Playing games with Large language models: Randomness and strategy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.02582v1
• Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2025 13:04:48 GMT
• Title: Playing games with Large language models: Randomness and strategy
• Authors: Alicia Vidler, Toby Walsh,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) can play games, investigating their capabilities for randomisation and strategic adaptation.<n>We focus on GPT-4o-Mini-2024-08-17 and test two games between LLMs: Rock Paper Scissors (RPS) and games of strategy (Prisoners Dilemma PD)<n>Our research reveals that LLMs appear to develop loss aversion strategies in repeated games, with RPS converging to stalemate conditions while PD shows systematic shifts between cooperative and competitive outcomes based on prompt design.
• Score: 15.379345372327375
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Playing games has a long history of describing intricate interactions in simplified forms. In this paper we explore if large language models (LLMs) can play games, investigating their capabilities for randomisation and strategic adaptation through both simultaneous and sequential game interactions. We focus on GPT-4o-Mini-2024-08-17 and test two games between LLMs: Rock Paper Scissors (RPS) and games of strategy (Prisoners Dilemma PD). LLMs are often described as stochastic parrots, and while they may indeed be parrots, our results suggest that they are not very stochastic in the sense that their outputs - when prompted to be random - are often very biased. Our research reveals that LLMs appear to develop loss aversion strategies in repeated games, with RPS converging to stalemate conditions while PD shows systematic shifts between cooperative and competitive outcomes based on prompt design. We detail programmatic tools for independent agent interactions and the Agentic AI challenges faced in implementation. We show that LLMs can indeed play games, just not very well. These results have implications for the use of LLMs in multi-agent LLM systems and showcase limitations in current approaches to model output for strategic decision-making.

Related papers

• Empowering LLMs in Decision Games through Algorithmic Data Synthesis [29.128280701799074]
  Decision-making games serve as ideal sandboxes for evaluating and enhancing the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models. We design data synthesis strategies and curate extensive offline datasets from two classic games, Doudizhu and Go. We develop a suite of techniques to effectively incorporate this data into LLM training, resulting in two novel agents: Mastermind-Dou and Mastermind-Go.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-18T07:30:29Z)
• Beyond Outcomes: Transparent Assessment of LLM Reasoning in Games [54.49589494014147]
  GAMEBoT is a gaming arena designed for rigorous assessment of Large Language Models.<n>We benchmark 17 prominent LLMs across eight games, encompassing various strategic abilities and game characteristics.<n>Our results suggest that GAMEBoT presents a significant challenge, even when LLMs are provided with detailed CoT prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T08:32:53Z)
• LLMs May Not Be Human-Level Players, But They Can Be Testers: Measuring Game Difficulty with LLM Agents [10.632179121247466]
  We propose a general game-testing framework using LLM agents and test it on two widely played strategy games: Wordle and Slay the Spire. Our results reveal an interesting finding: although LLMs may not perform as well as the average human player, their performance, when guided by simple, generic prompting techniques, shows a statistically significant and strong correlation with difficulty indicated by human players. This suggests that LLMs could serve as effective agents for measuring game difficulty during the development process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-01T18:40:43Z)
• Evaluating and Enhancing LLMs Agent based on Theory of Mind in Guandan: A Multi-Player Cooperative Game under Imperfect Information [36.11862095329315]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown success in handling simple games with imperfect information. This study investigates the applicability of knowledge acquired by open-source and API-based LLMs to sophisticated text-based games.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-05T15:36:46Z)
• Are Large Language Models Strategic Decision Makers? A Study of Performance and Bias in Two-Player Non-Zero-Sum Games [56.70628673595041]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T12:30:02Z)
• View From Above: A Framework for Evaluating Distribution Shifts in Model Behavior [0.9043709769827437]
  Large language models (LLMs) are asked to perform certain tasks. How can we be sure that their learned representations align with reality? We propose a domain-agnostic framework for systematically evaluating distribution shifts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T04:07:49Z)
• Large Language Models Playing Mixed Strategy Nash Equilibrium Games [1.060608983034705]
  This paper focuses on the capabilities of Large Language Models to find the Nash equilibrium in games with a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium and no pure strategy Nash equilibrium. The study reveals a significant enhancement in the performance of LLMs when they are equipped with the possibility to run code. It is evident that while LLMs exhibit remarkable proficiency in well-known standard games, their performance dwindles when faced with slight modifications of the same games.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-15T09:30:20Z)
• Towards Efficient LLM Grounding for Embodied Multi-Agent Collaboration [70.09561665520043]
  We propose a novel framework for multi-agent collaboration that introduces Reinforced Advantage feedback (ReAd) for efficient self-refinement of plans. We provide theoretical analysis by extending advantage-weighted regression in reinforcement learning to multi-agent systems. Experiments on Over-AI and a difficult variant of RoCoBench show that ReAd surpasses baselines in success rate, and also significantly decreases the interaction steps of agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T08:33:19Z)
• How Far Are We on the Decision-Making of LLMs? Evaluating LLMs' Gaming Ability in Multi-Agent Environments [83.78240828340681]
  GAMA($gamma$)-Bench is a new framework for evaluating Large Language Models' Gaming Ability in Multi-Agent environments.<n>$gamma$-Bench includes eight classical game theory scenarios and a dynamic scoring scheme specially designed to assess LLMs' performance.<n>Our 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)
• GTBench: Uncovering the Strategic Reasoning Limitations of LLMs via Game-Theoretic Evaluations [87.99872683336395]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are integrated into critical real-world applications. This paper evaluates LLMs' reasoning abilities in competitive environments. We first propose GTBench, a language-driven environment composing 10 widely recognized tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T18:23:36Z)
• Rephrase and Respond: Let Large Language Models Ask Better Questions for Themselves [57.974103113675795]
  We present a method named Rephrase and Respond' (RaR) which allows Large Language Models to rephrase and expand questions posed by humans. RaR serves as a simple yet effective prompting method for improving performance. We show that RaR is complementary to the popular Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods, both theoretically and empirically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T18:43:34Z)
• ALYMPICS: LLM Agents Meet Game Theory -- Exploring Strategic Decision-Making with AI Agents [77.34720446306419]
  Alympics is a systematic simulation framework utilizing Large Language Model (LLM) agents for game theory research. Alympics creates a versatile platform for studying complex game theory problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T16:03:46Z)
• Cooperation, Competition, and Maliciousness: LLM-Stakeholders Interactive Negotiation [52.930183136111864]
  We propose using scorable negotiation to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) To reach an agreement, agents must have strong arithmetic, inference, exploration, and planning capabilities. We provide procedures to create new games and increase games' difficulty to have an evolving benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T13:33:06Z)
• SPRING: Studying the Paper and Reasoning to Play Games [102.5587155284795]
  We propose a novel approach, SPRING, to read the game's original academic paper and use the knowledge learned to reason and play the game through a large language model (LLM) In experiments, we study the quality of in-context "reasoning" induced by different forms of prompts under the setting of the Crafter open-world environment. Our experiments suggest that LLMs, when prompted with consistent chain-of-thought, have great potential in completing sophisticated high-level trajectories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T18:14:35Z)

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.