# Coordination games

Across two no-stakes cooperative games (Leader Election and Exclusion) and the GPQA-Diamond reasoning benchmark, with nine to twenty-five agents drawn from up to five open-weight model families, the study finds that when agents know each other's model family the interaction graph partitions into factions along that label, that the split follows the visible label rather than the underlying architecture (it persists under shuffled labels and neutral color tags and disappears when labels are removed), and that in strictly cooperative tasks labeled groups spend on average 30% more rounds and 55% more tokens to reach a decision while success drops from 96% to 81%.

Across two no-stakes cooperative games (Leader Election and Exclusion) and the GPQA-Diamond reasoning benchmark, with nine to twenty-five agents drawn from up to five open-weight model families, the study finds that when agents know each other's model family the interaction graph partitions into factions along that label, that the split follows the visible label rather than the underlying architecture (it persists under shuffled labels and neutral color tags and disappears when labels are removed), and that in strictly cooperative tasks labeled groups spend on average 30% more rounds and 55% more tokens to reach a decision while success drops from 96% to 81%.