0 cumulative citations
View corpus contextTelling large language models how similar they are to one another often makes them cooperate: many modern LLMs switch from defecting to cooperating as reported similarity climbs (typically around 60–80%), though responses differ markedly across models, game types, and how the similarity metric is computed.
Do LLMs Take Care of Their Own? Similarity Signals Can Induce Cooperation
arxiv
quasi_experimental
medium evidence
7/10 relevance
Full text
usable extracted full text
Source
PDF
Providing explicit similarity signals to LLM agents increases cooperative choices in many modern models and mixed-motive games—often with a sharp rise in cooperation around 60–80% reported similarity—but effects vary substantially by model, game, and how similarity is grounded.
Citation observations
Cumulative provider counts captured on specific dates; providers are never combined.
As LLM-based agents with user-instructed goals are becoming widely deployed, they increasingly encounter each other in strategic interactions, and face challenges of finding mutually beneficial outcomes. Prior literature has argued that cooperation problems such as the Prisoner's Dilemma are resolvable in settings where agents know they follow very similar decision making patterns, as for example in monocultural AI ecosystems. Following that line of work, this paper introduces the first framework for evaluating LLM decision making when agents are provided with graded similarity signals. Among our findings, we establish that different LLM models vary drastically in how they navigate similarity signals, with some modern models showing consistent behavior across cooperation problems, payoff structures, and prompt framing. Perhaps surprisingly, our experiments also show that the dataset based on which the similarity signal is computed has small to no impact on induced cooperation, and that LLM models systematically self-identify as highly similar when asked to evaluate another model's chain-of-thought reasoning by themselves. Finally, we develop an LLM-behavioral-game-theoretic model that captures some of their reasoning rationale, and show that it can support cooperative outcomes in equilibrium under sufficiently high similarity scores.
Summary
Main Finding
Providing LLM-based agents with a scalar “similarity” signal about how alike they are (0–100%) can reliably induce more cooperative play in strategic games for many modern models. The magnitude and robustness of this effect vary strongly by model and by how the similarity signal is grounded and framed. The authors also formalize a b-similarity equilibrium that interpolates between Nash (independent decisions) and EDT/Kantian-style (identical-copy) reasoning, and prove welfare-approximation bounds that explain why high reported similarity can produce cooperative equilibria.
Key Points
- Empirical pattern
- Many modern LLMs (e.g., Gemini, Grok, DeepSeek, Kimi, Gemma) show a monotonic increase in cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma as the reported similarity score rises; they typically move from full defection at 0% to full cooperation by ~60–80%.
- Some models are anomalous: GPT often defects regardless of similarity, GPT-4o randomizes, and Claude shows non-monotonic behavior (peak cooperation at ~80% then falls).
- Some models (Gemini, Grok, Qwen) even increase cooperation when told a similarity score exists but its value is unavailable, suggesting that the mere assessment can influence behavior.
- Grounding and framing
- The dataset/domain used to compute similarity (benchmarks spanning moral dilemmas, personality tests, scientific reasoning, etc.) surprisingly has small to no effect on induced cooperation for many models; some models even respond to random-noise similarity signals.
- Endogenous similarity (agents evaluating co-players’ actual responses/CoTs) yields more consistent cooperation than providing an exogenous scalar.
- Framing matters: framing the metric as “differences” reduces cooperation compared to framing as “similarity/commonalities.”
- Chain-of-Thought (CoT) analysis
- Across models and settings, CoTs commonly contain “individual utility maximization” reasoning.
- “Superrationality”-type justifications increase with higher similarity; “social welfare maximization” is largely absent—models often treat cooperation as individually expedient under correlation assumptions.
- Higher reasoning effort (elicited CoT) makes model behavior more aligned with the paper’s formal similarity-based decision model.
- Multi-agent and game-type sensitivity
- Similarity-based cooperation is harder in games with more than two players (e.g., Public Good), and (anti-)coordination games show cooperation effects mainly at low similarity levels.
- Mechanism ranking
- Similarity signaling ranks among the top three tested mechanisms for inducing cooperation (per comparison to prior work), but its reliability is sensitive to grounding and interpretation.
- Formal model (b-similarity equilibrium)
- Defines bij as the probability agent i expects agent j to copy i’s deviation; a symmetric profile is a b-similarity equilibrium if unilateral deviations are not profitable when others deviate with those probabilities.
- Extremes: bij=0 reduces to Nash; bij=1 forces selection of the symmetric profile maximizing social welfare (EDT/Kantian extreme).
- Theorem: welfare at a b-similarity equilibrium approximates the welfare of best symmetric outcome; the loss is bounded by terms depending on payoff ranges and (1 − product_j≠i bij), so as bij → 1, equilibrium welfare approaches optimal.
