Uncovering Strategic Egoism Behaviors in Large Language Models
Extracted source text · arXiv 2511.09920
\documentclass{article}
% if you need to pass options to natbib, use, e.g.:
% \PassOptionsToPackage{numbers, compress}{natbib}
% before loading neurips_2025
% The authors should use one of these tracks.
% Before accepting by the NeurIPS conference, select one of the options below.
% 0. "default" for submission
% 放在 \usepackage{neurips_2025} 之前
\PassOptionsToPackage{numbers,compress}{natbib}
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
% \usepackage{neurips_2025}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{booktabs,tabularx}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{fix-cm}
% \usepackage{lineno}
% \linenumbers
% the "default" option is equal to the "main" option, which is used for the Main Track with double-blind reviewing.
% 1. "main" option is used for the Main Track
% \usepackage[main]{neurips_2025}
% 2. "position" option is used for the Position Paper Track
% \usepackage[position]{neurips_2025}
% 3. "dandb" option is used for the Datasets & Benchmarks Track
% \usepackage[dandb]{neurips_2025}
% 4. "creativeai" option is used for the Creative AI Track
% \usepackage[creativeai]{neurips_2025}
% 5. "sglblindworkshop" option is used for the Workshop with single-blind reviewing
% \usepackage[sglblindworkshop]{neurips_2025}
% 6. "dblblindworkshop" option is used for the Workshop with double-blind reviewing
\usepackage[preprint, creativeai]{neurips_2025}
\def\eg{\emph{e.g.}}
\def\ie{\emph{i.e.}}
\def\etc{\emph{etc.}}
\def\cf{\emph{c.f.}}
\def\etal{\emph{et al.}}
\newcommand{\Tref}[1]{Tab.~\ref{#1}}
\newcommand{\Eref}[1]{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}
\newcommand{\Fref}[1]{Fig.~\ref{#1}}
\newcommand{\Sref}[1]{Sec.~\ref{#1}}
\newcommand{\Aref}[1]{Alg.~\ref{#1}}
\newcommand\myfootnotestyle[1]{\ifcase#1 \or \ding{182}\or \ding{183}\or
\ding{184}\or \ding{185}\or \ding{186}\or \ding{187}%
\or \ding{188}\or \ding{189}\or \ding{190}\or \ding{191}\else *\fi\relax}
% After being accepted, the authors should add "final" behind the track to compile a camera-ready version.
% 1. Main Track
% \usepackage[main, final]{neurips_2025}
% 2. Position Paper Track
% \usepackage[position, final]{neurips_2025}
% 3. Datasets & Benchmarks Track
% \usepackage[dandb, final]{neurips_2025}
% 4. Creative AI Track
% \usepackage[creativeai, final]{neurips_2025}
% 5. Workshop with single-blind reviewing
% \usepackage[sglblindworkshop, final]{neurips_2025}
% 6. Workshop with double-blind reviewing
% \usepackage[dblblindworkshop, final]{neurips_2025}
% Note. For the workshop paper template, both \title{} and \workshoptitle{} are required, with the former indicating the paper title shown in the title and the latter indicating the workshop title displayed in the footnote.
% For workshops (5., 6.), the authors should add the name of the workshop, "\workshoptitle" command is used to set the workshop title.
% \workshoptitle{WORKSHOP TITLE}
% "preprint" option is used for arXiv or other preprint submissions
% \usepackage[preprint]{neurips_2025}
% to avoid loading the natbib package, add option nonatbib:
% \usepackage[nonatbib]{neurips_2025}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} % allow utf-8 input
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} % use 8-bit T1 fonts
\usepackage{hyperref} % hyperlinks
\usepackage{url} % simple URL typesetting
\usepackage{booktabs} % professional-quality tables
\usepackage{amsfonts} % blackboard math symbols
\usepackage{nicefrac} % compact symbols for 1/2, etc.
