CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 37Multi-Agent Systems and NegotiationArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsPsychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience

CompeteAI: Understanding the Competition Dynamics in Large Language Model-based Agents

Open access
Zhao, Qinlin, Wang, Jindong, Zhang, Yixuan, Jin, Yiqiao, Zhu, Kaijie, Chen, Hao, Xie, Xing·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2310.17512arXiv 2310.17512
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely used as agents to complete different tasks, such as personal assistance or event planning. While most of the work has focused on cooperation and collaboration between agents, little work explores competition, another important mechanism that promotes the development of society and economy. In this paper, we seek to examine the competition dynamics in LLM-based agents. We first propose a general framework for studying the competition between agents. Then, we implement a practical competitive environment using GPT-4 to simulate a virtual town with two types of agents, restaurant agents and customer agents. Specifically, the restaurant agents compete with each other to attract more customers, where competition encourages them to transform, such as cultivating new operating strategies. Simulation experiments reveal several interesting findings at the micro and macro levels, which align well with existing market and sociological theories. We hope that the framework and environment can be a promising testbed to study competition that fosters understanding of society. Code is available at: https://github.com/microsoft/competeai.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2310.17512

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The paper uses the same prompt for all models evaluated to standardize evaluation.

    “In order to standardize our evaluation, we use the same prompt for all models evaluated, following the convention established by [83–85].”

    From Embodied Agent Interface: Benchmarking LLMs for Embodied Decision Making (2024) · cites this paper as [84]

