LLMs with Personalities in Multi-issue Negotiation Games

Overview

• This paper investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to negotiate within a game-theoretical framework, and the challenges in measuring fairness and risk.
• Simulation experiments on single-issue and multi-issue negotiations reveal that increased domain complexity and asymmetric issue valuations can improve agreement rates but decrease surplus from aggressive negotiation.
• The researchers use gradient-boosted regression and Shapley explainers to analyze how personality traits like openness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, agreeableness, and low conscientiousness are associated with fair, rational, and toxic negotiation behaviors.
• The results suggest that LLMs may have built-in tendencies towards fair behavior, but can also be "jailbroken" to exploit agreeable opponents.
• The paper offers insights on designing negotiation bots and a framework for assessing negotiation behavior using game theory and computational social science.

Plain English Explanation

Large language models (LLMs) are AI systems that can perform many human-like tasks, including negotiation. In this paper, the researchers investigate how well LLMs can negotiate, both in simple single-issue scenarios and more complex multi-issue situations.

Through simulations, they found that as the negotiation task becomes more complex, with multiple issues and asymmetric valuations, LLMs are more likely to reach an agreement. However, this comes at the cost of lower overall surplus, as the LLMs tend to be less aggressive in their negotiation tactics.

By analyzing the LLMs' negotiation behavior, the researchers discovered that certain personality traits, as defined by the Big Five model, are associated with different negotiation tendencies. LLMs with high openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism tend to be more fair in their negotiations. Those with low agreeableness and low openness tend to be more rational, while low conscientiousness is linked to more toxic behavior.

This suggests that LLMs may have built-in safeguards that make them default to fair behavior, but these can potentially be circumvented to exploit more agreeable opponents. The paper provides guidance on how to design effective negotiation bots and a framework for assessing negotiation behavior using game theory and computational social science.

Technical Explanation

The researchers conducted simulation experiments (n=1,500) to measure the negotiation abilities of large language models (LLMs) within a game-theoretical framework. They examined both single-issue and multi-issue negotiations, exploring how increased domain complexity and asymmetric issue valuations impact agreement rates and surplus.

Using gradient-boosted regression and Shapley explainers, the researchers analyzed how the Big Five personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) are associated with different negotiation behaviors, such as fairness, rationality, and toxicity.

The results showed that as the negotiation task became more complex, with multiple issues and asymmetric valuations, the LLMs were more likely to reach an agreement. However, this came at the cost of lower overall surplus, as the LLMs tended to be less aggressive in their negotiation tactics.

The personality analysis revealed that high openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism were associated with fair tendencies, while low agreeableness and low openness were linked to rational behaviors. Low conscientiousness, on the other hand, was correlated with high toxicity.

These findings suggest that LLMs may have built-in "guardrails" that default them to fair behavior, but these can potentially be "jailbroken" to exploit more agreeable opponents. The paper provides practical insights on designing effective negotiation bots and a framework for assessing negotiation behavior using game theory and computational social science.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides valuable insights into the negotiation abilities of large language models (LLMs) and the factors that influence their behavior. The simulation-based approach and the use of personality traits to analyze negotiation tendencies are both well-designed and offer interesting findings.

However, the paper does not delve into the potential limitations of the study or address any concerns that may arise from the research. For example, the simulations are limited to a specific set of scenarios, and it's unclear how well the findings would generalize to real-world negotiations or more complex situations.

Additionally, the paper does not discuss the ethical implications of LLMs being able to "jailbreak" their fair tendencies and exploit agreeable opponents. This is an important consideration, as such capabilities could be used for malicious purposes, and the paper could have provided a more comprehensive discussion of these issues.

Furthermore, the paper could have explored the potential biases and biases that may be present in the LLMs' negotiation behavior, particularly in relation to the Big Five personality traits. It's possible that these traits may not fully capture the nuances of human negotiation, and the paper could have acknowledged this limitation.

Despite these minor concerns, the paper presents a strong foundation for understanding the negotiation abilities of LLMs and offers a valuable framework for assessing their behavior. Future research could build on these findings to explore the ethical implications, address the limitations, and further investigate the complexities of AI-driven negotiation.

Conclusion

This paper provides an in-depth exploration of the negotiation abilities of large language models (LLMs) and the factors that influence their behavior. Through simulation experiments and personality analysis, the researchers found that increased domain complexity and asymmetric issue valuations can improve agreement rates but decrease surplus from aggressive negotiation.

The study also revealed that certain personality traits, such as openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism, are associated with fair negotiation tendencies, while low agreeableness, low openness, and low conscientiousness are linked to rational and toxic behaviors. This suggests that LLMs may have built-in safeguards that default them to fair behavior, but these can potentially be circumvented to exploit more agreeable opponents.

The paper offers valuable insights for designing effective negotiation bots and a framework for assessing negotiation behavior using game theory and computational social science. While the study has some limitations, it provides a solid foundation for further research in this area, with opportunities to explore the ethical implications and address potential biases in the LLMs' negotiation abilities.