Large Language Model Strategic Reasoning Evaluation through Behavioral Game Theory

Strategic decision-making involves interactive reasoning where agents adapt their choices in response to others, yet existing evaluations of large language models (LLMs) often emphasize Nash Equilibrium (NE) approximation, overlooking the mechanisms driving their strategic choices. To bridge this gap, we introduce an evaluation framework grounded in behavioral game theory, disentangling reasoning capability from contextual effects. Testing 22 state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that GPT-o3-mini, GPT-o1, and DeepSeek-R1 dominate most games yet also demonstrate that the model scale alone does not determine performance. In terms of prompting enhancement, Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting is not universally effective, as it increases strategic reasoning only for models at certain levels while providing limited gains elsewhere. Additionally, we investigate the impact of encoded demographic features on the models, observing that certain assignments impact the decision-making pattern. For instance, GPT-4o shows stronger strategic reasoning with female traits than males, while Gemma assigns higher reasoning levels to heterosexual identities compared to other sexual orientations, indicating inherent biases. These findings underscore the need for ethical standards and contextual alignment to balance improved reasoning with fairness.

An Experimental Study of Competitive Market Behavior Through LLMs

This study explores the potential of large language models (LLMs) to conduct market experiments, aiming to understand their capability to comprehend competitive market dynamics. We model the behavior of market agents in a controlled experimental setting, assessing their ability to converge toward competitive equilibria. The results reveal the challenges current LLMs face in replicating the dynamic decision-making processes characteristic of human trading behavior. Unlike humans, LLMs lacked the capacity to achieve market equilibrium. The research demonstrates that while LLMs provide a valuable tool for scalable and reproducible market simulations, their current limitations necessitate further advancements to fully capture the complexities of market behavior. Future work that enhances dynamic learning capabilities and incorporates elements of behavioral economics could improve the effectiveness of LLMs in the economic domain, providing new insights into market dynamics and aiding in the refinement of economic policies.

Decision-Making Behavior Evaluation Framework for LLMs under Uncertain Context

When making decisions under uncertainty, individuals often deviate from rational behavior, which can be evaluated across three dimensions: risk preference, probability weighting, and loss aversion. Given the widespread use of large language models (LLMs) in decision-making processes, it is crucial to assess whether their behavior aligns with human norms and ethical expectations or exhibits potential biases. Several empirical studies have investigated the rationality and social behavior performance of LLMs, yet their internal decision-making tendencies and capabilities remain inadequately understood. This paper proposes a framework, grounded in behavioral economics, to evaluate the decision-making behaviors of LLMs. Through a multiple-choice-list experiment, we estimate the degree of risk preference, probability weighting, and loss aversion in a context-free setting for three commercial LLMs: ChatGPT-4.0-Turbo, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.0-pro. Our results reveal that LLMs generally exhibit patterns similar to humans, such as risk aversion and loss aversion, with a tendency to overweight small probabilities. However, there are significant variations in the degree to which these behaviors are expressed across different LLMs. We also explore their behavior when embedded with socio-demographic features, uncovering significant disparities. For instance, when modeled with attributes of sexual minority groups or physical disabilities, Claude-3-Opus displays increased risk aversion, leading to more conservative choices. These findings underscore the need for careful consideration of the ethical implications and potential biases in deploying LLMs in decision-making scenarios. Therefore, this study advocates for developing standards and guidelines to ensure that LLMs operate within ethical boundaries while enhancing their utility in complex decision-making environments.