Simulating Social Behavior of LLM-Based Autonomous Negotiator Agents in a Game-Theoretical Framework Using Multi-Agent Systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simulation is a widely used approach for evaluating system performance, robustness, and potential issues during design and testing. Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently shown strong potential in autonomous agent systems, including negotiation tasks—a core aspect of commerce. This paper evaluates LLM-based autonomous negotiator agents (LANAs) in a buyer-seller bargaining game to assess their decision-making and reasoning. We simulate interactions between agents embodying contrasting social behaviors: (a) Cunning vs. Kind, and (b) Greedy vs. Generous. By analyzing both the game outcomes and the agents’ internal reasoning, we find that LLMs can effectively simulate distinct social behaviors in both dialogue and decision-making. Our results offer insights into how social traits affect negotiation dynamics, emphasizing the importance of clear policy design to ensure fairness and reliability in LANA-based systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it