pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.10324 · v2 · pith:CCRHK66Ynew · submitted 2026-02-10 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.CL· cs.CY· cs.HC

Discovering Differences in Strategic Behavior Between Humans and LLMs

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.CLcs.CYcs.HC
keywords behaviorhumansllmsstrategicdifferenceshumanmodelsdiscovery
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in social and strategic scenarios, it becomes critical to understand where and why their behavior diverges from that of humans. While behavioral game theory (BGT) provides a framework for analyzing behavior, existing models do not fully capture the idiosyncratic behavior of humans or black-box, non-human agents like LLMs. We employ AlphaEvolve, a cutting-edge program discovery tool, to directly discover interpretable models of human and LLM behavior from data, thereby enabling open-ended discovery of structural factors driving human and LLM behavior. Our analysis on iterated rock-paper-scissors reveals that frontier LLMs can be capable of deeper strategic behavior than humans. These results provide a foundation for understanding structural differences driving differences in human and LLM behavior in strategic interactions.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. When Reasoning Models Hurt Behavioral Simulation: A Solver-Sampler Mismatch in Multi-Agent LLM Negotiation

    cs.LG 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Stronger reasoning models in LLMs reduce behavioral negotiation by defaulting to authority outcomes in multi-agent settings, unlike structured scaffolds that enable concessions.