Used Car Salesbots? Honesty and Credulity of LLMs as Bargaining Agents under Partial Information
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Financial trading and forecasting agents
Abstract (arXiv)
In this work we study agents in simulated bargaining scenarios, where a buyer and a seller communicate through a text channel and attempt to negotiate mutually beneficial trades, under different information regimes (complete information, information asymmetry or mutual uncertainty). We evaluate their performance w.r.t. game-theoretical solutions and further investigate their honesty (their tendency to disclose or withhold information or to mislead and deceive) as well as their credulity (their tendency to trust or distrust information provided by the other agent). We study zero-shot LLM agents with simple prompting scaffolding as well as fine-tuned agents, in order to investigate whether optimising the agents to maximise financial profits makes them stronger negotiators but also more dishonest and less trusting. We find that off-the-shelf LLMs all substantially deviate from game-theoretical equilibria, they attempt to lie about their private information but cannot efficiently exploit information asymmetries. Fine-tuning on financial utility makes the agents stronger at achieving better deals but also more dishonest, highlighting the risks that optimising agents for a task can have on their safety. We release our code and a dataset of bargaining scenarios.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Financial trading and forecasting agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 7 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 May 2026.
Builds on
7 of 19 references.
References · 7
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,441
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
- 2025MiniMax-M1: Scaling Test-Time Compute Efficiently with Lightning Attentioncited by 248
- 2023Improving Language Model Negotiation with Self-Play and In-Context Learning from AI Feedbackcited by 202
- 2023Large Language Models can Strategically Deceive their Users when Put Under Pressurecited by 132
- 2024GTBench: Uncovering the Strategic Reasoning Limitations of LLMs via Game-Theoretic Evaluationscited by 118
- 2025Will Systems of LLM Agents Cooperate: An Investigation into a Social Dilemmacited by 22
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024Measuring Bargaining Abilities of LLMs: A Benchmark and A Buyer-Enhancement Method
- 2026Strategic Exploitation in LLM Agent Markets: A Simulation Framework for E-Commerce Trust
- 2026Counterparty Modeling is Not Strategy: The Limits of LLM Negotiators
- 2026Knowledge-Verified Emergent Deception in LLM Agents Under Conflicting Incentives
- 2026Paying for Honesty Without Knowing the Truth: Reputation-Penalty Design for LLM Marketplace Agents
- 2026When Agents Lie: Premeditation, Persistence, and Exploitation in Repeated Games
- 2026When LLM Agents Negotiate: Private Information and Dynamic Bargaining in Supply Chains
- 2025Strategic Tradeoffs Between Humans and AI in Multi-Agent Bargaining