Cooperation, Competition, and Maliciousness: LLM-Stakeholders Interactive Negotiation
This addresses the need for better assessment of LLMs in interactive tasks, though it is incremental as it builds on existing multi-agent evaluation frameworks.
The paper tackles the problem of evaluating LLMs' communication and decision-making in multi-agent negotiation by creating a complex, scorable testbed, finding that even state-of-the-art models like GPT-4 underperform on this challenging benchmark.
There is an growing interest in using Large Language Models (LLMs) in multi-agent systems to tackle interactive real-world tasks that require effective collaboration and assessing complex situations. Yet, we still have a limited understanding of LLMs' communication and decision-making abilities in multi-agent setups. The fundamental task of negotiation spans many key features of communication, such as cooperation, competition, and manipulation potentials. Thus, we propose using scorable negotiation to evaluate LLMs. We create a testbed of complex multi-agent, multi-issue, and semantically rich negotiation games. To reach an agreement, agents must have strong arithmetic, inference, exploration, and planning capabilities while integrating them in a dynamic and multi-turn setup. We propose multiple metrics to rigorously quantify agents' performance and alignment with the assigned role. We provide procedures to create new games and increase games' difficulty to have an evolving benchmark. Importantly, we evaluate critical safety aspects such as the interaction dynamics between agents influenced by greedy and adversarial players. Our benchmark is highly challenging; GPT-3.5 and small models mostly fail, and GPT-4 and SoTA large models (e.g., Llama-3 70b) still underperform.