Information Bargaining: Bilateral Commitment in Bayesian Persuasion
Yue Lin, Shuhui Zhu, William A Cunningham, Wenhao Li, Pascal Poupart, Hongyuan Zha, Baoxiang Wang

TL;DR
This paper introduces an information bargaining framework for long-term Bayesian persuasion, addressing computational challenges and clarifying the roles of informational and propositional advantages, validated through large language models.
Contribution
It proposes a novel bargaining perspective that unifies long-term Bayesian persuasion analysis and distinguishes key strategic advantages, with validation via large language models.
Findings
Framework enables fair and efficient long-term persuasion strategies.
Large language models reliably handle persuasion scenarios within this framework.
The approach clarifies the roles of information and proposer advantages in strategic communication.
Abstract
Bayesian persuasion, an extension of cheap-talk communication, involves an informed sender committing to a signaling scheme to influence a receiver's actions. Compared to cheap talk, this sender's commitment enables the receiver to verify the incentive compatibility of signals beforehand, facilitating cooperation. While effective in one-shot scenarios, Bayesian persuasion faces computational complexity (NP-hardness) when extended to long-term interactions, where the receiver may adopt dynamic strategies conditional on past outcomes and future expectations. To address this complexity, we introduce the bargaining perspective, which allows: (1) a unified framework and well-structured solution concept for long-term persuasion, with desirable properties such as fairness and Pareto efficiency; (2) a clear distinction between two previously conflated advantages: the sender's informational…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
The theoretical framing is clear and potentially useful. The bargaining–realization split exposes the sender’s first-mover advantage and clarifies fairness considerations. The reduction from persuasion to bargaining gives a concrete path to bring cooperative bargaining solution concepts to information design. Definitions of disagreement points and joint commitment are explicit, with timing procedures that make the modeling choices inspectable.
The empirical evaluation relies on LLM rationality. The experiments assume that an LLM instantiated by a prompt is a rational best-response agent in the game-theoretic sense. This assumption is very challengable. The screening metric is payoff correlation, which can be high even if strategies are not equilibria, obedience fails, or off-path contingencies are wrong. Prompt structure, temperature, top-k, and other parameters including the random seed can change an LLM's output, which, in my view,
(S1) This paper introduces an interesting new perspective to the study of long-term Bayesian persuasion problem, namely, the bargaining perspective: the sender and receiver can bargain over the signaling scheme before implementing it. (S2) LLM experiments demonstrate that the bargaining solution matches the classical Bayesian persuasion solution, meaning that the critical commitment assumption in classical BP can arise from bargaining. This is an interesting observation.
(1) The paper's first contribution is claimed to be "We show that long-term persuasion problems can be decomposed into a bargaining stage and a realization stage without affecting optimality or equilibria". I don't think this claim is supported well mathematically. (1.1) First, the "long-term persuasion problem" is never mathematically defined. Section 2 defines one-shot Bayesian persuasion and cheap talk games. And Section 4 directly introduces a model of "long-term persuasion with two stage
The paper is clearly written and easy to follow. The variant of Bayesian persuasion studied in this paper is conceptually interesting. The idea that the receiver may strategically threaten the sender by refusing to follow the sender’s signaling scheme is natural and may capture a realistic strategic interaction.
The Bayesian persuasion variant proposed in this paper relies heavily on the assumption that the sender's utility function is known to the receiver. However, this assumption is only briefly mentioned (line 153) and lacks sufficient justification. The paper could benefit from a more detailed discussion of when and why this assumption might hold in practice. The paper refers to the Long-Term Bayesian Persuasion problem, which is known to be NP-hard, and decomposes it into a bargaining stage and a
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsGame Theory and Applications · Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing · Wireless Communication Security Techniques
MethodsADaptive gradient method with the OPTimal convergence rate · ALIGN
