignment -- fairly evaluating each agent's contribution and designing pricing mechanisms that align their heterogeneous goals. This problem is critical as LLMs increasingly participate in complex human-AI collaborations, where fair compensation and accountability rely on effective pricing mechanisms. Inspired by how human societies address similar coordination challenges (e.g., through temporary collaborations such as employment or subcontracting), we propose a cooperative workflow, Shapley-Coop. Shapley-Coop integrates Shapley Chain-of-Thought -- leveraging marginal contributions as a principled basis for pricing -- with structured negotiation protocols for effective price matching, enabling LLM agents to coordinate through rational task-time pricing and post-task reward redistribution. This approach aligns agent incentives, fosters cooperation, and maintains autonomy. We evaluate Shapley-Coop across two multi-agent games and a software engineering simulation, demonstrating that it consistently enhances LLM agent collaboration and facilitates equitable credit assignment. These results highlight the effectiveness of Shapley-Coop's pricing mechanisms in accurately reflecting individual contributions during task execution.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2506.07388

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 exponential complexity of evaluating 2^n coalitions necessitates efficient algorithms for operational deployment in LLM-based systems.

    “the exponential complexity of evaluating 2 n coalitions necessitates efficient algorithms for operational deployment in LLM-based systems where each coalition evaluation requires expensive API calls (Hua et al. 2025)”

Citations

Cites

  • AI deception: A survey of examples, risks, and potential solutions

    Park, P. S., Goldstein, S., O’Gara, A., Chen, M., & Hendrycks, D. (2024) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2024.100988 · Cited by 243 · cited 1×

    “Empirical findings [13, 25] demonstrate that while LLMs excel in competitive scenarios emphasizing individual gain, they face significant challenges in cooperative contexts - a pattern that aligns with behavioral traits observed in altruistic or compliant agents [1, 13].”

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hua, Y., Chen, H., Wang, S., Li, W., Wang, X., & Luo, J.
Affiliations
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
  • Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications (CN)
  • East China Normal University (CN)
  • Tongji University (CN)
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
Pages
98517-98544
ISSN
1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4417129427
Cited by
1
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
0.95
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Game Theory and Applications
Keywords
credit assignment, LLM agents, multi-agent systems, Shapley value, chain-of-thought, task pricing, agent coordination, self-interested agents, negotiation protocols, human-AI collaboration, incentive alignment, emergence of cooperation

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