Strategy, Not Payoffs: A Behavioural Embedding of Normal-Form Games

Learning a strategic task changes more than what is directly taught: fine-tuning on one game can either enhance or degrade an agent's ability to reason in another. Understanding and predicting this transfer of strategic capabilities, however, remains a key challenge for large language models (LLMs). Normal-form games provide an ideal testbed for analyzing this phenomenon, as they feature explicitly defined payoffs and well-characterized equilibrium behaviours. In this work, we investigate whether game embeddings can explain and predict changes in LLM strategic capabilities following fine-tuning across different games. We propose a lightweight two-feature embedding that captures fundamental behavioural demands: the entropy of the Nash equilibrium and the sensitivity of optimal responses to an opponent's action. We show that while existing published structural embeddings primarily memorize game identities and fail to generalize, our behavioural embedding reliably predicts performance changes on held-out games. These results demonstrate that the transfer of strategic capabilities in LLMs is not dictated by the payoff geometry of a game, but by the underlying structure of the decision-making behaviour it requires.

Procedural Fairness in Multi-Agent Bandits

In the context of multi-agent multi-armed bandits (MA-MAB), fairness is often reduced to outcomes: maximizing welfare, reducing inequality, or balancing utilities. However, evidence in psychology, economics, and Rawlsian theory suggests that fairness is also about process and who gets a say in the decisions being made. We introduce a new fairness objective, procedural fairness, which provides equal decision-making power for all agents, lies in the core, and provides for proportionality in outcomes. Empirical results confirm that fairness notions based on optimizing for outcomes sacrifice equal voice and representation, while the sacrifice in outcome-based fairness objectives (like equality and utilitarianism) is minimal under procedurally fair policies. We further prove that different fairness notions prioritize fundamentally different and incompatible values, highlighting that fairness requires explicit normative choices. This paper argues that procedural legitimacy deserves greater focus as a fairness objective, and provides a framework for putting procedural fairness into practice.

What Voting Rules Actually Do: A Data-Driven Analysis of Multi-Winner Voting

Committee-selection problems arise in many contexts and applications, and there has been increasing interest within the social choice research community on identifying which properties are satisfied by different multi-winner voting rules. In this work, we propose a data-driven framework to evaluate how frequently voting rules violate axioms across diverse preference distributions in practice, shifting away from the binary perspective of axiom satisfaction given by worst-case analysis. Using this framework, we analyze the relationship between multi-winner voting rules and their axiomatic performance under several preference distributions. We then show that neural networks, acting as voting rules, can outperform traditional rules in minimizing axiom violations. Our results suggest that data-driven approaches to social choice can inform the design of new voting systems and support the continuation of data-driven research in social choice.