Competition and Cooperation of LLM Agents in Games
Authors: Jiayi Yao, Cong Chen, Baosen Zhang
Organizations: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle. · Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth College.
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in competitive multi-agent settings, raising fundamental questions about whether they converge to equilibria and how their strategic behavior can be characterized. In this paper, we study LLM agent interactions in two standard games: a network resource allocation game and a Cournot competition game. Rather than converging to Nash equilibria, we find that LLM agents tend to cooperate when given multi-round prompts and non-zero-sum context. Chain-of-thought analysis reveals that fairness reasoning is central to this behavior. We propose an analytical framework that captures the dynamics of LLM agent reasoning across rounds and explains these experimental findings.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Payoff in a 2-Agent case. The gray cloud represents the set of all feasible payoffs given positive bids, with the red line indicating the Pareto Front. The Nash Equilibrium (red star) is located well within the inefficient interior. The three colored dots (yellow, light green, dark green) represent the final converged outcomes of three sequential experimental trials. They illustrate how the agent eventually learn to cooperate and reach the social welfare solution.
Fig. 2: Dynamic evolution of θ . It gradually builds up through a process of mutual concession. Agent 1 (Initiator) signals cooperation, and Agent 2 (Reciprocator) responds, leading the system to the social optimum ( θ=1.0 ).
Fig. 3: A controlled perturbation test demonstrating retaliation and forgiveness. An exogenous betrayal shatters trust ( θ→0 ) and activates punitive inequity aversion ( γ→1.0 ). A subsequent apology successfully restores cooperation.
Fig. 4: Dynamic evolution of endogenous social parameters extracted from experimental fits. Trust ( θ ) gradually builds up through a process of mutual concession and predictably collapses during the Endgame Horizon.
As LLM-based agents with user-instructed goals are becoming widely deployed, they increasingly encounter each other in strategic interactions, and face challenges of finding mutually beneficial outcomes. Prior literature has argued that cooperation problems such as the Prisoner's Dilemma are resolvable in settings where agents know they follow very similar decision making patterns, as for example in monocultural AI ecosystems. Following that line of work, this paper introduces the first framework for evaluating LLM decision making when agents are provided with graded similarity signals. Among our findings, we establish that different LLM models vary drastically in how they navigate similarity signals, with some modern models showing consistent behavior across cooperation problems, payoff structures, and prompt framing. Perhaps surprisingly, our experiments also show that the dataset based on which the similarity signal is computed has small to no impact on induced cooperation, and that LLM models systematically self-identify as highly similar when asked to evaluate another model's chain-of-thought reasoning by themselves. Finally, we develop an LLM-behavioral-game-theoretic model that captures some of their reasoning rationale, and show that it can support cooperative outcomes in equilibrium under sufficiently high similarity scores.
Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly coordinate in multi-agent systems, yet we lack an understanding of where and why cooperation fails. Many real-world coordination problems are not social dilemmas: helping others -- sharing documentation, unblocking a teammate -- costs the helper almost nothing while producing substantial collective benefit. Whether LLM agents cooperate in this regime, where helping is free and they are explicitly instructed to do so, remains unknown. We build a turn-based multi-agent environment that strips away all strategic complexity, making cooperation costless and trivially optimal. Across eight widely used LLMs, capability does not predict cooperation: OpenAI o3 reaches only 17% of optimal collective performance while the weaker o3-mini reaches 50%, despite identical instructions to maximize group revenue. Using a causal decomposition that automates one side of agent communication, we separate cooperation failures from competence failures, and find that several capable models actively withhold information despite gaining nothing from withholding. Targeted interventions address each mode: explicit protocols roughly double the performance of competence-limited models, while small sharing incentives unlock cooperation-limited ones. Our results suggest that scaling intelligence alone will not solve coordination in multi-agent systems, and will require deliberate cooperative design, even when helping costs nothing.
Advait Yadav, Sid Black, Oliver Sourbut
MATS · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · UK AI Security Institute +1
Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in multi-agent systems requiring strategic coordination. While recent work has analyzed LLM behavior in two-player games, coalition formation, where n agents dynamically form cooperative groups, remains theoretically uncharacterized. We present the first framework grounding coalition formation in LLM agent networks in hedonic game theory with formal stability guarantees. We introduce the LLM Coalition Formation Game (LCFG), establish sufficient conditions for Nash-stable partitions, and prove complexity results. Our analysis reveals that LLM agents exhibit bounded rationality characterized by ε-rational preferences; we provide both deterministic existence guarantees and consistency-driven stability bounds whose predictions are consistent with empirical outcomes. Experiments with GPT-4, Claude-3, and Llama-3 across 2,400 episodes validate our framework: LLM coalitions achieve Nash stability in 73.2% of cases under our Coalition-of-Thought (CoalT) protocol, compared to 58.4% under chain-of-thought and 41.8% under standard prompting (p<0.001). Our framework provides theoretical foundations for designing stable multi-agent LLM systems.
Dongxin Guo, Jikun Wu, Siu-Ming Yiu
Department of Compute Science, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China · Brain Investing Limited, Hong Kong, China · Stellaris AI Limited, Hong Kong, China