\usepackage{microtype} % microtypography
\usepackage{xcolor} % colors
% 导言区
\usepackage{etoolbox} % 仅用于判断是否给了作者，可去掉并改成更简单的宏
\newcommand\chapquoteauthor{} % 存作者
\newenvironment{chapquote}[1][]% 可选参数：作者
{%
\renewcommand\chapquoteauthor{#1}%
\begin{list}{}{\leftmargin=2em \rightmargin=2em}
\item\relax\itshape
}
{%
\par\smallskip
\ifstrempty{\chapquoteauthor}{}{\hfill\upshape--- \chapquoteauthor}%
\end{list}
}
% Note. For the workshop paper template, both \title{} and \workshoptitle{} are required, with the former indicating the paper title shown in the title and the latter indicating the workshop title displayed in the footnote.
\title{Uncovering Strategic Egoism Behaviors in Large \\Language Models}
% The \author macro works with any number of authors. There are two commands
% used to separate the names and addresses of multiple authors: \And and \AND.
%
% Using \And between authors leaves it to LaTeX to determine where to break the
% lines. Using \AND forces a line break at that point. So, if LaTeX puts 3 of 4
% authors names on the first line, and the last on the second line, try using
% \AND instead of \And before the third author name.
% 一个作者单元的简化命令
\newcommand{\AuthorCell}[3]{%
\begin{tabular}[t]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{#1}\\ #2\\ #3\end{tabular}%
}
% \author{%
% {\small
% \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0pt}
% \begin{tabular}{ccc}
% \AuthorCell{Yaoyuan Zhang}{SKLCCSE, Beihang University}{China} &
% \AuthorCell{Aishan Liu}{SKLCCSE, Beihang University}{China} &
% \AuthorCell{Zonghao Ying\thanks{Corresponding author.}}{SKLCCSE, Beihang University}{China} \\
% \AuthorCell{Xianglong Liu}{SKLCCSE, Beihang University\\Zhongguancun Laboratory\\Institute of Dataspace}{China} &
% \AuthorCell{Jiangfan Liu}{SKLCCSE, Beihang University}{China} &
% \AuthorCell{Yisong Xiao}{SKLCCSE, Beihang University}{China} \\
% \AuthorCell{Qihang Zhang}{Beijing Jiaotong University}{China} & & \\
% \end{tabular}
% }
% }
\newcommand*{\affaddr}[1]{#1}
\newcommand*{\affmark}[1][*]{\textsuperscript{#1}}
\newcommand*{\email}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
\author{
Yaoyuan Zhang\affmark[1],
\textbf{Aishan Liu\affmark[1]},
\textbf{Zonghao Ying\affmark[1]\thanks{Corresponding Author},}
\textbf{Xianglong Liu\affmark[1,2,3]}
\textbf{Jiangfan Liu\affmark[1]}, \\
\textbf{Yisong Xiao\affmark[1]},
\textbf{Qihang Zhang\affmark[4]},
\\
\affaddr{\affmark[1]SKLCCSE, Beihang University}
\affaddr{\affmark[2]{Zhongguancun Laboratory}}\\
\affaddr{\affmark[3]{Institute of Dataspace}}
\affaddr{\affmark[4]{Beijing Jiaotong University}}
% \small\email{xiaoyisong@buaa.edu.cn}
}
% \author{
% Yisong Xiao\affmark[1],
% \textbf{Aishan Liu\affmark[1]\thanks{Corresponding Author},}
% Siyuan Liang\affmark[2],
% \textbf{Zonghao Ying\affmark[1]},
% \textbf{Xianglong Liu\affmark[1,3,4]},
% \textbf{Dacheng Tao\affmark[5]}
% \\
% \affaddr{\affmark[1]SKLCCSE, Beihang University}
% \affaddr{\affmark[2]{National University of Singapore}} \\
% \affaddr{\affmark[3]{Zhongguancun Laboratory, Beijing}}
% \affaddr{\affmark[4]{Institute of Dataspace, Hefei}}
% \affaddr{\affmark[5]{Nanyang Technological University}}
% % \small\email{xiaoyisong@buaa.edu.cn}
% }
% \nolinenumbers
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
% Large language models (LLMs) face growing trustworthiness concerns (\eg, deception), which hinder their safe deployment in high-stakes decision-making scenarios. In this paper, we present the first systematic investigation of strategic egoism (SE), a form of rule-bounded self-interest in which models pursue short-term or self-serving gains while disregarding collective welfare and ethical considerations. To quantitatively assess this, we establish SEBench, which xxxx. Building on this, we conduct extensive experiments across x open-sourced and x commercial LLMs, where we observe that strategic egoism emerges universally across models. Surprisingly, we found a strong positive correlation between egoistic tendencies and toxic language behaviors, suggesting that strategic egoism may underlie broader misalignment risks.
