Understanding LLM-Based Bargaining of Driving Agents in Mixed-Autonomy Traffic
Organizations: Washington State University · University of California, Davis
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a flexible computational approach for modeling social interactions among heterogeneous agents. This paper develops a novel framework towards characterizing and understanding LLM-based population-level bargaining of shared road space between autonomous vehicle (AV) and human-driven vehicle (HV) agents in mixed-autonomy traffic. Through controlled experiments varying traffic density, agent objectives, and traffic-domain knowledge, we first characterize bargaining outcomes and observe heterogeneous agreement rates across different experimental conditions. To understand how the bargaining process shapes the outcomes, we introduce a behavioral taxonomy that jointly characterizes numerical bidding actions and communicative attitudes. We examine two complementary aspects of social interaction: inter-agent bargaining dynamics and private-to-public behavioral transformation. Results reveal distinct interaction patterns associated with agreement and breakdown, including greater constructive reciprocity in agreement trials and more frequent conflict escalation in breakdown trials. Furthermore, private and public communicative attitudes often differ even when numerical bids remain unchanged. These findings illustrate how LLM-based bargaining simulations can support a structured analysis of social interaction behaviors in mixed-autonomy traffic.
Figures & tables
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Condition | AV personality | HV personality |
|---|---|---|
| Both-Aggressive | Aggressive | Aggressive |
| Fair-AV | Fairness-oriented | Aggressive |
| Fair-HV | Aggressive | Fairness-oriented |
| Both-Fair | Fairness-oriented | Fairness-oriented |
| Attitude | Definition |
|---|---|
| Acknowledge | Recognizes or validates the opponent’s point, concern, or need. |
| Evidence | Supports a position using facts, domain knowledge, or reasoning without confronting the opponent. |
| Ignore | Does not meaningfully engage with the opponent’s preceding point and instead continues its own position. |
| Dismiss | Challenges or rejects the validity or reasonableness of the opponent’s position or reasoning. |
| Push | Directly attempts to make the opponent change its position or concede. |
| Threat | Conditions an agent-imposed adverse consequence on the opponent’s failure to change its position. |
| Transition | Recurring Pattern | Private-Channel Expression | Public Realization |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismiss Push | Pressure / firmness signaling | Negative assessment of the opponent combined with stated intentions to signal resolve, maintain firmness, apply pressure, or encourage reconsideration. | Opponent-directed requests or pressure to change position, often without changing the numerical bid. |
| Push Dismiss | Indirect pressure through criticism | Stated intention to obtain a concession, pressure the opponent, or encourage reconsideration. | Public criticism of the validity or reasonableness of the opponent’s position rather than a direct request for change. |
| Dismiss Acknowledge | Strategic softening | Negative assessment of the opponent combined with intentions to “show flexibility,” “signal willingness to negotiate,” or demonstrate willingness to compromise. | Recognition of the opponent’s concerns or perspective, with either an unchanged or lower public bid. |
| Push Evidence | Strategic justification / reframing | Pressure-oriented intentions involving anchoring, leverage, signaling strength, or encouraging concession. | Reason-based justification of the proposed allocation using traffic density, safety, efficiency, or fairness, usually without changing the bid. |
| Acknowledge Evidence | Constructive reframing | Recognition of the opponent’s needs, constraints, or reasoning when forming the bargaining position. | Shift in emphasis from recognizing the opponent to explaining and justifying the agent’s own proposal. |
Multi-Agent Negotiation
Multi-agent negotiation studies how autonomous agents bargain, coordinate, and resolve conflicts over resources, contracts, and shared decisions.
See all 59 papers