Data & Methods
- Models tested: 9 LLMs (Gemini 3 Flash, GPT 5.4 mini, Claude Haiku 4.5, Grok 4.20, DeepSeek V4 Pro, Kimi K2.6, Gemma 4 31B, Qwen 3.5 27B, GPT-4o). Later experiments focus on a representative subset {Gemini, GPT, Claude, DeepSeek, Gemma}.
- Games: 5 mixed-motive games including Prisoner’s Dilemma, Stag Hunt, Chicken, Public Good, plus variants with changed payoff structures (cardinal & ordinal).
- Similarity signal: scalar X ∈ {0%, 10%, …, 100%}; also tested “?” (score exists but unavailable) and baseline (no mention).
- Grounding benchmarks: 7 + 3 popular benchmarks covering moral dilemmas, scientific questions, personality tests, utilitarian preferences, Newcomb’s paradox, random die roll, and more (used as proxy domains to compute similarity).
- Sampling: 10 draws for each LLM decision; report means and standard errors.
- CoT analysis: used an LLM-as-judge pipeline (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview) to annotate presence of 17 pre-defined justification categories across generated CoTs.
- Open-source artifact: code and data available at the authors’ GitHub (link in paper).
- Theoretical work: formal definitions, lemmas, proposition and Theorem 1 with proofs (appendices).
Implications for AI Economics
- Coordination vs. collusion tradeoff
- Positive: similarity signals can enable beneficial coordination (e.g., safer traffic behavior, more cooperative market provisioning, public-good contributions) when aligned with social objectives.
- Negative: the same mechanism can facilitate harmful collusion (price-fixing, tacit coordination to reduce competition), especially if similarity signals are manipulable or opaque.
- Market structure and oligopoly dynamics
- In markets dominated by a few model families (model uniformity), similarity signaling raises the risk of systemic coordination that departs from competitive equilibria. Regulators should expect different strategic outcomes when many firms deploy similar LLM-based agents.
- Design & product strategy
- Firms can influence downstream multiagent outcomes by exposing, withholding, or shaping similarity signals (or by designing agents to ignore them). This is a lever for both improving cooperation and, potentially, gaming markets.
- Endogenous similarity (agents evaluating each other’s reasoning) is a stronger coordination device. Products providing mutual visibility of decision traces will more reliably trigger cooperative equilibria.
- Measurement, verification, and robustness
- Because many models respond even to noisy or random similarity scores, similarity metrics can be brittle. Robust, domain-relevant similarity measures are needed to avoid false coordination or inadvertent collusion.
- Auditing frameworks and standards for how similarity is computed and conveyed will be important to prevent misuse.
- Policy & regulation
- Antitrust and safety regulators should treat similarity-signaling channels as potential coordination instruments. Mandates could include logging similarity computations, restricting signaling interfaces in competitive settings, or requiring transparency about how similarity is generated.
- In high-stakes domains (finance, bidding, critical infrastructure), restrict or monitor endogenous evaluation access that allows agents to inspect others’ CoTs—this is where cooperation/coordination effects are strongest.
- Research directions relevant to AI economics
- Develop principled, domain-grounded similarity metrics that correlate strongly with strategic behavior and are hard to spoof.
- Study repeated interactions, partial observability, and mixed populations (heterogeneous agents) to see how similarity effects compound in markets over time.
- Design mechanism/market rules that harness beneficial coordination without enabling anticompetitive collusion (e.g., mediated coordination with regulatory oversight).
- Explore incentives for agents to misreport or manipulate similarity assessments and defenses against such manipulation.
Short recommendations - For researchers: replicate across more models and market-like environments (bidding, auction platforms, multi-firm competition) and test robustness to adversarial/noisy similarity signals. - For practitioners: treat similarity signals as a powerful coordination tool—use cautiously, prefer verifiable and contextualized similarity computations, and avoid exposing CoTs or raw similarity info in competitive contexts. - For policymakers: consider similarity signaling channels in antitrust and AI-safety regulation; require disclosure and auditing where coordination risk is high.
Assessment
Paper Typequasi_experimental
Evidence Strengthmedium — The authors use systematic manipulations of the key treatment (similarity score) with multiple baseline conditions and multiple LLMs/games, which supports a causal interpretation of similarity affecting model decisions within the experimental environment; however, external validity is limited (lab-style simulated interactions among specific LLM versions, prompt and benchmark dependence), sample sizes per condition are modest (10 samples per decision), and some analyses (CoT coding) rely on another LLM judge that could introduce bias.
Methods Rigormedium — The study is comprehensive in design space (9 models, multiple games, payoff variants, prompt framings, and grounding benchmarks) and pairs experiments with a formal model, but there are concerns about small per-condition sampling, potential prompt and judge-model sensitivity, limited robustness checks reported here, and the artificial single-shot game setting limiting ecological validity.
