The Energy Society: A Simulation Environment for Studying Agent Cooperation under Survival Pressure

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

MMLU-Pro-Stratified's multiple-choice format allows automatic scoring of agent answers against correct ones.

“In the Energy Society, the multiple-choice format of MMLU-Pro-Stratified enables automatic evaluation of agent responses against known correct answers, while the explicit difficulty annotation allows questions to be mapped naturally onto three reward tiers.”

• cites [17] 17. Yao Shi, Rongkeng Liang, and Yong Xu. 2025. EducationQ: Evaluating LLMs' Teaching Capabilities Through Multi-Agent Dialogue Framework. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol- ume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, 32799-32828. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1576 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

LLMs tend to cooperate by default, though environmental factors can alter this.

“While LLMs are typically cooperative by default, this behavior may change based on environmental factors [6,12,19].”

• cites [6] 6. Nicoló Fontana, Francesco Pierri, and Luca Maria Aiello. 2024. Nicer Than Humans: How do Large Language Models Behave in the Prisoner's Dilemma? arXiv:2406.13605 [cs.CY] https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.13605 sourcePartly supported

  The Introduction reports that the three models were more cooperative than humans overall, and §4.3 finds that cooperation generally increased as the opponent cooperated more. But §4.3 also reports predominantly defecting behavior under some conditions, particularly for Llama3, so the paper does not establish that LLMs are typically cooperative by default. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites [12] 12. Alexander Meinke, Bronson Schoen, Jérémy Scheurer, Mikita Balesni, Rusheb Shah, and Marius Hobbhahn. 2025. Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Scheming. arXiv:2412.04984 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.04984 sourcePartly supported

  The section on evaluating scheming capabilities says models trained to be helpful, harmless, and honest often resist deceptive or manipulative behavior. Section 3.4 reports that scheming occurs at significantly lower rates without strong goal-nudging instructions, supporting the point that conditions can change behavior. The paper does not establish that LLMs generally cooperate by default; its findings concern particular trained models and scheming evaluations. (LLM, conf=0.78)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites [19] 19. Filippo Tonini and Lukas Galke. 2025. Super-additive Cooperation in Language Model Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15510 (2025). sourceSupported

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Difficulty in MMLU-Pro-Stratified is approximated by Top-10 Model Average Accuracy, an empirical proxy for hardness.

“Question difficulty is estimated using the Top-10 Model Average Accuracy, providing an empirical proxy for question hardness.”

• cites [17] 17. Yao Shi, Rongkeng Liang, and Yong Xu. 2025. EducationQ: Evaluating LLMs' Teaching Capabilities Through Multi-Agent Dialogue Framework. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol- ume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, 32799-32828. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1576 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Ma et al. [11] reported that competitive survival pressure in a debate setting led to more overcompetition and worse task performance.

“Ma et al. [11] found that introducing competitive survival pressure in a debate environment increased overcompetition and degraded task performance, suggesting that competition under survival pressure can distort agent behavior when the environment rewards winning over accuracy or collaborative task performance.”

• cites [11] 11. Xinbei Ma, Ruotian Ma, Xingyu Chen, Zhengliang Shi, Mengru Wang, Jen tse Huang, Qu Yang, Wenxuan Wang, Fanghua Ye, Qingxuan Jiang, Mengfei Zhou, Zhuosheng Zhang, Rui Wang, Hai Zhao, Zhaopeng Tu, Xiaolong Li, and Linus. 2025. The Hunger Game Debate: On the Emergence of Over-Competition in Multi-Agent Systems. arXiv:2509.26126 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.26126 sourceSupported

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Prior research indicates that LLM agents in multi-agent settings can display emergent social behaviors and dynamics.

“Recent work has shown that LLMs deployed as agentic systems within multi-agent environments can exhibit emergent behaviors and social dynamics [3].”

• cites [3] 3. Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Jingwei Zuo, Cheng Yang, Chenfei Yuan, Chi-Min Chan, Heyang Yu, Yaxi Lu, Yi-Hsin Hung, Chen Qian, Yujia Qin, Xin Cong, Ruobing Xie, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Jie Zhou. 2023. AgentVerse: Facilitating Multi-Agent Collaboration and Exploring Emergent Behaviors. arXiv:2308.10848 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.10848 sourceSupported

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Dai et al. [4] show that survival incentives and resource scarcity can foster more cooperative social structures in a society simulation.

“By contrast, Dai et al. [4] demonstrates that survival incentives and resource pressure can also lead to more cooperative social structures in a society simulation.”

