{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2025:FFM4CRK5I7MTRYBIMZYTC5CF2H","short_pith_number":"pith:FFM4CRK5","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"2959c1455d47d938e0286671317445d1ed0a0d0a90fed9ffe8f5129502865eb0","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2506.09390","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"Beyond Nash Equilibrium: Bounded Rationality of LLMs and humans in Strategic Decision-making","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.GT"],"primary_cat":"cs.AI","authors_text":"Hongning Wang, Jinfeng Zhou, Kehan Zheng","submitted_at":"2025-06-11T04:43:54Z","abstract_excerpt":"Large language models are increasingly used in strategic decision-making settings, yet evidence shows that, like humans, they often deviate from full rationality. In this study, we compare LLMs and humans using experimental paradigms directly adapted from behavioral game-theory research. We focus on two well-studied strategic games, Rock-Paper-Scissors and the Prisoner's Dilemma, which are well known for revealing systematic departures from rational play in human subjects. By placing LLMs in identical experimental conditions, we evaluate whether their behaviors exhibit the bounded rationality "},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2506.09390","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","primary_cat":"cs.AI","submitted_at":"2025-06-11T04:43:54Z","cross_cats_sorted":["cs.GT"],"title_canon_sha256":"96de3a93cffa17a514b0206eaf2eaf8ca7cd1d26741c441daf6a84583e5af8de","abstract_canon_sha256":"7b369b5056af60068b206ea6fe6d70ddbdcdd3ad418486d93f314b942074faa1"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-05T11:19:36.274039Z","signature_b64":"NoHO4Do+caEN2hKJS0VzQrGHT7cyH/JohRLtq7pnjLW8ecbS9C7ms4/qfL5HJ4/C93Pu7pPbhUAUWIxhoZ/DCg==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"2959c1455d47d938e0286671317445d1ed0a0d0a90fed9ffe8f5129502865eb0","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-05T11:19:36.273611Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-05T11:19:36.273611Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"Beyond Nash Equilibrium: Bounded Rationality of LLMs and humans in Strategic Decision-making","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.GT"],"primary_cat":"cs.AI","authors_text":"Hongning Wang, Jinfeng Zhou, Kehan Zheng","submitted_at":"2025-06-11T04:43:54Z","abstract_excerpt":"Large language models are increasingly used in strategic decision-making settings, yet evidence shows that, like humans, they often deviate from full rationality. In this study, we compare LLMs and humans using experimental paradigms directly adapted from behavioral game-theory research. We focus on two well-studied strategic games, Rock-Paper-Scissors and the Prisoner's Dilemma, which are well known for revealing systematic departures from rational play in human subjects. By placing LLMs in identical experimental conditions, we evaluate whether their behaviors exhibit the bounded rationality "},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2506.09390","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2506.09390/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2506.09390","created_at":"2026-07-05T11:19:36.273663+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2506.09390v1","created_at":"2026-07-05T11:19:36.273663+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2506.09390","created_at":"2026-07-05T11:19:36.273663+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"FFM4CRK5I7MT","created_at":"2026-07-05T11:19:36.273663+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"FFM4CRK5I7MTRYBI","created_at":"2026-07-05T11:19:36.273663+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"FFM4CRK5","created_at":"2026-07-05T11:19:36.273663+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":3,"internal_anchor_count":0,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2606.22109","citing_title":"Internal-state criticality in Bayesian-inverse-Bayesian inference","ref_index":54,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2601.10102","citing_title":"When Identity Overrides Incentives: Representational Choices as Governance Decisions in Multi-Agent LLM Systems","ref_index":60,"is_internal_anchor":false},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2604.11840","citing_title":"Diversity Without Fidelity: A Solver-Sampler Mismatch in Multi-Agent LLM Negotiation Simulation","ref_index":29,"is_internal_anchor":false}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/FFM4CRK5I7MTRYBIMZYTC5CF2H","json":"https://pith.science/pith/FFM4CRK5I7MTRYBIMZYTC5CF2H.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/FFM4CRK5I7MTRYBIMZYTC5CF2H/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/FFM4CRK5I7MTRYBIMZYTC5CF2H/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/FFM4CRK5"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/FFM4CRK5I7MTRYBIMZYTC5CF2H","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/FFM4CRK5I7MTRYBIMZYTC5CF2H.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/FFM4CRK5","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2506.09390&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/FFM4CRK5I7MTRYBIMZYTC5CF2H/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/FFM4CRK5I7MTRYBIMZYTC5CF2H/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/FFM4CRK5I7MTRYBIMZYTC5CF2H/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/FFM4CRK5I7MTRYBIMZYTC5CF2H/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/FFM4CRK5I7MTRYBIMZYTC5CF2H/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/FFM4CRK5I7MTRYBIMZYTC5CF2H/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/FFM4CRK5I7MTRYBIMZYTC5CF2H/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-05T11:19:36.273663+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-05T11:19:36.273663+00:00"}