More Capable, Less Cooperative? When LLMs Fail At Zero-Cost Collaboration
Advait Yadav, Sid Black, Oliver Sourbut

TL;DR
This paper investigates cooperation failures in multi-agent LLM systems, revealing that increased capability does not guarantee better cooperation and that explicit protocols and incentives can improve collective performance.
Contribution
It introduces a frictionless multi-agent setup to study cooperation, disentangles competence from cooperation failures, and demonstrates targeted interventions can enhance collaboration.
Findings
OpenAI o3 achieves 17% of optimal performance despite instructions.
OpenAI o3-mini reaches 50% of optimal performance with the same instructions.
Explicit protocols and incentives significantly improve cooperation in low-competence models.
Abstract
Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly coordinate in multi-agent systems, yet we lack an understanding of where and why cooperation failures may arise. In many real-world coordination problems, from knowledge sharing in organizations to code documentation, helping others carries negligible personal cost while generating substantial collective benefits. However, whether LLM agents cooperate when helping neither benefits nor harms the helper, while being given explicit instructions to do so, remains unknown. We build a multi-agent setup designed to study cooperative behavior in a frictionless environment, removing all strategic complexity from cooperation. We find that capability does not predict cooperation: OpenAI o3 achieves only 17% of optimal collective performance while OpenAI o3-mini reaches 50%, despite identical instructions to maximize group revenue. Through a causal…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
