大模型在不通信情况下仍能协作,部分超越纳什均衡。
Do LLMs Beat Nash? Testing Decentralized Coordination in Self-Play Multi-Agent Games

- 用同一模型无通信自对弈,测试其推理对手能力。
- 双人博弈中两模型超纳什均衡,接近最优结果。
- 团队规模增大或动作空间变大时性能骤降。
部署在去中心化环境中的大语言模型代理通常被认为需要通信才能协调行为。我们探讨在无通信条件下仍能实现什么:当相同模型的独立实例无法交流时,它们能否充分推理对方,从而超越未协调行为的标准博弈论基准?我们设计了一个单轮、无通信的基准测试,13个语言模型仅被告知其对手运行相同模型,评估其相对于底层游戏纳什均衡的表现。在涵盖七类原型、每方2至10个动作的双人矩阵博弈中,两个前沿主机模型持续超过其纳什基准,在多个原型中接近最优联合结果;而多数开源模型仅获得部分增益,且表现随游戏结构差异显著。在四人及以上可互换代理的团队游戏中,性能大幅下降,尤其在动作空间扩大时,表明推动双人自对弈成功的机制无法扩展到更大规模多智能体团队。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Large language model agents deployed without a central controller are often assumed to require communication to coordinate their actions. We ask what remains possible without it: when independent instances of the same model cannot communicate, can they still reason about their counterparts well enough to exceed the standard game-theoretic baseline for uncoordinated play? We introduce a benchmark of one-shot, no-communication games in which each of thirteen language models is told only that its counterparts are running the same model and is evaluated against the Nash equilibrium of the underlying game. In two-player matrix games spanning seven archetypes and two to ten actions per player, two frontier-hosted models consistently exceed their Nash benchmark, approaching the optimal joint outcome in several archetypes, while most open-weight models achieve only partial gains that vary sharply by game structure. Performance degrades substantially in team-based games with four or more interchangeable agents, particularly as the action space grows, suggesting that whatever capability drives self-play gains in dyadic games does not transfer to larger multi-agent teams.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。