In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs learn to make human-like preference judgements in strategic scenarios as compared with known empirical results. Solar and Mistral are shown to exhibit stable value-based preference consistent with humans and exhibit human-like preference for cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma (including stake-size effect) and traveler's dilemma (including penalty-size effect). We establish a relationship between model size, value-based preference, and superficiality. Finally, results here show that models tending to be less brittle have relied on sliding window attention suggesting a potential link. Additionally, we contribute a novel method for constructing preference relations from arbitrary LLMs and support for a hypothesis regarding human behavior in the traveler's dilemma.
@article{arxiv.2404.08710,
title = {Do Large Language Models Learn Human-Like Strategic Preferences?},
author = {Jesse Roberts and Kyle Moore and Doug Fisher},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08710},
year = {2024}
}