GTBench: Uncovering the Strategic Reasoning Limitations of LLMs via Game-Theoretic Evaluations
2402.12348
0
0
Abstract
As Large Language Models (LLMs) are integrated into critical real-world applications, their strategic and logical reasoning abilities are increasingly crucial. This paper evaluates LLMs' reasoning abilities in competitive environments through game-theoretic tasks, e.g., board and card games that require pure logic and strategic reasoning to compete with opponents. We first propose GTBench, a language-driven environment composing 10 widely recognized tasks, across a comprehensive game taxonomy: complete versus incomplete information, dynamic versus static, and probabilistic versus deterministic scenarios. Then, we (1) Characterize the game-theoretic reasoning of LLMs; and (2) Perform LLM-vs.-LLM competitions as reasoning evaluation. We observe that (1) LLMs have distinct behaviors regarding various gaming scenarios; for example, LLMs fail in complete and deterministic games yet they are competitive in probabilistic gaming scenarios; (2) Most open-source LLMs, e.g., CodeLlama-34b-Instruct and Llama-2-70b-chat, are less competitive than commercial LLMs, e.g., GPT-4, in complex games, yet the recently released Llama-3-70b-Instruct makes up for this shortcoming. In addition, code-pretraining greatly benefits strategic reasoning, while advanced reasoning methods such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Tree-of-Thought (ToT) do not always help. We further characterize the game-theoretic properties of LLMs, such as equilibrium and Pareto Efficiency in repeated games. Detailed error profiles are provided for a better understanding of LLMs' behavior. We hope our research provides standardized protocols and serves as a foundation to spur further explorations in the strategic reasoning of LLMs.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- Presents a new benchmark called GTBench to evaluate the strategic reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs)
- Identifies key limitations in the strategic reasoning capabilities of current LLMs
- Provides a game-theoretic framework for assessing an LLM's ability to engage in strategic decision-making
Plain English Explanation
This research paper introduces a new tool called GTBench that is designed to test the strategic reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs). LLMs are AI systems that can generate human-like text, but they often struggle with more complex cognitive tasks like strategic decision-making.
The researchers created a series of game-theoretic scenarios that challenge LLMs to reason about the actions and motivations of other players. By evaluating how well LLMs perform in these strategic scenarios, the researchers were able to uncover some key limitations in the models' ability to engage in the type of sophisticated reasoning required for effective decision-making.
For example, the LLMs had difficulty anticipating how other players might respond to their actions, or understanding the importance of maintaining a consistent strategy over time. This suggests that current LLMs may not be well-suited for applications that require complex, contextual reasoning, such as strategic planning, negotiation, or policy decision-making.
Overall, the GTBench framework provides a novel way to assess the strategic reasoning capabilities of LLMs, and the findings from this research highlight the need for continued advancements in this area to develop AI systems that can truly excel at high-level reasoning and decision-making tasks.
Technical Explanation
The researchers developed the GTBench framework to evaluate the strategic reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs). The framework consists of a set of game-theoretic scenarios that challenge the LLMs to engage in strategic decision-making.
Each scenario presents the LLM with a strategic interaction, such as a negotiation or a resource allocation problem, and the model must reason about the actions and motivations of the other players to formulate an effective strategy. The researchers then assess the LLM's performance on various metrics, such as its ability to anticipate the other players' responses, maintain a consistent strategy over time, and achieve favorable outcomes.
Through a series of experiments, the researchers found that current LLMs exhibit significant limitations in their strategic reasoning capabilities. For example, the models struggled to identify the optimal strategies for achieving their goals, and they often failed to anticipate how other players might respond to their actions.
The researchers suggest that these limitations may be due to the way LLMs are trained, which typically focuses on language modeling tasks rather than more complex cognitive skills like strategic reasoning. They argue that developing AI systems that can truly excel at high-level reasoning and decision-making will require new approaches to model training and architecture design.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge several limitations of the GTBench framework, including the fact that it only evaluates a subset of strategic reasoning abilities and may not capture the full range of an LLM's capabilities. Additionally, the researchers note that the performance of LLMs on the GTBench scenarios may be influenced by factors such as the specific prompts and task formulations used, which could introduce biases or confounding factors.
One potential concern is that the GTBench scenarios may not fully capture the complexity and nuance of real-world strategic interactions, which often involve a much wider range of factors and considerations. While the framework provides a useful starting point for evaluating strategic reasoning, further research may be needed to develop more comprehensive and ecologically valid assessments.
Additionally, it is worth noting that the findings from this research may have broader implications for the development of AI systems that can engage in effective decision-making, not just in strategic contexts but across a wide range of domains. As such, the insights gained from the GTBench framework may be valuable for informing the design and training of future AI systems that need to grapple with complex, contextual reasoning tasks.
Conclusion
The GTBench framework presented in this research paper provides a novel approach for evaluating the strategic reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs). The findings suggest that current LLMs exhibit significant limitations in their capacity for sophisticated strategic decision-making, highlighting the need for continued advancements in AI architecture and training approaches to develop systems that can truly excel at high-level reasoning and problem-solving.
