# High Volatility and Action Bias Distinguish LLMs from Humans in Group Coordination

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.02578 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.02578/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 20 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Apr 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 20 of 20)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [HybridFlow: A Flexible and Efficient RLHF Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.19256/) (2024)
- [MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.00352/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07924/) (2023)
- [Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13657/) (2025)
- [Multi-Agent Collaboration Mechanisms: A Survey of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.06322/) (2025)
- [LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.06120/) (2025)
- [On the Utility of Learning about Humans for Human-AI Coordination](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.05789/) (2019)
- [Scaling Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07155/) (2024)
- [Playing repeated games with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16867/) (2023)
- [The Hanabi Challenge: A New Frontier for AI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.00506/) (2019)
- [Can Large Language Models Serve as Rational Players in Game Theory? A Systematic Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.05488/) (2023)
- [LLM-Coordination: Evaluating and Analyzing Multi-agent Coordination Abilities in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03903/) (2023)
- [Many Heads Are Better Than One: Improved Scientific Idea Generation by A LLM-Based Multi-Agent System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.09403/) (2024)
- [HyperAgent: Generalist Software Engineering Agents to Solve Coding Tasks at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.16299/) (2024)
- [Collab-Overcooked: Benchmarking and Evaluating Large Language Models as Collaborative Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.20073/) (2025)
- [Position: Theory of Mind Benchmarks are Broken for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.19726/) (2024)
- [Emergent Coordination in Multi-Agent Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.05174/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.