Game-theoretic scenarios have become pivotal in evaluating the social intelligence of Large Language Model (LLM)-based social agents. While numerous studies have explored these agents in such settings, there is a lack of a comprehensive survey summarizing the current progress. To address this gap, we systematically review existing research on LLM-based social agents within game-theoretic scenarios. Our survey organizes the findings into three core components: Game Framework, Social Agent, and Evaluation Protocol. The game framework encompasses diverse game scenarios, ranging from choice-focusing to communication-focusing games. The social agent part explores agents' preferences, beliefs, and reasoning abilities. The evaluation protocol covers both game-agnostic and game-specific metrics for assessing agent performance. By reflecting on the current research and identifying future research directions, this survey provides insights to advance the development and evaluation of social agents in game-theoretic scenarios.

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has accelerated their application in reasoning, with strategic reasoning drawing increasing attention. To evaluate the strategic reasoning capabilities of LLMs, game theory, with its concise structure, has become the preferred approach for many researchers. However, current research typically focuses on a limited selection of games, resulting in low coverage of game types. Additionally, classic game scenarios carry risks of data leakage, and the benchmarks used often lack extensibility, rendering them inadequate for evaluating state-of-the-art models. Specifically, we incorporate all 144 game types summarized by the Robinson-Goforth topology of 2 2 games, which are constructed as classic games in our benchmark. Furthermore, we employ synthetic data generation techniques to create diverse, higher-quality game scenarios through topic guidance and human inspection for each classic game, which we refer to as story-based games. Lastly, to provide a sustainable evaluation framework adaptable to increasingly powerful LLMs, we treat the aforementioned games as atomic units and organize them into more complex forms through sequential, parallel, and nested structures. We conducted a comprehensive evaluation of mainstream LLMs, covering tests on rational reasoning, reasoning robustness, Theory-of-Mind capabilities, and reasoning in complex game forms. The results revealed that LLMs still have flaws in the accuracy and consistency of strategic reasoning processes, and their levels of mastery over Theory-of-Mind also vary. These achievements are largely attributed to LLMs' ability to assimilate vast amounts of knowledge during training, emerging with the capacity to organize information at a coarse level and link knowledge at a finegrained level through their internal representations (Min et al., 2023; Zhao et al., 2023). These core capabilities have driven the success of LLMs in numerous reasoning tasks, including mathematical reasoning (Hendrycks et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2023), commonsense reasoning (Sap et al., 2019; Bisk et al., 2020), logical reasoning (Lei et al., 2023), and strategic reasoning (Lorè & Heydari, Work done during an internship at the University of Hong Kong. The dataset and evaluation codes will be available at https://github.com/PinkEx/TMGBench. Among these, strategic reasoning has attracted considerable attention due to its multi-agent nature and close association with social intelligence (Gandhi et al., 2023). Strategic reasoning refers to the cognitive process of anticipating, planning, and responding to others' actions to achieve specific objectives within competitive or cooperative contexts (Zhang et al., 2024a).

In recent years, with the maturation of large language model (LLM) technology and the emergence of high-quality programming code datasets, researchers have become increasingly confident in addressing the challenges of program synthesis automatically. However, since most of the training samples for LLMs are unscreened, it is inevitable that LLMs' performance may not align with real-world scenarios, leading to the presence of social bias. To evaluate and quantify the gender bias in code LLMs, we propose a dataset named CodeGenBias (Gender Bias in the Code Generation) and an evaluation metric called FB-Score (Factual Bias Score) based on the actual gender distribution of correlative professions. With the help of CodeGenBias and FB-Score, we evaluate and analyze the gender bias in eight mainstream Code LLMs. Previous work has demonstrated that model editing methods that perform well in knowledge editing have the potential to mitigate social bias in LLMs. Therefore, we develop a model editing approach named MG-Editing (Multi-Granularity model Editing), which includes the locating and editing phases. Our model editing method MG-Editing can be applied at five different levels of model parameter granularity: full parameters level, layer level, module level, row level, and neuron level. Extensive experiments not only demonstrate that our MG-Editing can effectively mitigate the gender bias in code LLMs while maintaining their general code generation capabilities, but also showcase its excellent generalization. At the same time, the experimental results show that, considering both the gender bias of the model and its general code generation capability, MG-Editing is most effective when applied at the row and neuron levels of granularity.

Sequential decision-making refers to algorithms that take into account the dynamics of the environment, where early decisions affect subsequent decisions. With large language models (LLMs) demonstrating powerful capabilities between tasks, we can't help but ask: Can Current LLMs Effectively Make Sequential Decisions? In order to answer this question, we propose the UNO Arena based on the card game UNO to evaluate the sequential decision-making capability of LLMs and explain in detail why we choose UNO. In UNO Arena, We evaluate the sequential decision-making capability of LLMs dynamically with novel metrics based Monte Carlo methods. We set up random players, DQN-based reinforcement learning players, and LLM players (e.g. GPT-4, Gemini-pro) for comparison testing. Furthermore, in order to improve the sequential decision-making capability of LLMs, we propose the TUTRI player, which can involves having LLMs reflect their own actions wtih the summary of game history and the game strategy. Numerous experiments demonstrate that the TUTRI player achieves a notable breakthrough in the performance of sequential decision-making compared to the vanilla LLM player.