IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2604.09502.html

Strategic Algorithmic Monoculture: Experimental Evidence from Coordination Games

Author

Listed:
  • Gonzalo Ballestero
  • Hadi Hosseini
  • Samarth Khanna
  • Ran I. Shorrer

Abstract

AI agents increasingly operate in multi-agent environments where outcomes depend on coordination. We distinguish primary algorithmic monoculture -- baseline action similarity -- from strategic algorithmic monoculture, whereby agents adjust similarity in response to incentives. We implement a simple experimental design that cleanly separates these forces, and deploy it on human and large language model (LLM) subjects. LLMs exhibit high levels of baseline similarity (primary monoculture) and, like humans, they regulate it in response to coordination incentives (strategic monoculture). While LLMs coordinate extremely well on similar actions, they lag behind humans in sustaining heterogeneity when divergence is rewarded.

Suggested Citation

  • Gonzalo Ballestero & Hadi Hosseini & Samarth Khanna & Ran I. Shorrer, 2026. "Strategic Algorithmic Monoculture: Experimental Evidence from Coordination Games," Papers 2604.09502, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2026.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2604.09502
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.09502
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Colin F. Camerer & Teck-Hua Ho & Juin-Kuan Chong, 2004. "A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(3), pages 861-898.
    2. Kevin He & Ran Shorrer & Mengjia Xia, 2025. "Human Misperception of Generative-AI Alignment: A Laboratory Experiment," Papers 2502.14708, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2026.
    3. Vincent P. Crawford & Uri Gneezy & Yuval Rottenstreich, 2008. "The Power of Focal Points Is Limited: Even Minute Payoff Asymmetry May Yield Large Coordination Failures," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1443-1458, September.
    4. Gary Charness & Brian Jabarian & John A. List, 2023. "Generation Next: Experimentation with AI," NBER Working Papers 31679, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384, December.
    6. Benjamin S. Manning & Kehang Zhu & John J. Horton, 2024. "Automated Social Science: Language Models as Scientist and Subjects," NBER Working Papers 32381, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Benjamin S. Manning & Kehang Zhu & John J. Horton, 2024. "Automated Social Science: Language Models as Scientist and Subjects," Papers 2404.11794, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    8. Cheng, Qiang & Lin, Pengkai & Zhao, Yue, 2025. "Does generative AI facilitate investor Trading? Early evidence from ChatGPT outages," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2).
    9. Anton Korinek, 2023. "Generative AI for Economic Research: Use Cases and Implications for Economists," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(4), pages 1281-1317, December.
    10. Douglas K.G. Araujo & Harald Uhlig, 2026. "How does AI distribute the pie? Large Language Models and the Ultimatum Game," Working Papers 2026-29, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    11. Wayne Gao & Sukjin Han & Annie Liang, 2026. "How Well Do LLMs Predict Human Behavior? A Measure of their Pretrained Knowledge," Papers 2601.12343, arXiv.org.
    12. Sugden, Robert, 1995. "A Theory of Focal Points," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(430), pages 533-550, May.
    13. Tobias Werner & Ivan Soraperra & Emilio Calvano & David C. Parkes & Iyad Rahwan, 2024. "Experimental Evidence That Conversational Artificial Intelligence Can Steer Consumer Behavior Without Detection," Papers 2409.12143, arXiv.org.
    14. Vincent P. Crawford & Nagore Iriberri, 2007. "Fatal Attraction: Salience, Naïveté, and Sophistication in Experimental "Hide-and-Seek" Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1731-1750, December.
    15. Nicholas Bardsley & Judith Mehta & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2010. "Explaining Focal Points: Cognitive Hierarchy Theory "versus" Team Reasoning," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(543), pages 40-79, March.
    16. Mehta, Judith & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1994. "The Nature of Salience: An Experimental Investigation of Pure Coordination Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(3), pages 658-673, June.
    17. Stephanie Assad & Robert Clark & Daniel Ershov & Lei Xu, 2024. "Algorithmic Pricing and Competition: Empirical Evidence from the German Retail Gasoline Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 132(3), pages 723-771.
    18. Douglas KG. Araujo & Harald Uhlig, 2026. "How does AI Distribute the pie? Large Language Models and the Ultimatum Game," NBER Working Papers 34919, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Vincent P. Crawford & Miguel A. Costa-Gomes & Nagore Iriberri, 2013. "Structural Models of Nonequilibrium Strategic Thinking: Theory, Evidence, and Applications," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(1), pages 5-62, March.
