Cattle Trade: A Multi-Agent Benchmark for LLM Bluffing, Bidding, and Bargaining

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.14537v1
• Date: Thu, 14 May 2026 08:20:03 GMT
• Title: Cattle Trade: A Multi-Agent Benchmark for LLM Bluffing, Bidding, and Bargaining
• Abstract summary: We introduce textscCattle Trade, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as agents in strategic reasoning.<n>The benchmark combines auctions, hidden-offer trade challenges (TCs), bargaining, bluffing, opponent modeling, and resource allocation within a single long-horizon game.<n>We evaluate seven cost-efficient language models and three deterministic code agents across 242 games.
• Score: 0.5691230599672109
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We introduce \textsc{Cattle Trade, a multi-agent benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as agents in strategic reasoning under imperfect information, adversarial interaction, and resource constraints. The benchmark combines auctions, hidden-offer trade challenges (TCs), bargaining, bluffing, opponent modeling, and resource allocation within a single long-horizon game lasting 50--60 turns. Unlike prior agent benchmarks that test these abilities in isolation, \textsc{Cattle Trade} evaluates whether agents integrate them across a competitive, multi-agent economic game with conflicting incentives. The benchmark logs every bid, TC offer, counteroffer, and card selection, enabling behavioural analysis beyond final scores or win rates. We evaluate seven cost-efficient language models and three deterministic code agents across 242 games. Strategic coherence, in particular spending efficiency, resource discipline, and phase-adaptive bidding, is associated with rank more strongly than spending volume or any single subskill. Two heuristic code agents outperform most tested LLMs, and behavioural traces surface recurring LLM failure modes including overbidding, self-bidding, bankrupt TC initiation, and weak opponent-state adaptation. Evaluating agentic competence requires benchmarks that test the joint deployment of multiple capabilities in multi-agent environments with conflicting incentives, uncertainty, and economic dynamics.

Related papers

• CoffeeBench: Benchmarking Long-Horizon LLM Agents in Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Economies [2.545704705278791]
  We introduce CoffeeBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLM agents in a long-horizon multi-agent economy composed of heterogeneous firms.<n>Two farmers, two roasters, and two retailers autonomously operate their businesses over a 90-day simulation.<n>All models outperform a passive baseline that takes no actions, with most achieving positive net income.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-15T12:04:44Z)
• DNQ: Deep Nash Q-Network for Partially Observable n-Player Games [4.004249151279306]
  We propose DNQ, a solver-in-the-loop equilibrium supervision framework for training bidding agents.<n>DNQ alternates between trajectory collection, critic-based payoff estimation, equilibrium, and policy imitation.<n>We focus on a scalable pairwise formulation that greatly reduces equilibrium-solving cost and training time compared with the exact formulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T17:58:01Z)
• MINDGAMES: A Live Arena for Evaluating Social and Strategic Reasoning in Multi-Agent LLMs [54.81359054218573]
  We introduce Mindgames, a multi-game arena and evaluation platform for large language models (LLMs)<n>Mindgames provides a unified interaction interface, TrueSkill-based rating, and full trajectory logging across four game environments.<n>We analyze 29,571 multi-agent games with turn-level observations, actions, and rewards, together with MG-Ref, a deterministic offline tournament protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T07:33:47Z)
• TERMS-Bench: Diagnosing LLM Negotiation Agents Beyond Deal Rate [34.67393151003599]
  Negotiation is a canonical testbed for agentic language models.<n>Unlike math or code, it has no intrinsic verifier.<n>We introduce Terms-Bench, a Bayesian-game framework that makes the environment itself the verifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T06:22:50Z)
• AgenticAITA: A Proof-Of-Concept About Deliberative Multi-Agent Reasoning for Autonomous Trading Systems [0.0]
  AGENTICAITA is an agentic AI framework that replaces the traditional signal then execute paradigm with a fully autonomous loop.<n>The framework demonstrates operational correctness of the deliberative pipeline, achieving 157 zero-intervention invocations across 76 assets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-01T16:25:43Z)
• Training Language Models for Bilateral Trade with Private Information [47.25254982913256]
  Bilateral trade demands individual, strategic surplus rationality, and cooperation to realize gains from trade.<n>We develop a structured bargaining environment where large language models negotiate via tool calls within an event-driven simulator.<n>The environment serves two purposes: a benchmark for frontier models and as a training environment for open-weight models via reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-10T03:04:20Z)
• AgenticPay: A Multi-Agent LLM Negotiation System for Buyer-Seller Transactions [49.49718899185783]
  Large language model (LLM)-based agents are increasingly expected to negotiate, coordinate, and transact autonomously.<n>We introduce AgenticPay, a benchmark and simulation framework for multi-agent buyer-seller negotiation driven by natural language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T18:50:36Z)
• Collaborative Multi-Agent Test-Time Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning [112.16686518063456]
  We introduce textbfMulti-Agent Test-Time Reinforcement Learning (MATTRL), a framework that injects structured textual experience into multi-agent deliberation at inference time.<n>MATTRL forms a multi-expert team of specialists for multi-turn discussions, retrieves and integrates test-time experiences, and reaches consensus for final decision-making.<n>Across challenging benchmarks in medicine, math, and education, MATTRL improves accuracy by an average of 3.67% over a multi-agent baseline, and by 8.67% over comparable single-agent baselines
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-14T17:57:43Z)
• Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning for Market Making: Competition without Collusion [6.598173855286935]
  We propose a hierarchical multi-agent reinforcement learning framework to study algorithmic collusion in market making.<n>The framework includes a self-interested market maker (AgentA), which is trained in an uncertain environment shaped by an adversary.<n>We show that adaptive incentive control supports more sustainable strategic co-existence in heterogeneous agent environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-29T20:07:47Z)
• When Agents Trade: Live Multi-Market Trading Benchmark for LLM Agents [74.55061622246824]
  Agent Market Arena (AMA) is the first lifelong, real-time benchmark for evaluating Large Language Model (LLM)-based trading agents.<n>AMA integrates verified trading data, expert-checked news, and diverse agent architectures within a unified trading framework.<n>It evaluates agents across GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, Claude-3.5-haiku, Claude-sonnet-4, and Gemini-2.0-flash.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T17:54:09Z)
• EmoDebt: Bayesian-Optimized Emotional Intelligence for Strategic Agent-to-Agent Debt Recovery [65.30120701878582]
  Large Language Model (LLM) agents are vulnerable to exploitation in emotion-sensitive domains like debt collection.<n>EmoDebt is an emotional intelligence engine that reframes a model's ability to express emotion in negotiation as a sequential decision-making problem.<n>EmoDebt achieves significant strategic robustness, substantially outperforming non-adaptive and emotion-agnostic baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T01:41:34Z)

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.