Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper benchmarks the ability of LLM agents to sustain cooperation in social dilemmas when subjected to various game-theoretic mechanisms. They find that contracting and mediation are the most effective mechanisms for achieving cooperation, while repetition is brittle to co-player variation. Furthermore, they show that these mechanisms become even more effective under evolutionary pressure.
Forget carrots and sticks: contracts and mediation are the surprisingly effective keys to unlocking cooperation between LLMs, even when individual incentives push toward defection.
It is increasingly important that LLM agents interact effectively and safely with other goal-pursuing agents, yet, recent works report the opposite trend: LLMs with stronger reasoning capabilities behave _less_ cooperatively in mixed-motive games such as the prisoner's dilemma and public goods settings. Indeed, our experiments show that recent models -- with or without reasoning enabled -- consistently defect in single-shot social dilemmas. To tackle this safety concern, we present the first comparative study of game-theoretic mechanisms that are designed to enable cooperative outcomes between rational agents _in equilibrium_. Across four social dilemmas testing distinct components of robust cooperation, we evaluate the following mechanisms: (1) repeating the game for many rounds, (2) reputation systems, (3) third-party mediators to delegate decision making to, and (4) contract agreements for outcome-conditional payments between players. Among our findings, we establish that contracting and mediation are most effective in achieving cooperative outcomes between capable LLM models, and that repetition-induced cooperation deteriorates drastically when co-players vary. Moreover, we demonstrate that these cooperation mechanisms become _more effective_ under evolutionary pressures to maximize individual payoffs.
CMU ML