aiqbench analysis
This study reveals a fundamental behavioral gap between humans and large language models in multi-agent coordination, showing that LLMs struggle with stability and excessive action switching compared to human adaptability. The research identifies GRPO fine-tuning as a promising technical intervention to reduce this volatility and improve convergence rates in group tasks. By establishing mechanism-level metrics like reactivity scaling, the work provides a diagnostic framework for addressing the coordination gap essential for robust autonomous systems.
High Volatility and Action Bias Distinguish LLMs from Humans in Group Coordination
arXiv:2604.02578v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Humans exhibit remarkable abilities to coordinate in groups. As large language models (LLMs) become more capable, it remains an open question whether they can demonstrate comparable adaptive coordination and whether they use the same strategies as humans. To better understand this, we compare LLM and human performance on a common-interest game with imperfect monitoring: Group Binary Search. In this $n$-player game, participants need to coordinate their actions to achieve a common objective. Players independently submit numerical values in an effort to collectively sum to a randomly assigned target number. Without direct communication, they rely on group feedback to iteratively adjust their submissions until they reach the target number. Our findings show that, unlike humans who adapt and stabilize their behavior over time, LLMs often fail to improve across games and exhibit excessive switching, which impairs group convergence. Moreover, richer feedback (e.g., numerical error magnitude) benefits humans substantially but has small effects on LLMs. Finally, we show that GRPO can be effective in reducing the excessive switching. Taken together, by grounding the analysis in human baselines and mechanism-level metrics, including reactivity scaling, switching dynamics, and learning across games, we point to differences in human and LLM groups and provide a behaviorally grounded diagnostic for closing the coordination gap.
Abstract:Humans exhibit remarkable abilities to coordinate in groups. As large language models (LLMs) become more capable, it remains an open question whether they can demonstrate comparable adaptive coordination and whether they use the same strategies as humans. To better understand this, we compare LLM and human performance on a common-interest game with imperfect monitoring: Group Binary Search. In this $n$-player game, participants need to coordinate their actions to achieve a common objective. Players independently submit numerical values in an effort to collectively sum to a randomly assigned target number. Without direct communication, they rely on group feedback to iteratively adjust their submissions until they reach the target number. Our findings show that, unlike humans who adapt and stabilize their behavior over time, LLMs often fail to improve across games and exhibit excessive switching, which impairs group convergence. Moreover, richer feedback (e.g., numerical error magnitude) benefits humans substantially but has small effects on LLMs. Finally, we show that GRPO can be effective in reducing the excessive switching. Taken together, by grounding the analysis in human baselines and mechanism-level metrics, including reactivity scaling, switching dynamics, and learning across games, we point to differences in human and LLM groups and provide a behaviorally grounded diagnostic for closing the coordination gap.
47 pages. Accepted at COLM 2026; revised version including GRPO fine-tuning experiments
Multiagent Systems (cs.MA); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computer Science and Game Theory (cs.GT)
arXiv:2604.02578 [cs.MA]
(or arXiv:2604.02578v2 [cs.MA] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.02578 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.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 324 words
Related coverage
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · Jul 31, 2026

Reviewing failure modes in science as we prepare for AI researchers
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

Informe de riesgos de la IA de frontera (febrero–marzo de 2026)
METR · May 19, 2026