LLM Rationalis? Measuring Bargaining Capabilities of AI Negotiators

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.13063v1
• Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 07:50:09 GMT
• Title: LLM Rationalis? Measuring Bargaining Capabilities of AI Negotiators
• Abstract summary: Bilateral negotiation is a complex, context-sensitive task in which human negotiators dynamically adjust anchors, pacing, and flexibility to exploit power asymmetries and informal cues.<n>We introduce a unified mathematical framework for modeling concession dynamics based on a hyperbolic tangent curve.<n>We conduct a large-scale empirical comparison between human negotiators and four state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) across natural-language and numeric-offers settings.
• Score: 2.1952520391635586
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Bilateral negotiation is a complex, context-sensitive task in which human negotiators dynamically adjust anchors, pacing, and flexibility to exploit power asymmetries and informal cues. We introduce a unified mathematical framework for modeling concession dynamics based on a hyperbolic tangent curve, and propose two metrics burstiness tau and the Concession-Rigidity Index (CRI) to quantify the timing and rigidity of offer trajectories. We conduct a large-scale empirical comparison between human negotiators and four state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) across natural-language and numeric-offers settings, with and without rich market context, as well as six controlled power-asymmetry scenarios. Our results reveal that, unlike humans who smoothly adapt to situations and infer the opponents position and strategies, LLMs systematically anchor at extremes of the possible agreement zone for negotiations and optimize for fixed points irrespective of leverage or context. Qualitative analysis further shows limited strategy diversity and occasional deceptive tactics used by LLMs. Moreover the ability of LLMs to negotiate does not improve with better models. These findings highlight fundamental limitations in current LLM negotiation capabilities and point to the need for models that better internalize opponent reasoning and context-dependent strategy.

Related papers

• Learning to Negotiate: Multi-Agent Deliberation for Collective Value Alignment in LLMs [0.41998444721319217]
  This work proposes a multi-agent negotiation-based alignment framework that aligns large language models to Collective Agency (CA)<n>To enable scalable training, two self-play instances of the same LLM, assigned opposing personas, engage in structured turn-based dialogue to synthesize mutually beneficial solutions.<n>Experiments show that the resulting model achieves CA alignment comparable to a single-agent baseline while substantially improving conflict-resolution performance without degrading general language capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T06:58:55Z)
• MERIT Feedback Elicits Better Bargaining in LLM Negotiators [38.1466669265123]
  AgoraBench is a new benchmark spanning nine challenging settings.<n>This is operationalized via agent utility, negotiation power, and acquisition ratio that implicitly measure how well the negotiation aligns with human preference.<n>Our mechanism substantially improves negotiation performance, yielding deeper strategic behavior and stronger opponent awareness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T03:09:45Z)
• How Far Can LLMs Emulate Human Behavior?: A Strategic Analysis via the Buy-and-Sell Negotiation Game [0.8353024005684598]
  This work proposes a methodology to quantitatively evaluate the human emotional and behavioral imitation and strategic decision-making capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Specifically, we assign different personas to multiple LLMs and conduct negotiations between a Buyer and a Seller, comprehensively analyzing outcomes such as win rates, transaction prices, and SHAP values.<n>Our experimental results show that models with higher existing benchmark scores tend to achieve better negotiation performance overall.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-22T09:07:29Z)
• EQ-Negotiator: Dynamic Emotional Personas Empower Small Language Models for Edge-Deployable Credit Negotiation [66.09161596959771]
  Small language models (SLMs) offer a practical alternative, but suffer from a significant performance gap compared to large language models (LLMs)<n>This paper introduces EQ-Negotiator, a novel framework that bridges this capability gap using emotional personas.<n>We show that a 7B parameter language model with EQ-Negotiator achieves better debt recovery and negotiation efficiency than baseline LLMs more than 10 times its size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-05T11:25:07Z)
• EvoEmo: Towards Evolved Emotional Policies for Adversarial LLM Agents in Multi-Turn Price Negotiation [61.627248012799704]
  Existing Large Language Models (LLMs) agents largely overlook the functional role of emotions in such negotiations.<n>We present EvoEmo, an evolutionary reinforcement learning framework that optimize dynamic emotional expression in negotiations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-04T15:23:58Z)
• LLM Agents for Bargaining with Utility-based Feedback [23.357706450282002]
  We introduce a comprehensive framework centered on utility-based feedback.<n>Our contributions are threefold: (1) BargainArena, a novel benchmark dataset; (2) human-aligned, economically-grounded evaluation metrics inspired by utility theory; and (3) a structured feedback mechanism enabling LLMs to iteratively refine their bargaining strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T02:07:27Z)
• Societal Alignment Frameworks Can Improve LLM Alignment [50.97852062232431]
  We argue that improving LLM alignment requires incorporating insights from societal alignment frameworks.<n>We then investigate how uncertainty within societal alignment frameworks manifests in LLM alignment.<n>We end our discussion by offering an alternative view on LLM alignment, framing the underspecified nature of its objectives as an opportunity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T13:26:07Z)
• Reproducibility Study of Cooperation, Competition, and Maliciousness: LLM-Stakeholders Interactive Negotiation [0.0]
  We validate the original findings using a range of open-weight models.<n>We propose a communication-free baseline to test whether successful negotiations are possible without agent interaction.<n>This work also provides insights into the accessibility, fairness, environmental impact, and privacy considerations of LLM-based negotiation systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-22T14:28:49Z)
• EPO: Explicit Policy Optimization for Strategic Reasoning in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning [69.55982246413046]
  We propose explicit policy optimization (EPO) for strategic reasoning.<n>We train the strategic reasoning model via multi-turn reinforcement learning (RL),utilizing process rewards and iterative self-play.<n>Our findings reveal various collaborative reasoning mechanisms emergent in EPO and its effectiveness in generating novel strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T03:15:55Z)
• LLMs with Personalities in Multi-issue Negotiation Games [2.186901738997927]
  We measure the ability of large language models (LLMs) to negotiate within a game-theoretical framework. We find high openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism are associated with fair tendencies. Low agreeableness and low openness are associated with rational tendencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-08T17:51:53Z)
• Are LLMs Effective Negotiators? Systematic Evaluation of the Multifaceted Capabilities of LLMs in Negotiation Dialogues [4.738985706520995]
  This work aims to systematically analyze the multifaceted capabilities of LLMs across diverse dialogue scenarios. Our analysis highlights GPT-4's superior performance in many tasks while identifying specific challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T06:11:03Z)
• How Well Can LLMs Negotiate? NegotiationArena Platform and Analysis [50.15061156253347]
  Negotiation is the basis of social interactions; humans negotiate everything from the price of cars to how to share common resources. With rapidly growing interest in using large language models (LLMs) to act as agents on behalf of human users, such LLM agents would also need to be able to negotiate. We develop NegotiationArena: a flexible framework for evaluating and probing the negotiation abilities of LLM agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-08T17:51:48Z)
• K-Level Reasoning: Establishing Higher Order Beliefs in Large Language Models for Strategic Reasoning [76.3114831562989]
  It requires Large Language Model (LLM) agents to adapt their strategies dynamically in multi-agent environments. We propose a novel framework: "K-Level Reasoning with Large Language Models (K-R)"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T16:07:05Z)
• Assistive Large Language Model Agents for Socially-Aware Negotiation Dialogues [47.977032883078664]
  We develop assistive agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) that aid interlocutors in business negotiations.<n>A third LLM acts as a remediator agent to rewrite utterances violating norms for improving negotiation outcomes.<n>We provide rich empirical evidence to demonstrate its effectiveness in negotiations across three different negotiation topics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T09:07:40Z)

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.