Benevolent Dictators? On LLM Agent Behavior in Dictator Games

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.08721v1
• Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 01:03:44 GMT
• Title: Benevolent Dictators? On LLM Agent Behavior in Dictator Games
• Abstract summary: In behavioral sciences, experiments such as the ultimatum game are conducted to assess preferences for fairness or self-interest.<n>We propose the LLM agent behavior study (LLM-ABS) framework to explore how different system prompts influence model behavior.<n>We found that agents often exhibit a strong preference for fairness, as well as a significant impact of the system prompt on their behavior.
• Score: 2.6514130238294027
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In behavioral sciences, experiments such as the ultimatum game are conducted to assess preferences for fairness or self-interest of study participants. In the dictator game, a simplified version of the ultimatum game where only one of two players makes a single decision, the dictator unilaterally decides how to split a fixed sum of money between themselves and the other player. Although recent studies have explored behavioral patterns of AI agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) instructed to adopt different personas, we question the robustness of these results. In particular, many of these studies overlook the role of the system prompt - the underlying instructions that shape the model's behavior - and do not account for how sensitive results can be to slight changes in prompts. However, a robust baseline is essential when studying highly complex behavioral aspects of LLMs. To overcome previous limitations, we propose the LLM agent behavior study (LLM-ABS) framework to (i) explore how different system prompts influence model behavior, (ii) get more reliable insights into agent preferences by using neutral prompt variations, and (iii) analyze linguistic features in responses to open-ended instructions by LLM agents to better understand the reasoning behind their behavior. We found that agents often exhibit a strong preference for fairness, as well as a significant impact of the system prompt on their behavior. From a linguistic perspective, we identify that models express their responses differently. Although prompt sensitivity remains a persistent challenge, our proposed framework demonstrates a robust foundation for LLM agent behavior studies. Our code artifacts are available at https://github.com/andreaseinwiller/LLM-ABS.

Related papers

• Your LLM, Your Style: Behavioral Mode Axes for LLM Behavioral Control [15.236237731175192]
  Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act in interactive settings where their behavioral styles affect user experience, safety, and downstream decision making.<n>Existing LLM personality studies largely rely on self-report questionnaires administered in first-person settings.<n>We introduce a situated behavioral-data framework for studying and controlling LLM behavioral personality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-11T09:25:47Z)
• Persuasive and Compliant Tendencies Predict Group Decision-Making in Humans and Language Models [65.21691850622413]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in group decision-making with humans.<n>We introduce DecisionQE, a questionnaire-based framework for measuring each model's persuasive and compliant tendencies.<n>We show that stronger persuasive tendency does not significantly improve group outcomes, whereas compliant-oriented models show more stable advantages in cooperation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T15:50:56Z)
• Farther the Shift, Sparser the Representation: Analyzing OOD Mechanisms in LLMs [100.02824137397464]
  We investigate how Large Language Models adapt their internal representations when encountering inputs of increasing difficulty.<n>We reveal a consistent and quantifiable phenomenon: as task difficulty increases, the last hidden states of LLMs become substantially sparser.<n>This sparsity--difficulty relation is observable across diverse models and domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T18:48:15Z)
• Human Cognitive Biases in Explanation-Based Interaction: The Case of Within and Between Session Order Effect [46.80756527630539]
  Explanatory Interactive Learning (XIL) is a powerful interactive learning framework designed to enable users to customize and correct AI models by interacting with their explanations.<n>Recent studies have raised concerns that explanatory interaction may trigger order effects, a well-known cognitive bias in which the sequence of presented items influences users' trust and, critically, the quality of their feedback.<n>To clarify the interplay between order effects and explanatory interaction, we ran two larger-scale user studies designed to mimic common XIL tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-04T12:59:54Z)
• What-If Analysis of Large Language Models: Explore the Game World Using Proactive Thinking [50.72154186522052]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at processing information reactively but lack the ability to systemically explore hypothetical futures.<n>We propose WiA-LLM, a new paradigm that equips LLMs with proactive thinking capabilities.<n>We validate WiA-LLM in Honor of Kings, a complex multiplayer game environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-05T04:05:27Z)
• Model Editing as a Double-Edged Sword: Steering Agent Ethical Behavior Toward Beneficence or Harm [57.00627691433355]
  We frame agent behavior steering as a model editing task, which we term Behavior Editing.<n>We introduce BehaviorBench, a benchmark grounded in psychological moral theories.<n>We demonstrate that Behavior Editing can be used to promote ethical and benevolent behavior or, conversely, to induce harmful or malicious behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-25T16:51:51Z)
• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• Modulating Language Model Experiences through Frictions [56.17593192325438]
  Over-consumption of language model outputs risks propagating unchecked errors in the short-term and damaging human capabilities for critical thinking in the long-term. We propose selective frictions for language model experiences, inspired by behavioral science interventions, to dampen misuse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T16:31:11Z)
• 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)
• Aligning Large Language Models by On-Policy Self-Judgment [49.31895979525054]
  Existing approaches for aligning large language models with human preferences face a trade-off that requires a separate reward model (RM) for on-policy learning. We present a novel alignment framework, SELF-JUDGE, that does on-policy learning and is parameter efficient. We show that the rejecting sampling by itself can improve performance further without an additional evaluator.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T11:25:26Z)
• You don't need a personality test to know these models are unreliable: Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Models on Psychometric Instruments [37.03210795084276]
  We examine whether the current format of prompting Large Language Models elicits responses in a consistent and robust manner. Our experiments on 17 different LLMs reveal that even simple perturbations significantly downgrade a model's question-answering ability. Our results suggest that the currently widespread practice of prompting is insufficient to accurately and reliably capture model perceptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T09:50:53Z)
• Probing the Multi-turn Planning Capabilities of LLMs via 20 Question Games [14.063311955315077]
  Large language models (LLMs) are effective at answering questions that are clearly asked. When faced with ambiguous queries they can act unpredictably and produce incorrect outputs. This underscores the need for the development of intelligent agents capable of asking clarification questions to resolve ambiguities effectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T16:55:37Z)
• Intuitive or Dependent? Investigating LLMs' Behavior Style to Conflicting Prompts [9.399159332152013]
  This study investigates the behaviors of Large Language Models (LLMs) when faced with conflicting prompts versus their internal memory. This will help to understand LLMs' decision mechanism and also benefit real-world applications, such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T17:26:03Z)
• Revisiting the Reliability of Psychological Scales on Large Language Models [62.57981196992073]
  This study aims to determine the reliability of applying personality assessments to Large Language Models. Analysis of 2,500 settings per model, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Gemini-Pro, and LLaMA-3.1, reveals that various LLMs show consistency in responses to the Big Five Inventory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T15:03:28Z)
• DeforestVis: Behavior Analysis of Machine Learning Models with Surrogate Decision Stumps [46.58231605323107]
  We propose DeforestVis, a visual analytics tool that offers summarization of the behaviour of complex ML models. DeforestVis helps users to explore the complexity versus fidelity trade-off by incrementally generating more stumps. We show the applicability and usefulness of DeforestVis with two use cases and expert interviews with data analysts and model developers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-31T21:17:15Z)
• AES Systems Are Both Overstable And Oversensitive: Explaining Why And Proposing Defenses [66.49753193098356]
  We investigate the reason behind the surprising adversarial brittleness of scoring models. Our results indicate that autoscoring models, despite getting trained as "end-to-end" models, behave like bag-of-words models. We propose detection-based protection models that can detect oversensitivity and overstability causing samples with high accuracies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-24T03:49:38Z)

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.