SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Po Han Teo

Publications and source records attributed to Po Han Teo.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

LLM Agents as Static Level-k Players in Behavioural Games

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as stand-ins in behavioural games. These stand-ins rely on the assumption that the LLM's distribution of choices meaningfully matches how humans play the same game. This study tests that assumption through two games. The first is a p-beauty contest, and the second one is a public goods game. The study first investigates five local-model settings within the same model family. These settings are varied together in a 360-cell factorial, which balances temperature, scale (0.5-32B), quantisation, instruct vs base, and framing. Each cell's distribution is then compared against whole choice distributions in published human data. Each deployment setting, except for quantisation, governs a different aspect of fidelity. Mechanically, while the dispersion of human players can be somewhat recovered through deployment settings, the strategic process behind it cannot. Through the lens of the level-k cognitive theory, we find that LLMs act as static, category-retrieved level-k players, where k is set by the model scale. The models also do not run within-game belief-updating or backward induction throughout multiple-round horizon settings. While human contributions decayed in the public goods game, LLMs stayed flat or rose at every scale. When the horizon test was administered, LLMs were more cooperative under an indefinite horizon compared to a finite one. However, LLMs ignore their relative round position, so no last-round defection was displayed. This implies that LLMs retrieved levels relative to the horizon category rather than working out iteratively from the specific game setting.

econ.GN

Divergent Minds, Convergent Baselines: A Bounded-Rationality Account of LLM-Human Strategic Behaviour

Researchers have started using LLM agents in place of human subjects in behavioural and political-science experiments, often as a cheaper substitute for laboratory pools. The substitution does not hold up in strategic settings: humans and LLMs reliably make different choices, and neither fine-tuning on human response data nor persona conditioning has closed the gap. The behavioural-economics literature has, since Simon's introduction of bounded rationality, modelled human strategic behaviour as a classical baseline plus an additive correction term $\delta$. The framework proposed here reads $\delta$ as the mathematical signature of bounded computation: the gap between what an unboundedly-rational agent would compute and what a computationally bounded agent actually produces. For canonical games whose solutions are present in standard training corpora, LLMs retrieve and recombine corpus material, bypassing the bound that produces $\delta$ in humans. The framing extends to reasoning-distilled models through cognitive-hierarchy theory: their accessible level-$k$ strategic reasoning is bounded by compute budget and context length rather than by the cognitive constraints that bound humans, and the $\delta$ they produce, if any, carries different structural signatures. Four operational tests (conditional dependence, distributional asymmetry, path-dependence under repetition, and paraphrase-robustness) are proposed to discriminate human-shaped $\delta$ from LLM-shaped $\delta$. A moderator prediction is that $|\delta|$ scales with peer-signal individuation in the decision environment, with a quantitative bound of Cohen's $d \geq 0.5$ between named-opponent and aggregate-opponent settings.

econ.GN