Researcher profile

Willem Röpke

Willem Röpke contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

DéjàQ: Open-Ended Evolution of Diverse, Learnable and Verifiable Problems

Recent advances in reasoning models have yielded impressive results in mathematics and coding. However, most approaches rely on static datasets, which have been suggested to encourage memorisation and limit generalisation. We introduce DéjàQ, a framework that departs from this paradigm by jointly evolving a diverse set of synthetic mathematical problems alongside model training. This evolutionary process adapts to the model's ability throughout training, optimising problems for learnability. We propose two LLM-driven mutation strategies in which the model itself mutates the training data, either by altering contextual details or by directly modifying problem structure. We find that the model can generate novel and meaningful problems, and that these LLM-driven mutations improve RL training. We analyse key aspects of DéjàQ, including the validity of generated problems and computational overhead. Our results underscore the potential of dynamically evolving training data to enhance mathematical reasoning and indicate broader applicability, which we will support by open-sourcing our code.

preprint2022arXiv

On Nash Equilibria in Normal-Form Games With Vectorial Payoffs

We provide an in-depth study of Nash equilibria in multi-objective normal form games (MONFGs), i.e., normal form games with vectorial payoffs. Taking a utility-based approach, we assume that each player's utility can be modelled with a utility function that maps a vector to a scalar utility. In the case of a mixed strategy, it is meaningful to apply such a scalarisation both before calculating the expectation of the payoff vector as well as after. This distinction leads to two optimisation criteria. With the first criterion, players aim to optimise the expected value of their utility function applied to the payoff vectors obtained in the game. With the second criterion, players aim to optimise the utility of expected payoff vectors given a joint strategy. Under this latter criterion, it was shown that Nash equilibria need not exist. Our first contribution is to provide a sufficient condition under which Nash equilibria are guaranteed to exist. Secondly, we show that when Nash equilibria do exist under both criteria, no equilibrium needs to be shared between the two criteria, and even the number of equilibria can differ. Thirdly, we contribute a study of pure strategy Nash equilibria under both criteria. We show that when assuming quasiconvex utility functions for players, the sets of pure strategy Nash equilibria under both optimisation criteria are equivalent. This result is further extended to games in which players adhere to different optimisation criteria. Finally, given these theoretical results, we construct an algorithm to compute all pure strategy Nash equilibria in MONFGs where players have a quasiconvex utility function.

preprint2022arXiv

Preference Communication in Multi-Objective Normal-Form Games

We consider preference communication in two-player multi-objective normal-form games. In such games, the payoffs resulting from joint actions are vector-valued. Taking a utility-based approach, we assume there exists a utility function for each player which maps vectors to scalar utilities and consider agents that aim to maximise the utility of expected payoff vectors. As agents typically do not know their opponent's utility function or strategy, they must learn policies to interact with each other. Inspired by Stackelberg games, we introduce four novel preference communication protocols to aid agents in arriving at adequate solutions. Each protocol describes a specific approach for one agent to communicate preferences over their actions and how another agent responds. Additionally, to study when communication emerges, we introduce a communication protocol where agents must learn when to communicate. These protocols are subsequently evaluated on a set of five benchmark games against baseline agents that do not communicate. We find that preference communication can alter the learning process and lead to the emergence of cyclic policies which had not been previously observed in this setting. We further observe that the resulting policies can heavily depend on the characteristics of the game that is played. Lastly, we find that communication naturally emerges in both cooperative and self-interested settings.