Effects of Theory of Mind and Prosocial Beliefs on Steering Human-Aligned Behaviors of LLMs in Ultimatum Games

arXiv:2505.24255v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown potential in simulating human behaviors and performing theory-of-mind (ToM) reasoning, crucial for complex social interactions. We investigate ToM reasoning's role in aligning agentic behaviors with human norms in negotiation tasks, using the ultimatum game as our referenced task. We initialized LLM agents with different prosocial beliefs (Greedy, Fair, Selfless) and reasoning methods (chain of thought and ToM reasoning of varying levels), examining their decision-making process and outcome across multiple LLMs, including reasoning models like o3-mini and DeepSeek-R1 Distilled Qwen 32B. We perform 2,700 simulations to show that ToM reasoning enhances behavioral alignment with human, decision-making consistency, and negotiation outcomes. Consistent with prior findings, reasoning LLMs exhibit limited capability compared to ToM-enhanced LLMs, with different game roles benefiting from different ToM orders. Fair proposers and responders accepting offers were the most consistent with their strategic reasonings, whereas all agents showed strong consistencies with human beliefs when rejecting offers, except when the offer was fair. Human verification further revealed that Llama 3.3 70B produces reasoning most consistent with its actions and beliefs. Our findings advance understanding of ToM's role in human-AI interaction and cooperative decision-making. The code used for our experiments can be found at https://github.com/Stealth-py/UltimatumToM.

Abstract:Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown potential in simulating human behaviors and performing theory-of-mind (ToM) reasoning, crucial for complex social interactions. We investigate ToM reasoning's role in aligning agentic behaviors with human norms in negotiation tasks, using the ultimatum game as our referenced task. We initialized LLM agents with different prosocial beliefs (Greedy, Fair, Selfless) and reasoning methods (chain of thought and ToM reasoning of varying levels), examining their decision-making process and outcome across multiple LLMs, including reasoning models like o3-mini and DeepSeek-R1 Distilled Qwen 32B. We perform 2,700 simulations to show that ToM reasoning enhances behavioral alignment with human, decision-making consistency, and negotiation outcomes. Consistent with prior findings, reasoning LLMs exhibit limited capability compared to ToM-enhanced LLMs, with different game roles benefiting from different ToM orders. Fair proposers and responders accepting offers were the most consistent with their strategic reasonings, whereas all agents showed strong consistencies with human beliefs when rejecting offers, except when the offer was fair. Human verification further revealed that Llama 3.3 70B produces reasoning most consistent with its actions and beliefs. Our findings advance understanding of ToM's role in human-AI interaction and cooperative decision-making. The code used for our experiments can be found at this https URL.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)

arXiv:2505.24255 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2505.24255v2 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.24255 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

Effects of Theory of Mind and Prosocial Beliefs on Steering Human-Aligned Behaviors of LLMs in Ultimatum Games

Related coverage