Strategy, Not Payoffs: A Behavioural Embedding of Normal-Form Games

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly tasked with strategic decision-making under incomplete information, such as in negotiation and policymaking. While LLMs can excel at many such tasks, they also fail in ways that are poorly understood. We shed light on these failures by uncovering two fundamental gaps in the internal mechanisms underlying the decision-making of LLMs in incomplete-information games, supported by experiments with open-weight models Llama 3.1, Qwen3, and gpt-oss. First, an observation-belief gap: LLMs encode internal beliefs about latent game states that are substantially more accurate than their own verbal reports, yet these beliefs are brittle. In particular, the belief accuracy degrades with multi-hop reasoning, exhibits primacy and recency biases, and drifts away from Bayesian coherence over extended interactions. Second, a belief-action gap: The implicit conversion of internal beliefs into actions is weaker than that of the beliefs externalized in the prompt, yet neither belief-conditioning consistently achieves higher game payoffs. These results show how analyzing LLMs' internal processes can expose systematic vulnerabilities that warrant caution before deploying LLMs in strategic domains without robust guardrails.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as economic agents in marketplaces, auctions, and bidding settings. Anticipating their behavior in any specific deployment is hard. Existing strategic-reasoning benchmarks evaluate models on fixed canonical games. These benchmarks may saturate as the frontier improves, and they do not allow evaluators to generalize with confidence from benchmark performance to the varied and messy strategic environments that actual deployments involve. We introduce GENSTRAT, which uses procedurally generated strategic environments to address these challenges. Concretely, we generate a distribution of two-player zero-sum imperfect-information card games. The generator can draw fresh games on demand, allowing for evergreen evaluation and resistance to contamination. We pair the game distribution with a capability-profile methodology that decomposes model competence across six axes (state space, temporal depth, information sensitivity, opponent modeling, risk, and brittleness). We also introduce a jaggedness measure of within-distribution smoothness that detects when a model's advantage jumps unpredictably between strategically similar games. We sample 50 benchmark games from a 2,000-game generated pool and evaluate nine frontier and open-weight LLMs in a head-to-head tournament with over 36,000 matches. Newer frontier-tier models score higher on average. Beyond that average, models with near-identical overall strength show qualitatively different capability profiles, and two of the top three leaderboard models (gpt-5 and claude) are noticeably more locally volatile than the third (gemini-3.1-pro), despite being close in overall strength. Together, the capability profile and the jaggedness measure give a deployment-relevant diagnostic that the overall ranking alone cannot provide.

Large language models can score well on named game-theory benchmarks while failing on the same strategic computation once semantic cues are removed. We show this gap with procedurally generated zero-sum matrix games: a model that recognizes familiar games drops to 34%, 18%, and 2% success on anonymous $2{\times}2$, $3{\times}3$, and $5{\times}5$ payoff matrices. The benchmark separates semantic recall, learned approximate Nash computation, and an output-interface bottleneck that limits scale. Training only on $2{\times}2$ and $3{\times}3$ games, supervised fine-tuning raises unseen $5{\times}5$--$7{\times}7$ success from 2% to 61%, while exploitability-reward training averages 37% with high seed variance. We prove that the exploitability residual is $2$-Lipschitz in payoff perturbations, unlike discontinuous vertex-returning LP equilibrium selectors, explaining why residual training can transfer under payoff shifts even when formatting instability limits mean performance. A dominated-action padding experiment provides causal evidence: trained models solve $3{\times}3$ games embedded in much larger matrices, while random-padded controls fail and dense $12{\times}12$ games remain near failure. Procedural evaluation is therefore necessary for measuring strategic reasoning, and residual rewards expose a real but format-limited route to approximate equilibrium computation.