The Effect of State Representation on LLM Agent Behavior in Dynamic Routing Games

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise as decision-makers in dynamic settings, but their stateless nature necessitates creating a natural language representation of history. We present a unifying framework for systematically constructing natural language "state" representations for prompting LLM agents in repeated multi-agent games. Previous work on games with LLM agents has taken an ad hoc approach to encoding game history, which not only obscures the impact of state representation on agents' behavior, but also limits comparability between studies. Our framework addresses these gaps by characterizing methods of state representation along three axes: action informativeness (i.e., the extent to which the state representation captures actions played); reward informativeness (i.e., the extent to which the state representation describes rewards obtained); and prompting style (or natural language compression, i.e., the extent to which the full text history is summarized). We apply this framework to a dynamic selfish routing game, chosen because it admits a simple equilibrium both in theory and in human subject experiments \cite{rapoport_choice_2009}. Despite the game's relative simplicity, we find that there are key dependencies of LLM agent behavior on the natural language state representation. In particular, we observe that representations which provide agents with (1) summarized, rather than complete, natural language representations of past history; (2) information about regrets, rather than raw payoffs; and (3) limited information about others' actions lead to behavior that more closely matches game theoretic equilibrium predictions, and with more stable game play by the agents. By contrast, other representations can exhibit either large deviations from equilibrium, higher variation in dynamic game play over time, or both.

BoxingGym: Benchmarking Progress in Automated Experimental Design and Model Discovery

Understanding the world and explaining it with scientific theories is a central aspiration of artificial intelligence research. Proposing theories, designing experiments to test them, and then revising them based on data are fundamental to scientific discovery. Despite the significant promise of LLM-based scientific agents, no benchmarks systematically test LLM's ability to propose scientific models, collect experimental data, and revise them in light of new data. We introduce BoxingGym, a benchmark with 10 environments for systematically evaluating both experimental design (e.g. collecting data to test a scientific theory) and model discovery (e.g. proposing and revising scientific theories). To enable tractable and quantitative evaluation, we implement each environment as a generative probabilistic model with which a scientific agent can run interactive experiments. These probabilistic models are drawn from various real-world scientific domains ranging from psychology to ecology. To quantitatively evaluate a scientific agent's ability to collect informative experimental data, we compute the expected information gain (EIG), an information-theoretic quantity which measures how much an experiment reduces uncertainty about the parameters of a generative model. A good scientific theory is a concise and predictive explanation. Therefore, to quantitatively evaluate model discovery, we ask a scientific agent to explain their model and then assess whether this explanation enables another scientific agent to make reliable predictions about this environment. In addition to this explanation-based evaluation, we compute standard model evaluation metrics such as prediction errors. We find that current LLMs, such as GPT-4o, struggle with both experimental design and model discovery. We find that augmenting the LLM-based agent with an explicit statistical model does not reliably improve these results.