Navigating Social Dilemmas with LLM-based Agents via Consideration of Future Consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial agents with the aid of large language models (LLMs) are effective in various real-world scenarios but struggle to cooperate in social dilemmas. When making decisions under the strain of selecting between long-term consequences and short-term benefits in commonly shared resources, LLM-based agents often exploit the environment, leading to early depletion. Inspired by the concept of consideration of future consequences (CFC), which is well-known in social psychology, we propose a framework to enable the ability to consider future consequences for LLM-based agents, which results in a new kind of agent that we term the CFC-Agent. We enable the CFC-Agent to act toward different levels of consideration for future consequences. Our first set of experiments, where LLM is directly asked to make decisions, shows that agents considering future consequences exhibit sustainable behaviour and achieve high common rewards for the population. Extensive experiments in complex environments showed that the CFC-Agent can manage a sequence of calls to LLM for reasoning and engaging in communication to cooperate with others to resolve the common dilemma better. Finally, our analysis showed that considering future consequences not only affects the final decision but also improves the conversations between LLM-based agents toward a better resolution of social dilemmas.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".