REVIEW 4 cited by
Learning from Synthetic Labs: Language Models as Auction Participants
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Learning from Synthetic Labs: Language Models as Auction Participants
read the original abstract
This paper investigates the behavior of simulated AI agents (large language models, or LLMs) in auctions, introducing a novel synthetic data-generating process to help facilitate the study and design of auctions. We find that LLMs -- when endowed with chain of thought reasoning capacity -- agree with the experimental literature in auctions across a variety of classic auction formats. In particular, we find that LLM bidders produce results consistent with risk-averse human bidders; that they perform closer to theoretical predictions in obviously strategy-proof auctions; and, that they succumb to the winner's curse in common value settings. On prompting, we find that LLMs are not very sensitive to naive changes in prompts (e.g., language, currency) but can improve dramatically towards theoretical predictions with the right mental model (i.e., the language of Nash deviations). We run 1,000$+$ auctions for less than $\$$400 with GPT-4 models (three orders of magnitude cheaper than modern auction experiments) and develop a framework flexible enough to run auction experiments with any LLM model and a wide range of auction design specifications, facilitating further experimental study by decreasing costs and serving as a proof-of-concept for the use of LLM proxies.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Can LLM Agents Price Competitively? A Dynamic Multi-Attribute Auction Benchmark for Agentic Commerce
LLM merchant agents in a new dynamic auction benchmark capture at most 32% of hindsight-optimal profit; profit tracks margin per win more than win rate, and fast pre-shock learners adapt poorly to preference shocks.
-
Do Matching Mechanisms Work with LLM Agents?
Centralized matching mechanisms outperform free negotiation in stability and efficiency with LLM agents, who also report preferences truthfully more often than humans, though not always in line with strategy-proofness...
-
Choose Your Agent: Tradeoffs in Adopting AI Advisors, Coaches, and Delegates in Multi-Party Negotiation
Users prefer an AI Advisor but gain most with a Delegate, because human editing filters out the AI's best proposals.
-
When Is Delegated Play Truthful? Within-Range Regret and the Trilemma of Aligned Delegation
The gain from misreporting to your own proxy equals the proxy's within-range regret, so honest reporting is optimal exactly when the proxy already plays the best reachable action; guardrails then face a binding–truthf...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.