• cites [4] 4. Gordon Dai, Weijia Zhang, Jinhan Li, Siqi Yang, Chidera Onochie lbe, Srihas Rao, Arthur Caetano, and Misha Sra. 2024. Artificial Leviathan: Exploring Social Evolution of LLM Agents Through the Lens of Hobbesian Social Contract Theory. arXiv:2406.14373 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.14373 sourceSupported

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

MMLU-Pro-Stratified is a stratified subset of MMLU-Pro designed to correct imbalances in discipline and difficulty.

“Jobs are drawn from MMLU-Pro-Stratified [17], a refined subset of MMLU-Pro [21] constructed via stratified sampling.While the original MMLU-Pro exhibits imbalances in the distribution of disciplines and difficulty levels, MMLU-Pro-Stratified addresses this by sampling 100 questions from each of the 13 disciplines and distributing them evenly across 10 difficulty ranges.”

• cites [17] 17. Yao Shi, Rongkeng Liang, and Yong Xu. 2025. EducationQ: Evaluating LLMs' Teaching Capabilities Through Multi-Agent Dialogue Framework. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol- ume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, 32799-32828. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1576 sourceSupported
• cites [21] 21. Yubo Wang, Xueguang Ma, Ge Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, Abhranil Chandra, Shiguang Guo, Weiming Ren, Aaran Arulraj, Xuan He, Ziyan Jiang, et al. 2024. MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understand- ing Benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01574 (2024). sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

In the cooperative baseline, larger models still used the most energy per round and ran out of energy fastest.

“In coop, we observe the same tendency for larger models to spend the most energy per round and deplete their energy the fastest.”

May combine two claims.

In the cooperative baseline, agents 4 and 5 deactivated in every run, with average active rounds of 19.2 ± 2.6 and 10.4 ± 1.7, respectively.

“Agent 4 and 5 still deactivate in every run, but their average active rounds increase to 19.2 ± 2.6 and 10.4 ± 1.7, respectively.”

May combine two claims.

In the competitive baseline, agent 4's average active rounds were 14.0 ± 9.5, and agent 5's were 5.2 ± 1.6.

“As seen in table 3, agent 4 remains active for 14.0 ± 9.5 rounds on average, and agent 5 for only 5.2 ± 1.6 rounds.”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment 3 (no discussion phase), removing discussion reduced energy burden and improved survival relative to baseline.

“As expected, removing discussion reduces the energy burden on agents and improves survival relative to the baseline setting.”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment 2, larger models stayed active throughout the simulation, and all agents were efficient, making the society energy-positive under both conditions.

“Larger models are able to remain active throughout the simulation, and all agents are efficient, showing that, without the size penalty, the society as a whole becomes energy-positive under both conditions.”

May combine two claims.

Direct sabotage was rare, but competitive settings revealed subtler self-serving tendencies.

“Agents rarely choose direct sabotage, but show more subtle signs of self-serving behavior in the competitive setting.”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment 4, in coop, all agents deactivated at least once, as agent 2 also deactivated in one of the runs.

“Similarly, in coop, all agents deactivate at least once, as agent 2 now also deactivates in one of the runs.”

May combine two claims.

Hard job attempts for agents 2 and 3 increased by 22.2 and 6 percentage points, and hard job success rose by 15 and 27 percentage points, respectively.

“Specifically, hard job attempts increased by 22.2 and 6 percentage points, alongside a 15 and 27 percentage point rise in hard job success, respectively.”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment 3, hard jobs accounted for 38.1% of attempts in comp and 36.1% in coop in baseline, but dropped to 20% and 22.5% in this experiment.

“In the baseline, hard jobs account for 38.1% of attempts in comp and 36.1% of attempts in coop, but drop to 20% and 22.5% in this experiment.”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment 2, agent 5's efficiency difference stemmed from its job selection: in coop, it pivoted toward easy jobs, and its success rates on medium and hard jobs declined from 56% ± 19% and 34% ± 23% to 42% ± 13% and 6% ± 13%.

“This difference stems from its job selection: in coop, agent 5 pivots toward easy jobs, while its success rates on medium and hard jobs decline from 56% ± 19% and 34% ± 23% to 42% ± 13% and 6% ± 13%.”

May combine two claims.

Only agent 4 ever selected sabotage, and only in comp, doing so in 8% of its actions, corresponding to four sabotages across all runs.

“Only agent 4 ever selected sabotage, and only in comp, doing so in 8% of its actions, corresponding to a total of four sabotages across all runs.”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment 3, the largest agents continued to use the most energy per round, and donations were less frequent with fewer deactivations.

“The largest agents continue to spend the most energy per round, and donations are less frequent with fewer deactivations, reinforcing earlier findings.”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment 2, agent 5's energy usage per round remained nearly unchanged across settings, but its efficiency shifted from 1.51±0.50 in comp to 1.03±0.14 in coop.

“Agent 5 maintains nearly unchanged energy usage per round across both settings, yet its energy efficiency shifts significantly, moving from 1.51±0.50 in comp to 1.03±0.14 in coop.”