    20. John J. Horton & Apostolos Filippas & Benjamin S. Manning, 2023. "Large Language Models as Simulated Economic Agents: What Can We Learn from Homo Silicus?," NBER Working Papers 31122, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Andrea Isoni & Anders Poulsen & Robert Sugden & Kei Tsutsui, 2014. "Efficiency, Equality, and Labeling: An Experimental Investigation of Focal Points in Explicit Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(10), pages 3256-3287, October.
    22. Elif Akata & Lion Schulz & Julian Coda-Forno & Seong Joon Oh & Matthias Bethge & Eric Schulz, 2025. "Playing repeated games with large language models," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 9(7), pages 1380-1390, July.
    23. Heath, Chip & Ho, Ben & Berger, Jonah, 2006. "Focal points in coordinated divergence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 635-647, October.
    24. Hemanth Asirvatham & Elliott Mokski & Andrei Shleifer, 2026. "GPT as a Measurement Tool," NBER Working Papers 34834, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alessandro Sontuoso & Sudeep Bhatia, 2021. "A notion of prominence for games with natural‐language labels," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), pages 283-312, January.
    2. Gneezy, Uri & Rottenstreich, Yuval, 2024. "Failing to utilize potentially effective focal points: Prominence can stymie coordination on distinct actions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 68-81.
    3. Marco Faillo & Alessandra Smerilli & Robert Sugden, 2016. "Can a single theory explain coordination? An experiment on alternative modes of reasoning and the conditions under which they are used," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 16-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    4. Bosch-Domènech, Antoni & Vriend, Nicolaas J., 2013. "On the role of non-equilibrium focal points as coordination devices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 52-67.
    5. Faillo, Marco & Smerilli, Alessandra & Sugden, Robert, 2017. "Bounded best-response and collective-optimality reasoning in coordination games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 317-335.
    6. repec:osf:socarx:ymzrd_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Gary Charness & Alessandro Sontuoso, 2018. "The Doors of Perception," PPE Working Papers 0013, Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 25 Oct 2018.
    8. Lisa Bruttel & Tim Friehe, 2013. "Make Humans Randomize," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2013-20, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
    9. Wolff, Irenaeus, 2021. "The lottery player’s fallacy: Why labels predict strategic choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 16-29.
    10. Bardsley, Nicholas & Ule, Aljaž, 2017. "Focal points revisited: Team reasoning, the principle of insufficient reason and cognitive hierarchy theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 74-86.
    11. Kets, Willemien & Kager, Wouter & Sandroni, Alvaro, 2022. "The value of a coordination game," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    12. Isoni, Andrea & Poulsen, Anders & Sugden, Robert & Tsutsui, Kei, 2019. "Focal points and payoff information in tacit bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 193-214.
    13. Alberti, Federica & Sugden, Robert & Tsutsui, Kei, 2012. "Salience as an emergent property," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 379-394.
    14. Bett, Zoë & Poulsen, Anders & Poulsen, Odile, 2016. "The focality of dominated compromises in tacit coordination situations: Experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 29-34.
    15. Andrea Isoni & Robert Sugden & Jiwei Zheng, 2018. "The Pizza Night Game: Efficiency, Conflict and Inequality in Tacit Bargaining Games with Focal Points," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 18-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    16. Shaun P. Hargreaves Heap & David Rojo Arjona & Robert Sugden, 2017. "Coordination when there are restricted and unrestricted options," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(1), pages 107-129, June.
    17. Leland, Jonathan W. & Schneider, Mark, 2018. "A theory of focal points in 2 × 2 games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 75-89.
    18. Bodoff, David, 2020. "The Power of Focal Points is Strong: Coordination Games with Labels and Payoffs," MPRA Paper 102213, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Baranski, Andrzej & Reuben, Ernesto & Riedl, Arno, 2025. "The Role of Fairness Ideals in Coordination Failure and Success," IZA Discussion Papers 18200, IZA Network @ LISER.
    20. Vincent P. Crawford & Miguel A. Costa-Gomes & Nagore Iriberri, 2010. "Strategic Thinking," Levine's Working Paper Archive 661465000000001148, David K. Levine.
    21. Stefania Sitzia & Jiwei Zheng, 2017. "Group behaviour in tacit coordination games with focal points: An experimental investigation," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 17-02, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2604.09502. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.