neuralFOMO: Can LLMs Handle Being Second Best? Measuring Envy-Like Preferences in Multi-Agent Settings

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.13481v1
• Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 16:17:12 GMT
• Title: neuralFOMO: Can LLMs Handle Being Second Best? Measuring Envy-Like Preferences in Multi-Agent Settings
• Abstract summary: Envy is a common human behavior that shapes competitiveness and can alter outcomes in team settings.<n>This paper tests whether large language models (LLMs) show envy-like behavior toward each other.
• Score: 2.5421739061996753
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Envy is a common human behavior that shapes competitiveness and can alter outcomes in team settings. As large language models (LLMs) increasingly act on behalf of humans in collaborative and competitive workflows, there is a pressing need to evaluate whether and under what conditions they exhibit envy-like preferences. In this paper, we test whether LLMs show envy-like behavior toward each other. We considered two scenarios: (1) A point allocation game that tests whether a model tries to win over its peer. (2) A workplace setting observing behaviour when recognition is unfair. Our findings reveal consistent evidence of envy-like patterns in certain LLMs, with large variation across models and contexts. For instance, GPT-5-mini and Claude-3.7-Sonnet show a clear tendency to pull down the peer model to equalize outcomes, whereas Mistral-Small-3.2-24B instead focuses on maximizing its own individual gains. These results highlight the need to consider competitive dispositions as a safety and design factor in LLM-based multi-agent systems.

Related papers

• Supervised Fine-Tuning or Contrastive Learning? Towards Better Multimodal LLM Reranking [56.46309219272326]
  For large language models (LLMs), classification via supervised fine-tuning (SFT) predicts ''yes'' (resp. ''no'') token for relevant (resp. irrelevant) pairs.<n>This divergence raises a central question: which objective is intrinsically better suited to LLM-based reranking, and what mechanism underlies the difference?<n>We conduct a comprehensive comparison and analysis between CL and SFT for reranking, taking the universal multimodal retrieval (UMR) as the experimental playground.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T16:02:27Z)
• Revisiting LLM Value Probing Strategies: Are They Robust and Expressive? [81.49470136653665]
  We evaluate the robustness and expressiveness of value representations across three widely used probing strategies.<n>We show that the demographic context has little effect on the free-text generation, and the models' values only weakly correlate with their preference for value-based actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-17T18:56:41Z)
• SPARTA ALIGNMENT: Collectively Aligning Multiple Language Models through Combat [76.48873047003943]
  We propose SPARTA ALIGNMENT, an algorithm to collectively align multiple LLMs through competition and combat.<n>For each iteration, one instruction and two models are selected for a duel, the other models evaluate the two responses, and their evaluation scores are aggregated through a adapted elo-ranking based reputation system.<n>The peer-evaluated combat results then become preference pairs where the winning response is preferred over the losing one, and all models learn from these preferences at the end of each iteration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T07:51:23Z)
• Do Large Language Models Exhibit Spontaneous Rational Deception? [0.913127392774573]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are effective at deceiving, when prompted to do so.<n>But under what conditions do they deceive spontaneously?<n>This study evaluates spontaneous deception produced by LLMs in a preregistered experimental protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T23:10:56Z)
• Towards Large Language Models that Benefit for All: Benchmarking Group Fairness in Reward Models [16.977176752570617]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly powerful and accessible to human users.<n> Ensuring fairness across diverse demographic groups, i.e., group fairness, is a critical ethical concern.<n>This work benchmarks the group fairness of learned reward models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T19:39:39Z)
• Towards Reasoning Ability of Small Language Models [7.12809444398765]
  This paper introduces ThinkSLM, the first benchmark to systematically evaluate and study the reasoning abilities of SLMs.<n>We present a study evaluating 72 diverse SLMs from six major model families across 17 reasoning benchmarks.<n>Our findings challenge the assumption that scaling is the only way to achieve strong reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T08:59:16Z)
• Lost in Inference: Rediscovering the Role of Natural Language Inference for Large Language Models [36.983534612895156]
  In the recent past, a popular way of evaluating natural language understanding (NLU) was to consider a model's ability to perform natural language inference (NLI) tasks. This paper focuses on five different NLI benchmarks across six models of different scales. We investigate if they are able to discriminate models of different size and quality and how their accuracies develop during training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T13:09:36Z)
• 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)
• Bias Similarity Measurement: A Black-Box Audit of Fairness Across LLMs [35.72288339965426]
  Bias Similarity Measurement (BSM) treats fairness as a relational property between models.<n>Open-weight models can match or exceed proprietary systems.<n>BSM offers an auditing workflow for procurement, regression testing, and lineage screening.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T19:21:14Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Are You Sure? Challenging LLMs Leads to Performance Drops in The FlipFlop Experiment [82.60594940370919]
  We propose the FlipFlop experiment to study the multi-turn behavior of Large Language Models (LLMs) We show that models flip their answers on average 46% of the time and that all models see a deterioration of accuracy between their first and final prediction, with an average drop of 17% (the FlipFlop effect) We conduct finetuning experiments on an open-source LLM and find that finetuning on synthetically created data can mitigate - reducing performance deterioration by 60% - but not resolve sycophantic behavior entirely.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T23:40:22Z)
• Can Large Language Models Infer Causation from Correlation? [104.96351414570239]
  We test the pure causal inference skills of large language models (LLMs) We formulate a novel task Corr2Cause, which takes a set of correlational statements and determines the causal relationship between the variables. We show that these models achieve almost close to random performance on the task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T12:09:15Z)

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.