May combine two claims.

The scarcity setting produces fewer collisions than the no-discussion experiment, despite offering only half the job pool.

“At the same time, this scarcity setting produces fewer collisions than the nodiscussion experiment, despite offering only half the job pool.”

May combine two claims.

In the cooperative baseline, agent 1 donated in 29% of its actions, while agents 2-4 donated in 3%, 9%, and 13% of their actions, respectively.

“Agent 1 spends 29% of its actions donating, while agents 2-4 donate in 3%, 9%, and 13% of their actions, respectively.”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment 3, deactivation rates fell and average active rounds increased.

“Deactivation rates fall, and average active rounds increase.”

May combine two claims.

In Experiment 4, in comp, agent 1 deactivated in one run due to repeated failures, while agent 4 survived an entire run despite always deactivating in the baseline.

“In comp, we observe an unprecedented deactivation of agent 1 in one run due to repeated failures, while agent 4 manages to survive an entire run despite always deactivating in the baseline.”

May combine two claims.

Under scarcity, larger models are active for fewer rounds on average than in baseline, while the three small models remain active throughout all rounds and remain efficient.

“While the larger models across both settings are active for fewer rounds on average than in the baseline experiment, the three small models continue to stay active throughout all rounds and remain efficient”

May combine two claims.

Agents 2 and 3 targeted more hard jobs and handled them more successfully than in baseline.

“Agents 2 and 3 both targeted more hard jobs and handled them more successfully than in the baseline experiment.”

May combine two claims.

Even when reward opportunities were cut in half, small agents maintained efficiency in comp and in some cases in coop, demonstrating the resilience of the smaller agents.

“Instead, results show that even when reward opportunities were cut in half, small agents maintained efficiency in comp -and, in some cases, even in coop, demonstrating the resilience of the smaller agents.”

May combine two claims.

Removing memory causes a drastic shift toward hard jobs, suggesting that agents use memories of previous rounds to calibrate risk and steer job selection.

“However, removing memory causes a drastic shift toward hard jobs, suggesting that agents are utilizing their memories of previous rounds to calibrate risk and steer job selection.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Across experiments, there were 3.27 and 2.80 errors per run on average in competitive and cooperative conditions, respectively.

“Across experiments, we observed 3.27 and 2.80 errors per run on average in the competitive and cooperative conditions, respectively.”

May combine two claims.

In general, larger models tend to be the least efficient and deplete their energy the fastest.

“In general, the larger models tend to be the least efficient and deplete their energy the fastest.”

May combine two claims.

When the discussion phase is removed, collisions increase substantially from the baseline, demonstrating that agents use recommendations to avoid attempting the same jobs.

“When the discussion phase is removed, collisions increase substantially from the baseline, demonstrating that agents use the recommendations to avoid attempting the same jobs.”

May combine two claims.

Donations are largely non-existent in the competitive setting but much more frequent under cooperation.

“Donations are largely non-existent in the competitive setting but much more frequent under cooperation.”

May combine two claims.

In the competitive setting, agents more often recommend collisions and sometimes request donations for themselves from other agents.

“In the competitive setting, agents more often recommend collisions and even sometimes request donations for themselves from other agents.”

May combine two claims.

In five of six experiments, the pooled share of hard-job attempts is higher in coop than in comp, suggesting that a shared objective can make agents more willing to pursue harder, higher-reward tasks.

“In five of six experiments, the pooled share of hard-job attempts is higher in coop than in comp, suggesting that a shared objective can make agents more willing to pursue harder, higher-reward tasks.”

May combine two claims.

Pooled by model across all experiments, cooperative hard-job share increases for agents 1-3 by +4.0, +18.1, +7.1 percentage points, respectively, but decreases for agents 4 and 5 by -8.4 and -7.3 percentage points.

“Pooled by model across all experiments, cooperative hard-job share increases for agents 1-3 by +4.0, +18.1, +7.1 percentage points, respectively, but decreases for agent 4 and 5 by -8.4 and -7.3 percentage points.”

May combine two claims.

Smaller agents not only donate energy to support larger agents, but in many settings also take on a larger share of difficult jobs.

“They not only donate energy to support larger agents, but in many settings also take on a larger share of difficult jobs.”

May combine two claims.

Removing memory does not seem to strongly affect collisions, suggesting that a history of previous rounds is not the primary mechanism agents use to avoid selecting the same jobs.

“Removing memory does not seem to strongly affect collisions, suggesting that a history of previous rounds is not the primary mechanism agents use to avoid selecting the same jobs.”

May combine two claims.

When pooling the difficulty of selected jobs by model, the cooperative setting increases hard-job share for agents 1-3, but decreases it for agents 4 and 5.