SampleSimulated experiments using 9 modern LLMs (Gemini 3 Flash, GPT 5.4 mini, Claude Haiku 4.5, Grok 4.20, DeepSeek V4 Pro, Kimi K2.6, Gemma 4 31B, Qwen 3.5 27B, GPT-4o). Agents played multiple symmetric mixed-motive games (Prisoner's Dilemma, Stag Hunt, Chicken, Public Good, etc.) under manipulated similarity signals X ∈ {0%,10%,...,100%}, plus baseline/no-signal ('Base' and '?') conditions. For grounded-similarity experiments, 7+3 benchmarks were used (moral dilemmas, personality tests, scientific questions, etc.) and models were tested for endogenous vs exogenous similarity computation. For each decision point, 10 samples were drawn and means ± SE reported; CoT traces were coded using an LLM judge (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview).
Themeshuman_ai_collab governance
IdentificationControlled laboratory-style experiments in which LLM agents are given exogenously manipulated similarity signals (discrete values 0%–100% and baseline/no-signal conditions) and cooperation rates in standard mixed-motive games are compared across treatments, models, and game variants; supplemented by qualitative chain-of-thought (CoT) coding using an LLM-as-judge and a theoretical similarity-based equilibrium model to link mechanisms to observed behavior.
GeneralizabilityLimited to the specific LLM versions and model families tested; newer or differently fine-tuned/chaos-controlled models may behave differently., Single-shot, stylized game settings may not reflect repeated/multi-stage real-world strategic interactions or market contexts., Prompt wording, framing of similarity signal, and benchmark choice can materially affect behavior; robustness across prompts is not fully established., Small per-condition sampling (10 draws) may understate within-model stochasticity and sensitivity to random seeds or temperature settings., CoT justification analysis depends on an LLM judge which may introduce classification bias and circularity., Operationalizing similarity in deployed multiagent systems will face engineering, observability, and strategic-manipulation challenges not captured by these simulations.
Claims (11)
| Claim | Direction | Outcome | Confidence & Evidence | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher reported similarity scores usually induce more cooperative behavior in LLMs, although the strength and pattern of the effect vary substantially across models. Task Allocation | positive | Cooperation rate in the Prisoner’s Dilemma |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
n=9
|
| Six of the tested models showed a monotonic increase in cooperation as similarity increased, moving from full defection at 0% similarity to full cooperation at 100% similarity, with full cooperation reached between 60% and 80% similarity. Task Allocation | positive | Cooperation rate as a function of similarity score |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
n=9
0% to 100% cooperation across the similarity range
|
| The effect of similarity signals differs sharply across models: GPT defects at all similarity levels, Claude reaches a 70% cooperation peak at 80% similarity and then falls to 0%, while GPT-4o randomizes between cooperation and defection with only a slow increase in cooperation. Task Allocation | mixed | Model-specific cooperation rate under similarity signaling |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
n=9
70% peak cooperation for Claude at 80% similarity
|
| Cooperation is barely affected by the benchmark domain used to compute the similarity signal, and is also barely affected by whether benchmark-based grounding is used at all. Task Allocation | null_result | Downstream cooperation rate under different similarity-signal grounding domains |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
n=5
small to no impact
|
| Gemini and Claude sometimes respond cooperatively to similarity signals that consist only of random noise. Task Allocation | positive | Cooperation response to random-noise similarity signals |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
n=5
|
| Cooperation occurs more consistently when LLMs endogenously evaluate similarity using the co-player’s responses and chain-of-thought explanations than when similarity metrics are externally pre-specified. Task Allocation | positive | Consistency or rate of cooperation under endogenous versus exogenous similarity evaluation |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
n=5
|
| Similarity-based cooperation becomes more difficult in games with more than two players, such as the Public Goods game. Team Performance | negative | Cooperation rate in multi-player cooperation problems |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
n=5
|
| In chain-of-thought analyses, superrationality-style reasoning increases with similarity, reaching a reported prevalence of up to 96%, while social-welfare-maximization justifications remain mostly absent. Decision Quality | mixed | Prevalence of decision justifications in chain-of-thought reasoning |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
up to 96% prevalence
|
| The proposed 0-similarity equilibrium is equivalent to a Nash equilibrium. Other | null_result | Equilibrium solution concept |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
high
|
not reported
|
| In a symmetric game, a 1-similarity equilibrium is equivalent to a symmetric profile that maximizes welfare among all symmetric profiles. Organizational Efficiency | positive | Welfare of symmetric equilibrium profiles |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
high
|
exact welfare maximization at similarity 1
|
| The paper’s theorem guarantees approximate welfare optimality for b-similarity equilibria; with homogeneous similarity b in an n-player game, the individual-player error bound is Ri(1 − b^(n−1)), which approaches zero as b approaches 1. Organizational Efficiency | positive | Distance from welfare-optimal symmetric strategy profile |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
high
|
Ri(1 − b^(n−1))
|