Reward and Behavioral Measures of LLM Coordination in Dining Philosophers

arXiv:2606.07845v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Does high reward indicate productive coordination among language-model agents sharing resources? We examine this question in dining philosophers, where instances of the same model must acquire shared forks to eat. We evaluate seven model conditions across 630 episodes at five, ten, and fifteen philosophers, measuring scalar reward, deadlock, and meal throughput. At five philosophers, Mistral-Small 24B receives mean reward 0.827 while producing no meals. The reward decomposition explains this mismatch: avoiding deadlock earns a bonus without requiring meal production. To assess a policy trained with this reward, we compare the final checkpoint from a single Qwen3-14B group relative policy optimization (GRPO) training run with its base model. At five philosophers, the trained model has lower throughput (0.008 versus 0.020) and a higher deadlock rate in point estimates. Differences in mean episode reward are not statistically significant at any evaluated philosopher count. These findings show that the evaluated reward can assign high scores without task progress and support reporting behavioral measures alongside reward when comparing models and evaluating fine-tuned policies.

Abstract:Does high reward indicate productive coordination among language-model agents sharing resources? We examine this question in dining philosophers, where instances of the same model must acquire shared forks to eat. We evaluate seven model conditions across 630 episodes at five, ten, and fifteen philosophers, measuring scalar reward, deadlock, and meal throughput. At five philosophers, Mistral-Small 24B receives mean reward 0.827 while producing no meals. The reward decomposition explains this mismatch: avoiding deadlock earns a bonus without requiring meal production. To assess a policy trained with this reward, we compare the final checkpoint from a single Qwen3-14B group relative policy optimization (GRPO) training run with its base model. At five philosophers, the trained model has lower throughput (0.008 versus 0.020) and a higher deadlock rate in point estimates. Differences in mean episode reward are not statistically significant at any evaluated philosopher count. These findings show that the evaluated reward can assign high scores without task progress and support reporting behavioral measures alongside reward when comparing models and evaluating fine-tuned policies.

Multiagent Systems (cs.MA); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2606.07845 [cs.MA]

(or arXiv:2606.07845v2 [cs.MA] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.07845 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

Reward and Behavioral Measures of LLM Coordination in Dining Philosophers

Related coverage