“When pooling the difficulty of selected jobs by model, the cooperative setting increases hard-job share for agents 1-3, but decreases it for agents 4 and 5.”

May combine two claims.

Cooperative incentives substantially alter behavior, including agents donating to reactivate others and changes in job allocation.

“Cooperative incentives substantially alter behavior: agents donate to reactivate others, sometimes at the cost of their own survival, and job allocation changes.”

May combine two claims.

Both the model and the environment's incentives and pressures shape agent behavior.

“Together, these findings suggest that agent behavior is shaped not only by the model but also by the incentives and pressures imposed by the environment.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Every experiment used the same five seeds so that setting differences would not stem from different job samples.

“All experiments are conducted across the same five seeds, ensuring that differences between settings are not driven by different job samples.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The study ran controlled variants that changed one baseline element at a time while holding the rest fixed, to isolate drivers of agent behavior.

“To systematically analyze the factors driving agent behavior, we conduct a series of subsequent experiments, each modifying one aspect of this baseline while keeping the remaining setup fixed.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Models with thinking support were selected on purpose so that reasoning tokens would count toward energy use.

“Models that also support thinking were deliberately chosen to ensure that reasoning tokens contribute to energy usage, incentivizing agents to reason efficiently.”

May combine two claims.

Because no agents deactivated and no actions were spent donating in Experiment 2, all five agents typically attempted jobs across all 30 rounds, increasing collision opportunities.

“Because no agents deactivate and no actions are spent donating, all five agents typically attempt jobs across all 30 rounds in both settings, increasing collision opportunities.”

May combine two claims.

When agents can recommend actions to one another, coordination and ambitious job selection improve.

“Ablations reveal that allowing agents to recommend actions to each other supports coordination and ambitious job selection, while memory helps agents calibrate risk from past outcomes.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Job collisions are a valid indicator of coordination.

May combine two claims.

Higher energy usage does not automatically translate to reduced efficiency because job selection and performance play a significant role.

“Higher energy usage does not automatically translate to reduced efficiency as job selection and performance plays a significant role.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

In many simulations, the cost of inference is left implicit, and agents may reason extensively without token generation cost directly affecting the simulation.

“However, one important aspect of LLM-based agents is often left implicit: the cost of inference.In many simulations, agents may reason extensively and produce long outputs without the cost of generating those tokens directly affecting the simulation.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

A smaller job pool may make it easier for agents to identify attractive, high-value opportunities.

“A smaller job pool may make it easier for agents to identify attractive, high-value opportunities.”

May combine two claims.

Hard jobs carry both high risk and high reward, so they cause large swings in agent energy.

“Because hard jobs are high-risk and high-reward, they introduce large fluctuations in agent energy.”

May combine two claims.

Under cooperation, smaller agents tend to attempt more hard jobs, while larger agents attempt fewer.

“This suggests that under cooperation smaller agents tend to attempt more hard jobs, while larger agents attempt fewer.”

May combine two claims.

Reducing the number of jobs restricts reward opportunities but may also subtly lower decision complexity.

“A tentative interpretation is that while reducing the number of jobs restricts reward opportunities, it may also subtly lower decision complexity.”

May combine two claims.

Memory and discussion serve complementary roles: discussion supports current-round coordination, while memory supports calibration across rounds.

“Together, memory and discussion serve complementary roles: discussion supports current-round coordination, while memory supports calibration across rounds.”

May combine two claims.

A shared objective seems to restructure task allocation at a group level, where smaller, more energy-efficient models target more high-risk, high-reward tasks while larger, more energy-constrained agents steer toward safer jobs.

“A shared objective seems to restructure task allocation at a group level, where smaller, more energy-efficient models target more high-risk, high-reward tasks while larger, more energy-constrained agents steer toward safer jobs.”

May combine two claims.

Each setting is evaluated using only five seeds, and many reported values have large variation across runs.

“Each setting is evaluated using only five seeds, and many reported values have large variation across runs.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

These errors can introduce minor noise and affect individual trajectories.

“While infrequent, these errors can still introduce minor noise and affect individual trajectories.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The results are likely sensitive to both prompting and model choice.

“The results are likely sensitive to both prompting and model choice.”

May combine two claims.

Under an individual objective, agents are more committed to their own proposed plans and less willing to revise their actions after seeing the recommendations of others.

“This suggests that, under an individual objective, agents are more committed to their own proposed plans and less willing to revise their actions after seeing the recommendations of others.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The larger models' inefficiency suggests an intrinsic tendency toward higher token generation, which may stem from training on longer chains of thought and expanded context windows.

“This suggests an intrinsic tendency toward higher token generation, which may stem from the larger models' training on longer chains of thought and expanded context windows, both of which naturally encourage more extended reasoning chains.”