Are Large Language Models Strategic Decision Makers? A Study of Performance and Bias in Two-Player Non-Zero-Sum Games

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.04467v3
• Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:29:10 GMT
• Title: Are Large Language Models Strategic Decision Makers? A Study of Performance and Bias in Two-Player Non-Zero-Sum Games
• Authors: Nathan Herr, Fernando Acero, Roberta Raileanu, María Pérez-Ortiz, Zhibin Li,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have been increasingly used in real-world settings, yet their strategic decision-making abilities remain largely unexplored. This work investigates the performance and merits of LLMs in canonical game-theoretic two-player non-zero-sum games, Stag Hunt and Prisoner Dilemma. Our structured evaluation of GPT-3.5, GPT-4-Turbo, GPT-4o, and Llama-3-8B shows that these models, when making decisions in these games, are affected by at least one of the following systematic biases.
• Score: 56.70628673595041
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have been increasingly used in real-world settings, yet their strategic decision-making abilities remain largely unexplored. To fully benefit from the potential of LLMs, it's essential to understand their ability to function in complex social scenarios. Game theory, which is already used to understand real-world interactions, provides a good framework for assessing these abilities. This work investigates the performance and merits of LLMs in canonical game-theoretic two-player non-zero-sum games, Stag Hunt and Prisoner Dilemma. Our structured evaluation of GPT-3.5, GPT-4-Turbo, GPT-4o, and Llama-3-8B shows that these models, when making decisions in these games, are affected by at least one of the following systematic biases: positional bias, payoff bias, or behavioural bias. This indicates that LLMs do not fully rely on logical reasoning when making these strategic decisions. As a result, it was found that the LLMs' performance drops when the game configuration is misaligned with the affecting biases. When misaligned, GPT-3.5, GPT-4-Turbo, GPT-4o, and Llama-3-8B show an average performance drop of 32\%, 25\%, 34\%, and 29\% respectively in Stag Hunt, and 28\%, 16\%, 34\%, and 24\% respectively in Prisoner's Dilemma. Surprisingly, GPT-4o (a top-performing LLM across standard benchmarks) suffers the most substantial performance drop, suggesting that newer models are not addressing these issues. Interestingly, we found that a commonly used method of improving the reasoning capabilities of LLMs, chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, reduces the biases in GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, and Llama-3-8B but increases the effect of the bias in GPT-4-Turbo, indicating that CoT alone cannot fully serve as a robust solution to this problem. We perform several additional experiments, which provide further insight into these observed behaviours.

Related papers

• See What LLMs Cannot Answer: A Self-Challenge Framework for Uncovering LLM Weaknesses [51.975495361024606]
  We propose a Self-Challenge evaluation framework with human-in-the-loop. Starting from seed instances that GPT-4 fails to answer, we prompt GPT-4 to summarize error patterns that can be used to generate new instances. We then build a benchmark, SC-G4, consisting of 1,835 instances generated by GPT-4 using these patterns, with human-annotated gold responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T19:01:52Z)
• How Far Are We on the Decision-Making of LLMs? Evaluating LLMs' Gaming Ability in Multi-Agent Environments [83.78240828340681]
  We introduce GAMA($gamma$)-Bench, a new framework for evaluating Large Language Models' Gaming Ability in Multi-Agent environments. $gamma$-Bench includes eight classical game theory scenarios and a dynamic scoring scheme specially designed to assess LLMs' performance. Results indicate GPT-3.5 demonstrates strong robustness but limited generalizability, which can be enhanced using methods like Chain-of-Thought.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-18T14:04:47Z)
• Comparing GPT-4 and Open-Source Language Models in Misinformation Mitigation [6.929834518749884]
  GPT-4 is known to be strong in this domain, but it is closed source, potentially expensive, and can show instability between different versions. We show that Zephyr-7b presents a consistently viable alternative, overcoming key limitations of commonly used approaches. We then highlight how GPT-3.5 exhibits unstable performance, such that this very widely used model could provide misleading results in misinformation detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T22:27:25Z)
• Bias Runs Deep: Implicit Reasoning Biases in Persona-Assigned LLMs [67.51906565969227]
  We study the unintended side-effects of persona assignment on the ability of LLMs to perform basic reasoning tasks. Our study covers 24 reasoning datasets, 4 LLMs, and 19 diverse personas (e.g. an Asian person) spanning 5 socio-demographic groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T18:52:17Z)
• Instances Need More Care: Rewriting Prompts for Instances with LLMs in the Loop Yields Better Zero-Shot Performance [11.595274304409937]
  Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized zero-shot task performance. Current methods using trigger phrases such as "Let's think step by step" remain limited. This study introduces PRomPTed, an approach that optimize the zero-shot prompts for individual task instances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T14:51:34Z)
• Is ChatGPT Good at Search? Investigating Large Language Models as Re-Ranking Agents [56.104476412839944]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable zero-shot generalization across various language-related tasks. This paper investigates generative LLMs for relevance ranking in Information Retrieval (IR) To address concerns about data contamination of LLMs, we collect a new test set called NovelEval. To improve efficiency in real-world applications, we delve into the potential for distilling the ranking capabilities of ChatGPT into small specialized models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T10:16:03Z)
• Prompting GPT-3 To Be Reliable [117.23966502293796]
  This work decomposes reliability into four facets: generalizability, fairness, calibration, and factuality. We find that GPT-3 outperforms smaller-scale supervised models by large margins on all these facets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T14:52:39Z)

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.