May 27, 2024

LLM Benchmarking with Single-Agent Stochastic Dynamic Simulations

Sai Joseph, Anita Beroza, Eleni Angelou, Sofia Mendez, Evelyn Ciara

A benchmark for evaluating the performance of SOTA LLMs in dynamic real-world scenarios.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

Good concept, fleshed out. Really like the “applied decision making” that combines human-interpretable ideas of ethics with a formalised benchmark based off game theory.

I really like the idea of using LLMs for creating dynamic benchmarks on the fly! I’d be keen to see more data and analysis to get a sense of the strengths and weaknesses of this approach. I do think more analysis of the methodology itself would be needed before worrying too much about the object-level results. Developing this methodological analysis could be a major contribution though.

This idea is super interesting, and I would like to see future work which builds on some of these concepts! As a fan or roleplaying games, I appreciate the stochastic choose-your-own adventure angle, and think that it could be a really good methodology for getting more comprehensive understanding of model behavior in a general sense, not just for this work, which is awesome; I would really like to see this idea developed further.

One aspect that could be valuable to investigate in the near future would be to increase the stochasticity of the setup. More specifically, I think that varying expected payoff of the three choices per question within the game, as supposed to per game itself, could provide interesting insights.  Another direction which may be worth exploring would be to construct scenarios in which an action from any of the three categories was a substantially reasonable course of action, which may require some additional prompting strategies for scenario construction. Finally, your suggested evaluation sounded quite interesting, and I would have liked to see some of its results.

Very interesting, I'd be curious to see more descriptions in the appendix of the concrete scenarios and why you end up seeing 100% cooperation rate with GPT-4. Similarly, we'd get some interesting information out of running this against something like Grok, Claude Sonnet, Llama, and so on, since we'd like to spot models that are not 100% cooperative. It seems some of the content in the repository could have been moved into the report and it would've been interesting to see some type of conversation plots or cooperation rate by scenario effect sizes, but that's of course difficult if all scenarios result in cooperation. In summary, the methodology seems interesting but could be backed up by more results and evaluation on more models.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

LLM Benchmarking with Single-Agent Stochastic Dynamic Simulations

},

author={

Sai Joseph, Anita Beroza, Eleni Angelou, Sofia Mendez, Evelyn Ciara

},

date={

5/27/24

},

organization={Apart Research},

note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},

howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}

}

Recent Projects

Jan 11, 2026

Eliciting Deception on Generative Search Engines

Large language models (LLMs) with web browsing capabilities are vulnerable to adversarial content injection—where malicious actors embed deceptive claims in web pages to manipulate model outputs. We investigate whether frontier LLMs can be deceived into providing incorrect product recommendations when exposed to adversarial pages.

We evaluate four OpenAI models (gpt-4.1-mini, gpt-4.1, gpt-5-nano, gpt-5-mini) across 30 comparison questions spanning 10 product categories, comparing responses between baseline (truthful) and adversarial (injected) conditions. Our results reveal significant variation: gpt-4.1-mini showed 45.5% deception rate, while gpt-4.1 demonstrated complete resistance. Even frontier gpt-5 models exhibited non-zero deception rates (3.3–7.1%), confirming that adversarial injection remains effective against current models.

These findings underscore the need for robust defenses before deploying LLMs in high-stakes recommendation contexts.

Read More

Jan 11, 2026

SycophantSee - Activation-based diagnostics for prompt engineering: monitoring sycophancy at prompt and generation time

Activation monitoring reveals that prompt framing affects a model's internal state before generation begins.

Read More

Jan 11, 2026

Who Does Your AI Serve? Manipulation By and Of AI Assistants

AI assistants can be both instruments and targets of manipulation. In our project, we investigated both directions across three studies.

AI as Instrument: Operators can instruct AI to prioritise their interests at the expense of users. We found models comply with such instructions 8–52% of the time (Study 1, 12 models, 22 scenarios). In a controlled experiment with 80 human participants, an upselling AI reliably withheld cheaper alternatives from users - not once recommending the cheapest product when explicitly asked - and ~one third of participants failed to detect the manipulation (Study 2).

AI as Target: Users can attempt to manipulate AI into bypassing safety guidelines through psychological tactics. Resistance varied dramatically - from 40% (Mistral Large 3) to 99% (Claude 4.5 Opus) - with strategic deception and boundary erosion proving most effective (Study 3, 153 scenarios, AI judge validated against human raters r=0.83).

Our key finding was that model selection matters significantly in both settings. We learned some models complied with manipulative requests at much higher rates. And we found some models readily follow operator instructions that come at the user's expense - highlighting a tension for model developers between serving paying operators and protecting end users.

Read More

This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.
This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.