PieArena: Ranking and Profiling Language Agents in Realistic Negotiation Scenarios
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate
Abstract (arXiv)
We present an in-depth evaluation of LLMs' ability to negotiate, a central business task requiring strategic reasoning, theory of mind, and economic value creation. To do so, we introduce PieArena, a large-scale negotiation benchmark grounded in multi-agent interactions over realistic scenarios adapted from MBA negotiation courses at an elite business school. We evaluate language agents across three pairing regimes: mirror-play, cross-play, and human-LM play. We develop a ranking model for continuous negotiation payoffs that yields order-invariant, uncertainty-quantified leaderboards while correcting for systematic experimental asymmetries. We further study the effects of joint-intentionality agentic scaffolding and find asymmetric gains, with large improvements for mid- and lower-tier LMs and diminishing returns for frontier LMs. As calibration anchors, we collect human-human and human-LM negotiation data from trained business school students, finding that a representative frontier language agent (GPT-5) matches or exceeds this human baseline in our evaluation settings. Beyond deal outcomes, PieArena provides a multi-dimensional behavioral profile that reveals cross-model heterogeneity in instruction compliance, computation accuracy, as well as judge-assessed deception and reputation, illustrating the value of evaluation beyond outcome-only leaderboards.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 15 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Feb 2026.
Builds on
15 of 37 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 14
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2017Deal or No Deal? End-to-End Learning for Negotiation Dialoguescited by 202
- 2023Improving Language Model Negotiation with Self-Play and In-Context Learning from AI Feedbackcited by 202
- 2018Decoupling Strategy and Generation in Negotiation Dialoguescited by 156
- 2021CaSiNo: A Corpus of Campsite Negotiation Dialogues for Automatic Negotiation Systemscited by 60
- 2024Measuring Bargaining Abilities of LLMs: A Benchmark and A Buyer-Enhancement Methodcited by 44
- 2024Evaluating Language Model Agency through Negotiationscited by 43
- 2025Large Language Model Psychometrics: A Systematic Review of Evaluation, Validation, and Enhancementcited by 41
- 2025Measuring Agents in Productioncited by 35
- 2024Are LLMs Effective Negotiators? Systematic Evaluation of the Multifaceted Capabilities of LLMs in Negotiation Dialoguescited by 29
- 2023Generalized Bradley-Terry Models for Score Estimation from Paired Comparisonscited by 9
2 more
- 2024AgreeMate: Teaching LLMs to Hagglecited by 4
- 2024An Application of Large Language Models to Coding Negotiation Transcriptscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025The Illusion of Rationality: Tacit Bias and Strategic Dominance in Frontier LLM Negotiation Games
- 2026MERIT Feedback Elicits Better Bargaining in LLM Negotiators
- 2025LLM Agents for Bargaining with Utility-based Feedback
- 2026AgenticPay: A Multi-Agent LLM Negotiation System for Buyer-Seller Transactions
- 2025The Price of Thought: A Multilingual Analysis of Reasoning, Performance, and Cost of Negotiation in Large Language Models
- 2025Strategic Tradeoffs Between Humans and AI in Multi-Agent Bargaining
- 2024NegotiationToM: A Benchmark for Stress-testing Machine Theory of Mind on Negotiation Surrounding
- 2024Assistive Large Language Model Agents for Socially-Aware Negotiation Dialogues