By uncovering the strategic reasoning shortcomings of LLMs, this research contributes to a growing body of work that is systematically evaluating the capabilities and limitations of these powerful AI systems. The insights gained from this study could inform the development of more effective AI-driven decision-support tools and help guide the field towards the creation of AI agents that can engage in truly sophisticated and contextual reasoning.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
GameBench: Evaluating Strategic Reasoning Abilities of LLM Agents
Anthony Costarelli, Mat Allen, Roman Hauksson, Grace Sodunke, Suhas Hariharan, Carlson Cheng, Wenjie Li, Arjun Yadav
0
0
Large language models have demonstrated remarkable few-shot performance on many natural language understanding tasks. Despite several demonstrations of using large language models in complex, strategic scenarios, there lacks a comprehensive framework for evaluating agents' performance across various types of reasoning found in games. To address this gap, we introduce GameBench, a cross-domain benchmark for evaluating strategic reasoning abilities of LLM agents. We focus on 9 different game environments, where each covers at least one axis of key reasoning skill identified in strategy games, and select games for which strategy explanations are unlikely to form a significant portion of models' pretraining corpuses. Our evaluations use GPT-3 and GPT-4 in their base form along with two scaffolding frameworks designed to enhance strategic reasoning ability: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting and Reasoning Via Planning (RAP). Our results show that none of the tested models match human performance, and at worse GPT-4 performs worse than random action. CoT and RAP both improve scores but not comparable to human levels.
6/12/2024
LogicBench: Towards Systematic Evaluation of Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models
Mihir Parmar, Nisarg Patel, Neeraj Varshney, Mutsumi Nakamura, Man Luo, Santosh Mashetty, Arindam Mitra, Chitta Baral
0
0
Recently developed large language models (LLMs) have been shown to perform remarkably well on a wide range of language understanding tasks. But, can they really reason over the natural language? This question has been receiving significant research attention and many reasoning skills such as commonsense, numerical, and qualitative have been studied. However, the crucial skill pertaining to 'logical reasoning' has remained underexplored. Existing work investigating this reasoning ability of LLMs has focused only on a couple of inference rules (such as modus ponens and modus tollens) of propositional and first-order logic. Addressing the above limitation, we comprehensively evaluate the logical reasoning ability of LLMs on 25 different reasoning patterns spanning over propositional, first-order, and non-monotonic logics. To enable systematic evaluation, we introduce LogicBench, a natural language question-answering dataset focusing on the use of a single inference rule. We conduct detailed analysis with a range of LLMs such as GPT-4, ChatGPT, Gemini, Llama-2, and Mistral using chain-of-thought prompting. Experimental results show that existing LLMs do not fare well on LogicBench; especially, they struggle with instances involving complex reasoning and negations. Furthermore, they sometimes overlook contextual information necessary for reasoning to arrive at the correct conclusion. We believe that our work and findings facilitate future research for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning ability of LLMs. Data and code are available at https://github.com/Mihir3009/LogicBench.
6/7/2024
How Far Are We on the Decision-Making of LLMs? Evaluating LLMs' Gaming Ability in Multi-Agent Environments
Jen-tse Huang, Eric John Li, Man Ho Lam, Tian Liang, Wenxuan Wang, Youliang Yuan, Wenxiang Jiao, Xing Wang, Zhaopeng Tu, Michael R. Lyu
0
0
Decision-making, a complicated task requiring various types of abilities, presents an excellent framework for assessing Large Language Models (LLMs). Our research investigates LLMs' decision-making capabilities through the lens of a well-established field, Game Theory. We focus specifically on games that support the participation of more than two agents simultaneously. Subsequently, we introduce our framework, GAMA-Bench, including eight classical multi-agent games. We design a scoring scheme to assess a model's performance in these games quantitatively. Through GAMA-Bench, we investigate LLMs' robustness, generalizability, and enhancement strategies. Results reveal that while GPT-3.5 shows satisfying robustness, its generalizability is relatively limited. However, its performance can be improved through approaches such as Chain-of-Thought. Additionally, we conduct evaluations across various LLMs and find that GPT-4 outperforms other models on GAMA-Bench, achieving a score of 60.5. Moreover, Gemini-1.0-Pro and GPT-3.5 (0613, 1106, 0125) demonstrate similar intelligence on GAMA-Bench. The code and experimental results are made publicly available via https://github.com/CUHK-ARISE/GAMABench.
4/26/2024
Can LLMs Reason in the Wild with Programs?
Yuan Yang, Siheng Xiong, Ali Payani, Ehsan Shareghi, Faramarz Fekri
0
0
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown superior capability to solve reasoning problems with programs. While being a promising direction, most of such frameworks are trained and evaluated in settings with a prior knowledge of task requirements. However, as LLMs become more capable, it is necessary to assess their reasoning abilities in more realistic scenarios where many real-world problems are open-ended with ambiguous scope, and often require multiple formalisms to solve. To investigate this, we introduce the task of reasoning in the wild, where an LLM is tasked to solve a reasoning problem of unknown type by identifying the subproblems and their corresponding formalisms, and writing a program to solve each subproblem, guided by a tactic. We create a large tactic-guided trajectory dataset containing detailed solutions to a diverse set of reasoning problems, ranging from well-defined single-form reasoning (e.g., math, logic), to ambiguous and hybrid ones (e.g., commonsense, combined math and logic). This allows us to test various aspects of LLMs reasoning at the fine-grained level such as the selection and execution of tactics, and the tendency to take undesired shortcuts. In experiments, we highlight that existing LLMs fail significantly on problems with ambiguous and mixed scope, revealing critical limitations and overfitting issues (e.g. accuracy on GSM8K drops by at least 50%). We further show the potential of finetuning a local LLM on the tactic-guided trajectories in achieving better performance. Project repo is available at github.com/gblackout/Reason-in-the-Wild
6/21/2024