Discovering Differences in Strategic Behavior Between Humans and LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.10324v1
• Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 22:02:41 GMT
• Title: Discovering Differences in Strategic Behavior Between Humans and LLMs
• Authors: Caroline Wang, Daniel Kasenberg, Kim Stachenfeld, Pablo Samuel Castro,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in social and strategic scenarios.<n>We employ AlphaEvolve, a cutting-edge program discovery tool, to directly discover interpretable models of human and LLM behavior from data.<n>Our analysis on iterated rock-paper-scissors reveals that frontier LLMs can be capable of deeper strategic behavior than humans.
• Score: 22.672379469260502
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in social and strategic scenarios, it becomes critical to understand where and why their behavior diverges from that of humans. While behavioral game theory (BGT) provides a framework for analyzing behavior, existing models do not fully capture the idiosyncratic behavior of humans or black-box, non-human agents like LLMs. We employ AlphaEvolve, a cutting-edge program discovery tool, to directly discover interpretable models of human and LLM behavior from data, thereby enabling open-ended discovery of structural factors driving human and LLM behavior. Our analysis on iterated rock-paper-scissors reveals that frontier LLMs can be capable of deeper strategic behavior than humans. These results provide a foundation for understanding structural differences driving differences in human and LLM behavior in strategic interactions.

Related papers

• HumanLLM: Towards Personalized Understanding and Simulation of Human Nature [72.55730315685837]
  HumanLLM is a foundation model designed for personalized understanding and simulation of individuals.<n>We first construct the Cognitive Genome, a large-scale corpus curated from real-world user data on platforms like Reddit, Twitter, Blogger, and Amazon.<n>We then formulate diverse learning tasks and perform supervised fine-tuning to empower the model to predict a wide range of individualized human behaviors, thoughts, and experiences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-22T09:27:27Z)
• Social Simulations with Large Language Model Risk Utopian Illusion [61.358959720048354]
  We introduce a systematic framework for analyzing large language models' behavior in social simulation.<n>Our approach simulates multi-agent interactions through chatroom-style conversations and analyzes them across five linguistic dimensions.<n>Our findings reveal that LLMs do not faithfully reproduce genuine human behavior but instead reflect overly idealized versions of it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T06:08:41Z)
• Noise, Adaptation, and Strategy: Assessing LLM Fidelity in Decision-Making [0.030586855806896043]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in social science simulations.<n>We propose a process-oriented evaluation framework to examine how LLM agents adapt under different levels of external guidance and human-derived noise.<n>We find that LLMs, by default, converge on stable and conservative strategies that diverge from observed human behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-21T18:55:53Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• From Tokens to Thoughts: How LLMs and Humans Trade Compression for Meaning [63.25540801694765]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate striking linguistic abilities, yet whether they achieve this same balance remains unclear.<n>We apply the Information Bottleneck principle to quantitatively compare how LLMs and humans navigate this compression-meaning trade-off.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T16:29:00Z)
• Comparing Exploration-Exploitation Strategies of LLMs and Humans: Insights from Standard Multi-armed Bandit Experiments [5.1382713576243955]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate or automate human behavior in sequential decision-making settings.<n>We focus on the exploration-exploitation (E&E) tradeoff, a fundamental aspect of dynamic decision-making under uncertainty.<n>We find that enabling thinking in LLMs shifts their behavior toward more human-like behavior, characterized by a mix of random and directed exploration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T02:09:18Z)
• 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)
• Can Machines Think Like Humans? A Behavioral Evaluation of LLM-Agents in Dictator Games [7.504095239018173]
  Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents increasingly undertake real-world tasks and engage with human society.<n>We investigate how different personas and experimental framings affect these AI agents' altruistic behavior in dictator games.<n>We show that assigning a human-like identity to LLMs does not produce human-like behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T17:47:41Z)
• Explaining Large Language Models Decisions Using Shapley Values [1.223779595809275]
  Large language models (LLMs) have opened up exciting possibilities for simulating human behavior and cognitive processes. However, the validity of utilizing LLMs as stand-ins for human subjects remains uncertain. This paper presents a novel approach based on Shapley values to interpret LLM behavior and quantify the relative contribution of each prompt component to the model's output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T22:49:43Z)
• Can Large Language Model Agents Simulate Human Trust Behavior? [81.45930976132203]
  We investigate whether Large Language Model (LLM) agents can simulate human trust behavior. GPT-4 agents manifest high behavioral alignment with humans in terms of trust behavior. We also probe the biases of agent trust and differences in agent trust towards other LLM agents and humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T03:37:19Z)

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.