Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the impact of reasoning capabilities in LLM agents used for behavioral simulation, specifically in multi-agent negotiation scenarios. The authors find that while stronger reasoning can improve strategic problem-solving, it can paradoxically decrease simulation fidelity by leading to over-optimization and a collapse of compromise-oriented behaviors. Through experiments in trading-limits and grid-curtailment scenarios, they demonstrate that bounded reflection, rather than no reflection or native reasoning, yields more diverse and realistic negotiation trajectories.
Reasoning in LLMs can backfire in behavioral simulations, turning them into hyper-rational agents that fail to capture the messy compromises of real-world negotiations.
Large language models are increasingly used as agents in social, economic, and policy simulations. A common assumption is that stronger reasoning should improve simulation fidelity. We argue that this assumption can fail when the objective is not to solve a strategic problem, but to sample plausible boundedly rational behavior. In such settings, reasoning-enhanced models can become better solvers and worse simulators: they can over-optimize for strategically dominant actions, collapse compromise-oriented terminal behavior, and sometimes exhibit a diversity-without-fidelity pattern in which local variation survives without outcome-level fidelity. We study this solver-sampler mismatch in three multi-agent negotiation environments adapted from earlier simulation work: an ambiguous fragmented-authority trading-limits scenario, an ambiguous unified-opposition trading-limits scenario, and a new-domain grid-curtailment case in emergency electricity management. We compare three reflection conditions, no reflection, bounded reflection, and native reasoning, across two primary model families and then extend the same protocol to direct OpenAI runs with GPT-4.1 and GPT-5.2. Across all three experiments, bounded reflection produces substantially more diverse and compromise-oriented trajectories than either no reflection or native reasoning. In the direct OpenAI extension, GPT-5.2 native ends in authority decisions in 45 of 45 runs across the three experiments, while GPT-5.2 bounded recovers compromise outcomes in every environment. The contribution is not a claim that reasoning is generally harmful. It is a methodological warning: model capability and simulation fidelity are different objectives, and behavioral simulation should qualify models as samplers, not only as solvers.