Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The paper introduces the Adversarial Resource Extraction Game (AREG), a zero-sum negotiation benchmark, to jointly evaluate persuasion and resistance capabilities in LLMs. They conduct a round-robin tournament across frontier models and find a weak correlation ($\rho = 0.33$) between persuasion and resistance, demonstrating their empirical dissociation. The results show a systematic defensive advantage and highlight the importance of interaction structure, with incremental commitment-seeking strategies favoring extraction and verification-seeking responses favoring defense.
LLMs can be surprisingly resistant to persuasion even when they seem persuasive, revealing a fundamental asymmetry in their social intelligence.
Evaluating the social intelligence of Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly requires moving beyond static text generation toward dynamic, adversarial interaction. We introduce the Adversarial Resource Extraction Game (AREG), a benchmark that operationalizes persuasion and resistance as a multi-turn, zero-sum negotiation over financial resources. Using a round-robin tournament across frontier models, AREG enables joint evaluation of offensive (persuasion) and defensive (resistance) capabilities within a single interactional framework. Our analysis provides evidence that these capabilities are weakly correlated ($\rho = 0.33$) and empirically dissociated: strong persuasive performance does not reliably predict strong resistance, and vice versa. Across all evaluated models, resistance scores exceed persuasion scores, indicating a systematic defensive advantage in adversarial dialogue settings. Further linguistic analysis suggests that interaction structure plays a central role in these outcomes. Incremental commitment-seeking strategies are associated with higher extraction success, while verification-seeking responses are more prevalent in successful defenses than explicit refusal. Together, these findings indicate that social influence in LLMs is not a monolithic capability and that evaluation frameworks focusing on persuasion alone may overlook asymmetric behavioral vulnerabilities.
