arXiv subjects

Sihan Cheng

Publications and source records attributed to Sihan Cheng.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

To Nuke or Not to Nuke: LLMs' (Missing) Ethical Reasoning and Actions in a High-Stakes Decision-Making Simulation

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as long-horizon agents with decision-making capacities. While LLMs can show ethical competence on dilemmas such as trolley problems, this competence may not translate to complex, agentic scenarios. We study this gap in Civilization V, a multiplayer game with a complex decision-making landscape including economy, diplomacy, technology, and military strategy. Starting from 130 high-tension LLM self-play episodes, in which an LLM player spontaneously escalated nuclear authorization, we replay them across 13 models with three prompt interventions: an ethical prompt naming nuclear harm, removal of the previous model's decision-making rationale, and high-stakes framing emphasizing real-world impacts. No interventions nor their combinations reliably eliminate emergent escalation. We identify three failure pathways: ethical reasoning that fails to surface without prompting, fails to appear even when prompted, or surfaces but fails to take effect when strategic counter-factors dominate. Evaluations of agentic models, therefore, must test whether ethical reasoning is spontaneously invoked and behaviorally effective in complex decision-making contexts, beyond whether it can be elicited in isolation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

CivBench: Progress-Based Evaluation for LLMs' Strategic Decision-Making in Civilization V

Evaluating strategic decision-making in LLM-based agents requires generative, competitive, and longitudinal environments, yet few benchmarks provide all three, and fewer still offer evaluation signals rich enough for long-horizon, multi-agent play. We introduce CivBench, a benchmark for LLM strategists (i.e., agentic setups) in multiplayer Civilization V. Because terminal win/loss is too sparse a signal in games spanning hundreds of turns and multiple opponents, CivBench trains models on turn-level game state to estimate victory probabilities throughout play, validated through predictive, construct, and convergent validity. Across 307 games with 7 LLMs and multiple CivBench agent conditions, we demonstrate CivBench's potential to estimate strategic capabilities as an unsaturated benchmark, reveal model-specific effects of agentic setup, and outline distinct strategic profiles not visible through outcome-only evaluation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Vox Deorum: A Hybrid LLM Architecture for 4X / Grand Strategy Game AI -- Lessons from Civilization V

Large Language Models' capacity to reason in natural language makes them uniquely promising for 4X and grand strategy games, enabling more natural human-AI gameplay interactions such as collaboration and negotiation. However, these games present unique challenges due to their complexity and long-horizon nature, while latency and cost factors may hinder LLMs' real-world deployment. Working on a classic 4X strategy game, Sid Meier's Civilization V with the Vox Populi mod, we introduce Vox Deorum, a hybrid LLM+X architecture. Our layered technical design empowers LLMs to handle macro-strategic reasoning, delegating tactical execution to subsystems (e.g., algorithmic AI or reinforcement learning AI in the future). We validate our approach through 2,327 complete games, comparing two open-source LLMs with a simple prompt against Vox Populi's enhanced AI. Results show that LLMs achieve competitive end-to-end gameplay while exhibiting play styles that diverge substantially from algorithmic AI and from each other. Our work establishes a viable architecture for integrating LLMs in commercial 4X games, opening new opportunities for game design and agentic AI research.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

A Computational Method for Measuring "Open Codes" in Qualitative Analysis

Qualitative analysis is critical to understanding human datasets in many social science disciplines. A central method in this process is inductive coding, where researchers identify and interpret codes directly from the datasets themselves. Yet, this exploratory approach poses challenges for meeting methodological expectations (such as ``depth'' and ``variation''), especially as researchers increasingly adopt Generative AI (GAI) for support. Ground-truth-based metrics are insufficient because they contradict the exploratory nature of inductive coding, while manual evaluation can be labor-intensive. This paper presents a theory-informed computational method for measuring inductive coding results from humans and GAI. Our method first merges individual codebooks using an LLM-enriched algorithm. It measures each coder's contribution against the merged result using four novel metrics: Coverage, Overlap, Novelty, and Divergence. Through two experiments on a human-coded online conversation dataset, we 1) reveal the merging algorithm's impact on metrics; 2) validate the metrics' stability and robustness across multiple runs and different LLMs; and 3) showcase the metrics' ability to diagnose coding issues, such as excessive or irrelevant (hallucinated) codes. Our work provides a reliable pathway for ensuring methodological rigor in human-AI qualitative analysis.

cs.CL↗