Humans expect rationality and cooperation from LLM opponents in strategic games

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.11011v1
• Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 09:01:09 GMT
• Title: Humans expect rationality and cooperation from LLM opponents in strategic games
• Authors: Darija Barak, Miguel Costa-Gomes,
• Abstract summary: We present the results of the first monetarily-incentivised laboratory experiment looking at differences in human behaviour.<n>We show that, in this environment, human subjects choose significantly lower numbers when playing against LLMs than humans.<n>This shift is mainly driven by subjects with high strategic reasoning ability.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) integrate into our social and economic interactions, we need to deepen our understanding of how humans respond to LLMs opponents in strategic settings. We present the results of the first controlled monetarily-incentivised laboratory experiment looking at differences in human behaviour in a multi-player p-beauty contest against other humans and LLMs. We use a within-subject design in order to compare behaviour at the individual level. We show that, in this environment, human subjects choose significantly lower numbers when playing against LLMs than humans, which is mainly driven by the increased prevalence of `zero' Nash-equilibrium choices. This shift is mainly driven by subjects with high strategic reasoning ability. Subjects who play the zero Nash-equilibrium choice motivate their strategy by appealing to perceived LLM's reasoning ability and, unexpectedly, propensity towards cooperation. Our findings provide foundational insights into the multi-player human-LLM interaction in simultaneous choice games, uncover heterogeneities in both subjects' behaviour and beliefs about LLM's play when playing against them, and suggest important implications for mechanism design in mixed human-LLM systems.

Related papers

• Who is a Better Player: LLM against LLM [53.46608216197315]
  We propose an adversarial benchmarking framework to assess the comprehensive performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) through board games competition.<n>We introduce Qi Town, a specialized evaluation platform that supports 5 widely played games and involves 20 LLM-driven players.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T06:41:47Z)
• How large language models judge and influence human cooperation [82.07571393247476]
  We assess how state-of-the-art language models judge cooperative actions.<n>We observe a remarkable agreement in evaluating cooperation against good opponents.<n>We show that the differences revealed between models can significantly impact the prevalence of cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T09:14:42Z)
• Corrupted by Reasoning: Reasoning Language Models Become Free-Riders in Public Goods Games [87.5673042805229]
  How large language models balance self-interest and collective well-being is a critical challenge for ensuring alignment, robustness, and safe deployment.<n>We adapt a public goods game with institutional choice from behavioral economics, allowing us to observe how different LLMs navigate social dilemmas.<n>Surprisingly, we find that reasoning LLMs, such as the o1 series, struggle significantly with cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-29T15:02:47Z)
• Beyond Nash Equilibrium: Bounded Rationality of LLMs and humans in Strategic Decision-making [33.2843381902912]
  Large language models are increasingly used in strategic decision-making settings.<n>We compare LLMs and humans using experimental paradigms adapted from behavioral game-theory research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T04:43:54Z)
• Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks [52.098988739649705]
  This study examines the biases and limitations of LLMs in three roles: answer generator, judge, and debater.<n>We develop a no-consensus'' benchmark by curating examples that encompass a variety of a priori ambivalent scenarios.<n>Our results show that while LLMs can provide nuanced assessments when generating open-ended answers, they tend to take a stance on no-consensus topics when employed as judges or debaters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T01:31:54Z)
• Comparing Exploration-Exploitation Strategies of LLMs and Humans: Insights from Standard Multi-armed Bandit Tasks [6.355245936740126]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate or automate human behavior in sequential decision-making tasks.<n>We focus on the exploration-exploitation (E&E) tradeoff, a fundamental aspect of dynamic decision-making under uncertainty.<n>We find that reasoning shifts LLMs toward more human-like behavior, characterized by a mix of random and directed exploration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T02:09:18Z)
• Measurement of LLM's Philosophies of Human Nature [113.47929131143766]
  We design the standardized psychological scale specifically targeting large language models (LLM)<n>We show that current LLMs exhibit a systemic lack of trust in humans.<n>We propose a mental loop learning framework, which enables LLM to continuously optimize its value system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-03T06:22:19Z)
• How Deep is Love in LLMs' Hearts? Exploring Semantic Size in Human-like Cognition [75.11808682808065]
  This study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit similar tendencies in understanding semantic size.<n>Our findings reveal that multi-modal training is crucial for LLMs to achieve more human-like understanding.<n> Lastly, we examine whether LLMs are influenced by attention-grabbing headlines with larger semantic sizes in a real-world web shopping scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-01T03:35:56Z)
• Humanlike Cognitive Patterns as Emergent Phenomena in Large Language Models [2.9312156642007294]
  We systematically review Large Language Models' capabilities across three important cognitive domains: decision-making biases, reasoning, and creativity.<n>On decision-making, our synthesis reveals that while LLMs demonstrate several human-like biases, some biases observed in humans are absent.<n>On reasoning, advanced LLMs like GPT-4 exhibit deliberative reasoning akin to human System-2 thinking, while smaller models fall short of human-level performance.<n>A distinct dichotomy emerges in creativity: while LLMs excel in language-based creative tasks, such as storytelling, they struggle with divergent thinking tasks that require real-world context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T02:26:56Z)
• Nicer Than Humans: How do Large Language Models Behave in the Prisoner's Dilemma? [0.1474723404975345]
  We study the cooperative behavior of Llama2 when playing the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma against random adversaries displaying various levels of hostility. We find that Llama2 tends not to initiate defection but it adopts a cautious approach towards cooperation. In comparison to prior research on human participants, Llama2 exhibits a greater inclination towards cooperative behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T14:51:14Z)
• Human vs. Machine: Behavioral Differences Between Expert Humans and Language Models in Wargame Simulations [1.6108153271585284]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) behave differently compared to humans in high-stakes military decision-making scenarios. Our results motivate policymakers to be cautious before granting autonomy or following AI-based strategy recommendations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-06T02:23:32Z)
• 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)
• The Wisdom of Partisan Crowds: Comparing Collective Intelligence in Humans and LLM-based Agents [7.986590413263814]
  "Wisdom of partisan crowds" is a phenomenon known as the "wisdom of partisan crowds" We find that partisan crowds display human-like partisan biases, but also converge to more accurate beliefs through deliberation as humans do. We identify several factors that interfere with convergence, including the use of chain-of-thought prompt and lack of details in personas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T08:30:15Z)
• 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)
• LLM-Based Agent Society Investigation: Collaboration and Confrontation in Avalon Gameplay [55.12945794835791]
  Using Avalon as a testbed, we employ system prompts to guide LLM agents in gameplay. We propose a novel framework, tailored for Avalon, features a multi-agent system facilitating efficient communication and interaction. Results affirm the framework's effectiveness in creating adaptive agents and suggest LLM-based agents' potential in navigating dynamic social interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T14:35:26Z)

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.