    The Discussion and the Limitations and Future Directions section describe experiments using GPT-4, with results based on GPT-4-0613. Our copy does not say that the authors used the same prompt across evaluated models or established that as an evaluation convention (searched for same prompts and model comparisons). (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Sahar Abdelnabi, Amr Gomaa, Sarath Sivaprasad, Lea Schönherr, and Mario Fritz. Llm-deliberation: Evalu- ating llms with interactive multi-agent negotiation games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17234, 2023. · arXiv
  2. Elif Akata, Lion Schulz, Julian Coda-Forno, Seong Joon Oh, Matthias Bethge, and Eric Schulz. Playing re- peated games with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16867, 2023. · arXiv
  3. Lisa P Argyle, Ethan C Busby, Nancy Fulda, Joshua R Gubler, Christopher Rytting, and David Wingate. Out of one, many: Using language models to simulate human samples. Political Analysis, 31(3):337-351, 2023.
  4. Albert Bandura and Richard H Walters. Social learning theory, volume 1. Englewood cliffs Prentice Hall, 1977.
  5. Thijs Bol, Mathijs De Vaan, and Arnout van de Rijt. The matthew effect in science funding. Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences, 115(19):4887-4890, 2018.
  6. Jiangjie Chen, Siyu Yuan, Rong Ye, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, and Kyle Richardson. Put your money where your mouth is: Evaluating strategic planning and execu- tion of llm agents in an auction arena. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05746, 2023. · arXiv
  7. Ming-Jer Chen. Reconceptualizing the competi- tion-cooperation relationship: A transparadox perspec- tive. Journal of management inquiry, 17(4):288-304, 2008.
  8. Ming-Jer Chen and Danny Miller. Competitive dynam- ics: Themes, trends, and a prospective research platform. Academy of management annals, 6(1):135-210, 2012.
  9. Allan Dafoe, Edward Hughes, Yoram Bachrach, Tantum Collins, Kevin R McKee, Joel Z Leibo, Kate Larson, and Thore Graepel. Open problems in cooperative ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.08630, 2020. · arXiv
  10. Tim RV Davis and Fred Luthans. A social learning approach to organizational behavior. Academy of Management review, 5(2):281-290, 1980.
  11. Shannon Deaton. Social learning theory in the age of social media: Implications for educational practitioners. Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1):1-6, 2015.
  12. Euel Elliott and L Douglas Kiel. Exploring cooperation and competition using agent-based modeling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(suppl_3):7193- 7194, 2002.
  13. Joshua M Epstein and Robert Axtell. Growing artificial societies: social science from the bottom up. Brookings Institution Press, 1996.
  14. Iason Gabriel and Vafa Ghazavi. The challenge of value alignment: From fairer algorithms to ai safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.06060, 2021. · arXiv
  15. Chen Gao, Xiaochong Lan, Zhihong Lu, Jinzhu Mao, Jinghua Piao, Huandong Wang, Depeng Jin, and Yong Li. S 3 : Social-network simulation system with large language model-empowered agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.14984, 2023. · arXiv
  16. Mathew Hardy, Ilia Sucholutsky, Bill Thompson, and Tom Griffiths. Large language models meet cognitive science: Llms as tools, models, and participants. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society, volume 45, 2023.
  17. Amy J Hillman, Michael C Withers, and Brian J Collins. Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of man- agement, 35(6):1404-1427, 2009.
  18. Jack Hirshleifer. Competition, cooperation, and conflict in economics and biology. The American Economic Review, 68(2):238-243, 1978.
  19. Bernard J Jansen, Soon-gyo Jung, and Joni Salminen. Em- ploying large language models in survey research. Natu- ral Language Processing Journal, 4:100020, 2023.
  20. Michael Kosfeld and Ferdinand A Von Siemens. Compe- tition, cooperation, and corporate culture. The RAND Journal of Economics, 42(1):23-43, 2011.
  21. Gary P Latham and Lise M Saari. Application of social- learning theory to training supervisors through behavioral modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(3):239, 1979.
  22. Guohao Li, Hasan Abed Al Kader Hammoud, Hani Itani, Dmitrii Khizbullin, and Bernard Ghanem. Camel: Com- municative agents for "mind" exploration of large scale language model society. arXiv:2303.17760, 2023a. · arXiv
  23. Marvin Lieberman and Shigeru Asaba. Why do firms imitate each other? Academy of Management Review, 31:366- 385, 04 2006. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.20208686. · DOI
  24. Ruibo Liu, Ruixin Yang, Chenyan Jia, Ge Zhang, Denny Zhou, Andrew M Dai, Diyi Yang, and Soroush Vosoughi. Training socially aligned language models in simulated human society. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16960, 2023. · arXiv
  25. Thomas Markussen, Ernesto Reuben, and Jean-Robert Tyran. Competition, cooperation and collective choice. The Economic Journal, 124(574):F163-F195, 2014.
  26. Joon Sung Park, Joseph C O'Brien, Carrie J Cai, Mered- ith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behav- ior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03442, 2023. · arXiv
  27. J Paul Peter and Jerry C Olson. Consumer behavior & marketing strategy. McGraw-hill, 2010.
  28. Hien Thu Phan, Sajid Anwar, W. Robert J. Alexan- der, and Hanh Thi My Phan. Competition, effi- ciency and stability: An empirical study of East Asian commercial banks. The North American Jour- nal of Economics and Finance, 50:100990, November 2019. ISSN 10629408. doi: 10.1016/j.najef.2019. 100990. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S1062940818305473. · DOI
  29. Michael E Porter. Competitive strategy. Measuring business excellence, 1(2):12-17, 1997.
  30. Michael E Porter. On competition. Harvard Business Press, 2008.
  31. William Rand and Christian Stummer. Agent-based modeling of new product market diffusion: an overview of strengths and criticisms. Annals of Operations Research, 305:425 -447, 2021. URL https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 233947205.
  32. Daniel Rigney. The Matthew effect: How advantage begets further advantage. Columbia University Press, 2010.
  33. Mazhar Sajjad, Karandeep Singh, Euihyun Paik, and Chang- Won Ahn. Social simulation: The need of data-driven agent-based modelling approach. In 2016 18th Interna- tional Conference on Advanced Communication Technol- ogy (ICACT), pages 818-821, 2016. doi: 10.1109/ICACT. 2016.7423572. · DOI
  34. Petter Törnberg, Diliara Valeeva, Justus Uitermark, and Christopher Bail. Simulating social media using large language models to evaluate alternative news feed algo- rithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05984, 2023. · arXiv
  35. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Mar- tinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv:2302.13971, 2023. · arXiv
  36. Herbert J Walberg and Shiow-Ling Tsai. Matthew effects in education. American educational research Journal, 20 (3):359-373, 1983.
  37. Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Shaokun Zhang, Erkang Zhu, Beibin Li, Li Jiang, Xi- aoyun Zhang, and Chi Wang. Autogen: Enabling next- gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation frame- work. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155, 2023. · arXiv
  38. Zhiheng Xi, Wenxiang Chen, Xin Guo, Wei He, Yiwen Ding, Boyang Hong, Ming Zhang, Junzhe Wang, Senjie Jin, Enyu Zhou, et al. The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07864, 2023. · arXiv
  39. Valarie A Zeithaml, Mary Jo Bitner, and Dwayne D Gremler. Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm. McGraw-Hill, 2018.
  40. Aohan Zeng, Xiao Liu, Zhengxiao Du, Zihan Wang, Hanyu Lai, Ming Ding, Zhuoyi Yang, Yifan Xu, Wendi Zheng, Xiao Xia, Weng Lam Tam, Zixuan Ma, Yufei Xue, Jidong Zhai, Wenguang Chen, Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Zhang, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. GLM-130b: An open bilingual pre-trained model. In ICLR, 2023. URL https:// openreview.net/forum?id=-Aw0rrrPUF.
  41. Jintian Zhang, Xin Xu, and Shumin Deng. Exploring collab- oration mechanisms for llm agents: A social psychology view. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02124, 2023. · arXiv
  42. Caleb Ziems, William Held, Omar Shaikh, Jiaao Chen, Zhe- hao Zhang, and Diyi Yang. Can large language models transform computational social science? arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03514, 2023. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhao, Q., Wang, J., Zhang, Y., Jin, Y., Zhu, K., Chen, H., & Xie, X.
Affiliations
  • University of Science and Technology of China (CN)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • William & Mary (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2310.17512
arXiv
2310.17512
OpenAlex
W4387994499
Cited by
37
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
Keywords
competition dynamics, LLM agents, multi-agent systems, agent competition, GPT-4, market competition, agent evolution, operational strategy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review