Evaluating LLMs in Open-Source Games

Swadesh Sistla, Max Kleiman-Weiner
11/29/2025
cs.GTcs.AIcs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Large Language Models' (LLMs) programming capabilities enable their participation in open-source games: a game-theoretic setting in which players submit computer programs in lieu of actions. These programs offer numerous advantages, including interpretability, inter-agent transparency, and formal verifiability; additionally, they enable program equilibria, solutions that leverage the transparency of code and are inaccessible within normal-form settings. We evaluate the capabilities of leading open- and closed-weight LLMs to predict and classify program strategies and evaluate features of the approximate program equilibria reached by LLM agents in dyadic and evolutionary settings. We identify the emergence of payoff-maximizing, cooperative, and deceptive strategies, characterize the adaptation of mechanisms within these programs over repeated open-source games, and analyze their comparative evolutionary fitness. We find that open-source games serve as a viable environment to study and steer the emergence of cooperative strategy in multi-agent dilemmas.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{sistla2025evaluating,
  title  = {Evaluating LLMs in Open-Source Games},
  author = {Swadesh Sistla and Max Kleiman-Weiner},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2512.00371},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.00371v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2512.00371.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2512.00371)

Discussion