# Receiver Decides Agent-to-Agent Negotiations

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.18424 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.18424/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 17 of its 39 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 17 of 17)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03693/) (2023)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Direction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11717/) (2024)
- [Sequence-Level Knowledge Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.07947/) (2016)
- [How Johnny Can Persuade LLMs to Jailbreak Them: Rethinking Persuasion to Challenge AI Safety by Humanizing LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06373/) (2024)
- [Safety Alignment Should Be Made More Than Just a Few Tokens Deep](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.05946/) (2024)
- [Deal or No Deal? End-to-End Learning for Negotiation Dialogues](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.05125/) (2017)
- [Persuasion for Good: Towards a Personalized Persuasive Dialogue System for Social Good](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.06725/) (2019)
- [Improving Language Model Negotiation with Self-Play and In-Context Learning from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10142/) (2023)
- [Decoupling Strategy and Generation in Negotiation Dialogues](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.09637/) (2018)
- [Cooperation, Competition, and Maliciousness: LLM-Stakeholders Interactive Negotiation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.17234/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Language Model Agency through Negotiations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.04536/) (2024)
- [GLEE: A Unified Framework and Benchmark for Language-based Economic Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05254/) (2024)
- [RESPER: Computationally Modelling Resisting Strategies in Persuasive Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.10545/) (2021)
- [TERMS-Bench: Diagnosing LLM Negotiation Agents Beyond Deal Rate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.13909/) (2026)
- [AREG: Adversarial Resource Extraction Game for Evaluating Persuasion and Resistance in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.16639/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

When one language-model agent asks another for money, which of the two decides how much changes hands? We ran a round-robin tournament of 1,049 negotiations among fifteen agents. In each game a requester tries to raise money from a holder that has been told to keep a 100 endowment. Knowing which agent holds the money explains 47% of the variance in the amount transferred; knowing which agent asks explains 2%. Dropping the most extreme agents narrows the split to 22% against 4%. Changing the requester's appeal from one named person to a group changed what requesters wrote, but the amounts transferred under the two framings are statistically equivalent. The holders that lose least are the ones that turn down the opening request, and their turn-1 refusal rate ranks them by total losses (Spearman correlation = -0.73). Training moves this behaviour in both directions. Fine-tuning Qwen3-8B on a persuasion corpus with almost no refusals raised what it gave away as a holder from 12% to 84% of the endowment. Distilling two never-losing holders into a 4B student cut its losses from 95% to 1%. Evaluations of agents that hold resources should test them in the holder role, including after persuasion fine-tuning.