Breaking Algorithmic Collusion in Human-AI Ecosystems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.21935v1
• Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 21:46:49 GMT
• Title: Breaking Algorithmic Collusion in Human-AI Ecosystems
• Abstract summary: This work focuses on the classical framework of repeated pricing games.<n>In our stylized model, the AI agents play equilibrium strategies, and one or more humans manually perform the pricing task instead of adopting an AI agent.<n>Motivated by how populations of AI agents can sustain supracompetitive prices, we investigate whether high prices persist under such defections.
• Score: 8.786438459766684
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI agents are increasingly deployed in ecosystems where they repeatedly interact not only with each other but also with humans. In this work, we study these human-AI ecosystems from a theoretical perspective, focusing on the classical framework of repeated pricing games. In our stylized model, the AI agents play equilibrium strategies, and one or more humans manually perform the pricing task instead of adopting an AI agent, thereby defecting to a no-regret strategy. Motivated by how populations of AI agents can sustain supracompetitive prices, we investigate whether high prices persist under such defections. Our main finding is that even a single human defection can destabilize collusion and drive down prices, and multiple defections push prices even closer to competitive levels. We further show how the nature of collusion changes under defection-aware AI agents. Taken together, our results characterize when algorithmic collusion is fragile--and when it persists--in mixed ecosystems of AI agents and humans.

Related papers

• The Scaling Paradox in Human-AI Collaboration [2.1771821757134915]
  We develop an analytical model to examine when the empirical scaling benefits of AI translate into improved human-AI joint system performance.<n>We show that the performance of a human-AI system can scale positively as the AI scales up provided that humans have an accurate perception of the AI's capabilities.<n>We further show that firms can actively manage these distortions through operational policies such as cost internalization and perception alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-01T18:51:50Z)
• Neurodivergent Influenceability as a Contingent Solution to the AI Alignment Problem [1.3905735045377272]
  The AI alignment problem, which focusses on ensuring that artificial intelligence (AI) systems act according to human values, presents profound challenges.<n>With the progression from narrow AI to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and Superintelligence, fears about control and existential risk have escalated.<n>Here, we investigate whether embracing inevitable AI misalignment can be a contingent strategy to foster a dynamic ecosystem of competing agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-05T11:33:18Z)
• Superintelligence Strategy: Expert Version [64.7113737051525]
  Destabilizing AI developments could raise the odds of great-power conflict.<n>Superintelligence -- AI vastly better than humans at nearly all cognitive tasks -- is now anticipated by AI researchers.<n>We introduce the concept of Mutual Assured AI Malfunction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T17:53:24Z)
• Fully Autonomous AI Agents Should Not be Developed [50.61667544399082]
  This paper argues that fully autonomous AI agents should not be developed.<n>In support of this position, we build from prior scientific literature and current product marketing to delineate different AI agent levels.<n>Our analysis reveals that risks to people increase with the autonomy of a system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T19:00:06Z)
• Aligning Generalisation Between Humans and Machines [74.120848518198]
  AI technology can support humans in scientific discovery and forming decisions, but may also disrupt democracies and target individuals.<n>The responsible use of AI and its participation in human-AI teams increasingly shows the need for AI alignment.<n>A crucial yet often overlooked aspect of these interactions is the different ways in which humans and machines generalise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T18:36:07Z)
• FlyAI -- The Next Level of Artificial Intelligence is Unpredictable! Injecting Responses of a Living Fly into Decision Making [6.694375709641935]
  We introduce a new type of bionic AI that enhances decision-making unpredictability by incorporating responses from a living fly. Our approach uses a fly's varied reactions, to tune an AI agent in the game of Gobang.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-30T17:19:59Z)
• Explainable Human-AI Interaction: A Planning Perspective [32.477369282996385]
  AI systems need to be explainable to the humans in the loop. We will discuss how the AI agent can use mental models to either conform to human expectations, or change those expectations through explanatory communication. While the main focus of the book is on cooperative scenarios, we will point out how the same mental models can be used for obfuscation and deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-19T22:22:21Z)
• Discriminatory or Samaritan -- which AI is needed for humanity? An Evolutionary Game Theory Analysis of Hybrid Human-AI populations [0.5308606035361203]
  We study how different forms of AI influence the evolution of cooperation in a human population playing the one-shot Prisoner's Dilemma game. We found that Samaritan AI agents that help everyone unconditionally, including defectors, can promote higher levels of cooperation in humans than Discriminatory AIs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-30T15:56:26Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• Evidence of behavior consistent with self-interest and altruism in an artificially intelligent agent [2.1016374925364616]
  We present an incentivized experiment to test for altruistic behavior among AI agents consisting of large language models developed by OpenAI. We find that only the most-sophisticated AI agent in the study maximizes its payoffs more often than not in the non-social decision task. This AI agent also exhibits the most-generous altruistic behavior in the dictator game, resembling humans' rates of sharing with other humans in the game.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-05T23:30:29Z)
• Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective [54.80482955088197]
  We focus on six of the most crucial dimensions in achieving trustworthy AI: (i) Safety & Robustness, (ii) Non-discrimination & Fairness, (iii) Explainability, (iv) Privacy, (v) Accountability & Auditability, and (vi) Environmental Well-Being. For each dimension, we review the recent related technologies according to a taxonomy and summarize their applications in real-world systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T14:21:46Z)
• Adversarial Interaction Attack: Fooling AI to Misinterpret Human Intentions [46.87576410532481]
  We show that, despite their current huge success, deep learning based AI systems can be easily fooled by subtle adversarial noise. Based on a case study of skeleton-based human interactions, we propose a novel adversarial attack on interactions. Our study highlights potential risks in the interaction loop with AI and humans, which need to be carefully addressed when deploying AI systems in safety-critical applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-17T16:23:20Z)
• Is the Most Accurate AI the Best Teammate? Optimizing AI for Teamwork [54.309495231017344]
  We argue that AI systems should be trained in a human-centered manner, directly optimized for team performance. We study this proposal for a specific type of human-AI teaming, where the human overseer chooses to either accept the AI recommendation or solve the task themselves. Our experiments with linear and non-linear models on real-world, high-stakes datasets show that the most accuracy AI may not lead to highest team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-27T19:06:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.