Prompting LLM groups to randomize their initial move reveals network-dependent gains: without the one-line randomization instruction, LLM groups fail to reproduce the Mason–Watts network-efficiency effect, but with the instruction collective payoff differences across network topologies become large—while Bayesian optimization agents still achieve higher payoffs than the LLM groups.

Main Finding

Groups of LLM agents performing a sequential 2D spatial search on the eight Mason–Watts network topologies reproduce the human network-efficiency effect only when their first-round choices are explicitly randomized by a one-sentence prompt. Mechanistic Bayesian-optimization agents outperform the evaluated LLMs on this task. A single-sentence initial-randomization prompt produces a performance gain substantially larger than the payoff differences produced by varying network topology.

Key Points

• Task: 16 agents search a discrete 101×101 grid for a unique global maximum over 15 synchronous rounds (Mason–Watts / Wildcat Wells paradigm). Agents observe their own and their three neighbors’ histories each round.
• Agents evaluated (per node): LLM (gpt-oss-120b) with default prompt, LLM-RI (same prompt with one extra sentence forcing uniform random round‑1 choice), two Gaussian-process Bayesian-optimization agents (EI and UCB acquisition), and a random baseline.
• Landscapes: 60 deterministic landscapes (20 per complexity level: low, moderate, high) with a unique global peak and controlled local-peak/tail statistics.
• Networks: the original eight 3-regular 16-node Mason–Watts graphs (APL from 2.20 to 3.87).
• Scale: 5 agent types × 8 graphs × 3 complexities × 20 replicates = 2,400 games; 576,000 node-round observations.
• Primary metrics: group cumulative mean payoff (over nodes×rounds), final-round mean payoff, near-peak discovery rate (group best ≥99).
• Main numeric outcomes (summary ranges across complexities):
  • Bayesian agents (UCB / EI): final-round payoffs ≈ 97–100; near-peak discovery by round 15 in 91–99% of games.
  • LLM-RI: final-round payoffs ≈ 93–97; discovery in 62–76% of games.
  • Default LLM: final-round payoffs ≈ 84–91; discovery in 25–54% of games.
  • Random baseline: flat ≈ 39–47; almost never reaches near-peak.
• Network-efficiency effect (shorter average path length → higher cumulative payoff) is:
  • Significant for LLM-RI and both Bayesian agents.
  • Not present for the default LLM under the authors’ prompt.
• Prompt sensitivity: adding a single sentence instructing uniform random first-round sampling (LLM-RI) improved collective payoff by more than three times the estimated payoff range produced across the eight topologies — i.e., a small prompt change had a larger effect than network structure variation in this setup.
• Behavioral observations: LLM copying behavior tended to be positional (copying neighbors’ coordinates) rather than conditional on observed payoff; Bayesian agents exhibited consistent, principled exploration–exploitation via their acquisition functions.

Data & Methods

• LLM setup
  • Model: open-weight gpt-oss-120b, stateless per-round calls (system + user messages resupplied each round).
  • Prompt: structured JSON output required; system message described the game and objective (maximize sum of own payoffs). No coordination instruction. LLM-RI only differs by adding one sentence in round‑1 system message asking to pick uniformly at random.
  • Each agent returned a coordinate guess plus a self-reported expected payoff and uncertainty.
• Bayesian agents
  • Surrogate: Gaussian process with additive RBF kernel (short + long lengthscale components).
  • Observations: each agent fits the GP to its own and its neighbors’ observations each round.
  • Acquisition: Expected Improvement (EI) and Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) variants; hyperparameters tuned online; predictive distribution truncated to [0,100].
  • Round‑1 guesses for Bayesian agents were deterministic per-agent seeds shared across networks (to isolate topology effects).
• Landscapes
  • Constructed via a three-stage procedure (dominant Gaussian peak at 100, K seeded secondary peaks, added Perlin-noise fractal), calibrated to match tail targets by complexity.
  • Complexity levels: Low (K=0), Moderate (K=3), High (K=8).
• Networks: the eight Mason–Watts 3-regular graphs on 16 nodes, ordered by average path length (APL).
• Reference human data: 29 sessions from the original Mason–Watts experiment included for behavioral reference (directional and behavioral comparisons only; landscapes differ so absolute payoffs not compared).
• Main analyses: round-level learning curves, cumulative payoff comparisons across graphs, near-peak discovery rates, copying and spatial diversity measures.

Implications for AI Economics

• Prompting as a policy lever: A minimal prompt tweak (one sentence) can change multi-agent collective outcomes more than modifying network structure. In economic systems where agent behavior is prompt-driven, small procedural or informational interventions (analogous to policy nudges) can have outsized effects on aggregate performance.
• Coordination and network design interact with agent initialization: When agents’ initial exploration is constrained/deterministic (default LLM behavior), network topology may have limited influence. Ensuring initial heterogeneity (via randomization or structured exploration incentives) lets efficient networks realize their advantage — relevant to organizational design, markets for innovation, and platform-mediated collaboration.
• Mechanistic baselines remain important: Task-specific algorithms (GP + EI/UCB) outperformed LLM agents on this spatial search problem. For economically critical search or optimization tasks, hybrid architectures that combine LLM reasoning with principled optimization modules may yield better welfare and efficiency.
• Social learning strategy matters: The study reinforces that the same network can help or hinder depending on how agents use social information (copying strategy, exploration rule). Designing communication protocols or incentive schemes that shape social-learning heuristics can therefore shift macro outcomes in networked markets or organizations.
• Robustness & reproducibility considerations: LLM-driven multi-agent economies are sensitive to model version, prompt design, and stateless vs. stateful interaction modes. Policy analysis or platform interventions relying on LLM agents should account for these fragilities.
• Research/practical recommendations:
  • When deploying multi-LLM systems for collective search or innovation tasks, explicitly design initial exploration (random seeds, exploration prompts, or algorithmic explorers).
  • Use mechanistic or hybrid agents where sample-efficient search and guaranteed exploration–exploitation trade-offs matter.
  • Evaluate network interventions jointly with agent-level behavioral rules; topology alone may not yield intended effects.
  • Monitor copying behavior and whether social learning is payoff-conditional; positional copying can reduce the benefits of efficient networks.

Limitations to bear in mind: single LLM model/version, stateless per-round prompting, only eight fixed graphs from Mason–Watts (no random graphs), synthetic landscapes (designed to match human-experiment structure), and unmatched human landscape instances — all of which constrain generality.