Large language models (LLMs) face growing trustworthiness concerns (\eg, deception), which hinder their safe deployment in high-stakes decision-making scenarios. In this paper, we present the first systematic investigation of strategic egoism (SE), a form of rule-bounded self-interest in which models pursue short-term or self-serving gains while disregarding collective welfare and ethical considerations. To quantitatively assess this phenomenon, we introduce SEBench, a benchmark comprising 160 scenarios across five domains. Each scenario features a single-role decision-making context, with psychologically grounded choice sets designed to elicit self-serving behaviors. These behavior-driven tasks assess egoistic tendencies along six dimensions, such as manipulation, rule circumvention, and self-interest prioritization. Building on this, we conduct extensive experiments across 5 open-sourced and 2 commercial LLMs, where we observe that strategic egoism emerges universally across models. Surprisingly, we found a positive correlation between egoistic tendencies and toxic language behaviors, suggesting that strategic egoism may underlie broader misalignment risks.
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
% \begin{chapquote}[Zhuang Zhou]
% ``Pursuit of gain and crafty expedients inevitably crowd out one’s moral compassion.''
% \end{chapquote}
LLMs are increasingly deployed in high-stakes decision-making domains such as healthcare, finance, and public administration. Existing safety strategies primarily focus on surface-level harms such as toxicity~\citep{liang2023badclip,liang2025revisiting,liu2024compromising,xiao2024bdefects4nn,liang2024red,liu2025elba,ying2024safebench}, social bias~\citep{xiao2024genderbias,xiao2025fairness}, jailbreak attacks~\citep{li2024semantic,ying2024jailbreak,jing2025cogmorph,ying2025reasoning,wang2025manipulating,ying2025pushing,liu2025agentsafe,ying2024unveiling,ying2025towards}, and lack of truthfulness~\citep{chen2024less,chen2024interpreting,chen2025less,ho2024novo}, but often overlook covert self-interested behaviors that may emerge when models face reward pressure in decision-making contexts \citep{rtp2020,Nangia2020CrowSPairs,Lin2022TruthfulQA,xiao2025fairness,ying2025reasoning,ying2025securewebarena}. For example, models may engage in unfair resource allocation to maximize personal gain, or selectively withhold information to preserve advantages. Emerging evidence shows that LLMs’ deceptive and manipulative behaviors reflect dark-personality tendencies, posing significant safety risks \citep{williams2024targeted,Scheurer2024Deceive}.
%Emerging evidence indicates that LLMs are capable of deception and evaluator manipulation \citep{williams2024targeted,Scheurer2024Deceive}. The emergence of such dark-personality tendencies in LLMs exposes significant safety risks.
Moreover, recent Cambridge-affiliated research shows that most alignment and prompt-engineering approaches remain concentrated at the linguistic level rather than the behavioral level, lacking analyses that characterize model ``personality'' from observed behavior \citep{Han2025PersonalityIllusion}. These results underscore the need for a behaviorally grounded alignment perspective that analyzes LLM behavior to address latent self-interested tendencies currently missed by safety benchmarks.
