Learning Deceptive Strategies in Adversarial Settings: A Two-Player Game with Asymmetric Information
Source abstract
Abstract
This study explores strategic deception and counter-deception in multi-agent reinforcement learning environments for a police officer–robber game. The research is motivated by real-world scenarios where agents must operate with partial observability and adversarial intent. We develop a suite of progressively complex grid-based environments featuring dynamic goals, fake targets, and navigational obstacles. Agents are trained using deep Q-networks (DQNs) with game-theoretic reward shaping to encourage deceptive behavior in the robber and intent inference in the police officer. The robber learns to reach the true goal while misleading the police officer, and the police officer adapts to infer the robber’s intent and allocate resources effectively. The environments include fixed and dynamic layouts with varying numbers of goals and obstacles, allowing us to evaluate scalability and generalization. Experimental results demonstrate that the agents converge to equilibrium-like behaviors across all settings. The inclusion of obstacles increases complexity but also strengthens learned policies when guided by reward shaping. We conclude that integrating game theory with deep reinforcement learning enables the emergence of robust, deceptive strategies and effective counter-strategies, even in dynamic, high-dimensional environments. This work advances the design of intelligent agents capable of strategic reasoning under uncertainty and adversarial conditions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning · Reinforcement Learning in Robotics · Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA
Funding
ARL
References (31)
Show source-provided references
1. The psychology of deception10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.001025 ↗
2. Carson, T.L. (2010). Lying and Deception: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577415.001.0001 ↗
3. Deception and lies in business strategy10.1108/JBS-09-2017-0135 ↗
4. Maithripala, D.H.A., and Jayasuriya, S. (2005, January 8–10). Radar deception through phantom track generation. Proceedings of the American Control Conference, Portland, OR, USA.
5. Selective Audio Perturbations for Targeting Specific Phrases in Speech Recognition Systems10.1007/s44196-025-00844-1 ↗
6. Root, P., De Mot, J., and Feron, E. (2005, January 8–10). Randomized path planning with deceptive strategies. Proceedings of the American Control Conference, Portland, OR, USA.
7. Hespanha, J.P., Ateskan, Y.S., and Kizilocak, H. (2000, January 10–11). Deception in non-cooperative games with partial information. Proceedings of the 2nd DARPA-JFACC Symposium on Advances in Enterprise Control, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
8. Chen, S., Savas, Y., Karabag, M.O., Sadler, B.M., and Topcu, U. (2024, January 10–12). Deceptive planning for resource allocation. Proceedings of the 2024 American Control Conference (ACC), Toronto, ON, Canada.10.23919/ACC60939.2024.10644373 ↗
9. Kiely, M., Ahiskali, M., Borde, E., Bowman, B., Bowman, D., Van Bruggen, D., Cowan, K.C., Dasgupta, P., Devendorf, E., and Edwards, B. (March, January 25). Exploring the Efficacy of Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Cyber Defence: A CAGE Challenge 4 Perspective. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
10. Toward a general theory of deception10.1080/01402398208437106 ↗
11. Liang, J., Miao, H., Li, K., Tan, J., Wang, X., Luo, R., and Jiang, Y. (2025). A Review of Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning Algorithms. Electronics, 14.10.3390/electronics14040820 ↗
12. Chelarescu, P. (2021). Deception in Social Learning: A Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning Perspective. arXiv.
13. McEneaney, W., and Singh, R. (August, January 15). Deception in autonomous vehicle decision making in an adversarial environment. Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, San Francisco, CA, USA.
14. Huang, Y., and Zhu, Q. (2021). A pursuit-evasion differential game with strategic information acquisition. arXiv.
15. Decentralized Q-learning in zero-sum Markov games
16. A dynamic game framework for rational and persistent robot deception with an application to deceptive pursuit-evasion10.1109/TASE.2021.3097286 ↗
17. Fatemi, M.Y., Suttle, W.A., and Sadler, B.M. (2024). Deceptive path planning via reinforcement learning with graph neural networks. arXiv.
18. Deep multiagent reinforcement learning: Challenges and directions10.1007/s10462-022-10299-x ↗
19. Zhou, B. (2025, June 26). Reinforcement Learning for Impartial Games and Complex Combinatorial Optimisation Problems. Available online: https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/96718.
20. Dao, T.K., Ngo, T.G., Pan, J.S., Nguyen, T.T.T., and Nguyen, T.T. (2024). Enhancing Path Planning Capabilities of Automated Guided Vehicles in Dynamic Environments: Multi-Objective PSO and Dynamic-Window Approach. Biomimetics, 9.10.3390/biomimetics9010035 ↗
21. Lowe, R., Wu, Y., Tamar, A., Harb, J., Abbeel, P., and Mordatch, I. (2017). Multi-agent actor-critic for mixed cooperative-competitive environments. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., 30, Available online: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/file/68a9750337a418a86fe06c1991a1d64c-Paper.pdf.
22. Shoham, Y., and Leyton-Brown, K. (2008). Multiagent Systems: Algorithmic, Game-Theoretic, and Logical Foundations, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511811654 ↗
23. Nash Q-learning for general-sum stochastic games
24. Wu, B., Cubuktepe, M., Bharadwaj, S., and Topcu, U. (2019, January 11–13). Reward-based deception with cognitive bias. Proceedings of the 58th Conference on Decision and Control, Nice, France.10.1109/CDC40024.2019.9029476 ↗
25. Recent developments of game theory and reinforcement learning approaches: A systematic review10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3352749 ↗
26. Deception by Motion: The Eater and the Mover Game10.1109/LCSYS.2023.3291385 ↗
27. Patil, A., Karabag, M.O., Tanaka, T., and Topcu, U. (2023, January 13–15). Simulator-driven deceptive control via path integral approach. Proceedings of the 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Singapore.10.1109/CDC49753.2023.10383936 ↗
28. Fu, J. (2022, January 26–28). On almost-sure intention deception planning that exploits imperfect observers. Proceedings of the International Conference on Decision and Game Theory for Security, PIttsburgh, PA, USA.10.1007/978-3-031-26369-9_4 ↗
29. Shishika, D., Von Moll, A., Maity, D., and Dorothy, M. (2024). Deception in differential games: Information limiting strategy to induce dilemma. arXiv.10.3934/jdg.2023012 ↗
30. Deep Q-learning for Nash equilibria: Nash-DQN10.1080/1350486X.2022.2136727 ↗
31. From Nash Q-learning to Nash-MADDPG: Advancements in multiagent control for multiproduct flexible manufacturing systems10.1016/j.jmsy.2024.03.004 ↗