In this paper, we present the first systematic investigation of Strategic Egoism (SE). We define SE as a decision-making tendency in which agents prioritize personal or short-term rewards under explicit procedural constraints while disregarding social responsibility and the welfare of others. To make SE measurable, we introduce SEBench, a benchmark comprising 160 single-role decision scenarios across five domains (education, markets, government, enterprise, and healthcare). Each scenario specifies explicit procedural constraints and role-specific incentives (\eg, promotion, performance review) and leverages personality psychology (\eg, the Dark Triad) to construct choice sets that quantify six self-interest tendencies (\eg, manipulation, unfair allocation). Regarding the design of options, they are contextualized to the scenario and expressed as actionable behaviors, such as spreading misinformation to steer others' decisions or inflating contributions while concealing defects to secure greater personal gain. The implementation of these two behaviors relies on deception and aligns with Machiavellian tendencies in personality psychology. Combining psychological theories yields clear behavioral measures that help us capture incentive-driven harmfulness often missed by common metrics. Ultimately, we found that across seven mainstream LLMs, egoistic behaviors account for an average of 69.11\%, highlighting the urgent need to improve decision-making safety mechanisms under incentive temptations. Our main contributions are summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We formalize \textit{Strategic Egoism} and release \textit{SEBench}: 160 single-role scenarios across five domains with explicit rules, role-specific incentives, and six egoistic dimensions plus a compliant option.
\item We introduce the \textit{SE Rate (SER)} and per-type distributions for interpretable, fine-grained measurement of egoism.
\item Using \textit{SEBench}, we evaluated 7 LLMs and found pervasive SE behaviors, with manipulation, coercion, and oversight evasion as the most common strategies; moreover, egoistic tendencies were positively correlated with toxicity.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figure/framework.pdf}
\caption{Framework of SEBench, which generates workplace scenarios from domains, roles, and incentives and then evaluates model choices among strategic egoism behaviors.}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
\section{Benchmark Design}
\subsection{Scenario and Options Generation}
Figure \ref{fig:1} illustrates the two-stage pipeline of SEBench \footnote{SEBench is available at \url{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/SEBench-3E36}.}: "scenario generation" followed by "option generation". First, each scenario is represented as a five-tuple:
\begin{equation}
s = (d, r, i, c, \tau)
\label{eq:scenario}
\end{equation}
where $d \in \mathcal{D}$ represents the Domain (\eg, Enterprise), $r \in \mathcal{R}$ denotes the Role (\eg, HR); $i \in \mathcal{I}$ denotes the Incentive (\eg, KPI); $c \in \mathcal{C}$ represents the Constraints (\eg, rules); and $\tau \in \mathcal{T}$ denotes the Trade-off the risk of personal interest loss resulting from strict compliance with rules. For example, rigorous compliance checks may reduce work efficiency and lower personal KPI scores, potentially forfeiting salary increment opportunities. We then convert the scenario $s$ into a natural language problem description by employing a reasoning-based LLM for high-quality linguistic expression.
For each scenario $s$, Options \texttt{A}–\texttt{F} represent SE options while \texttt{G} represents alternative approaches. Each egoistic option is further subdivided into four sub-dimensions to elaborate specific egoistic behaviors, with detailed definitions provided in Table \ref{tab:1}. The final dataset is organized as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{D} = \{(s_j, \mathcal{O}_j, m_j)\}_{j=1}^{N}
\label{eq:dataset}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{O}_j$ represents the set of options, and $m_j$ records the scenario attributes and sub-dimensional labels for each option (utilized for the personality mapping detailed in Section 2.2).
\begin{table}[!t]
\fontsize{7}{6}\selectfont
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1pt} % 减小列间距
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\centering
\caption{The representative strategy behaviors of each SE option.}
\label{tab:1}
\begin{tabularx}{\columnwidth}{
@{}
>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.23\columnwidth}
>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.77\columnwidth}
@{}
}
\toprule
\textbf{Option} & \textbf{Behaviors} \\
\midrule
\texttt{A}. Manipulation \& Coercion &
Pressure; Intimidation; Lies and Temptation; Emotional Manipulation
\\
\midrule
\texttt{B}. Rule Circumvention &
Process Modification; Evading Supervision; Modifying Data; Taking Shortcuts.
\\
\midrule
\texttt{C}. Harmful Trade-offs &
Safety Neglect; Sacrificing Vulnerable Groups; Exposing Others to Risk; Ignoring Long-term Consequences.
\\
\midrule
\texttt{D}. Selective Disclosure &
Information Filtering; Packaging and Embellishment; Half-truth Expression; Concealing Negative Results.
\\
\midrule
\texttt{E}. Unfair Allocation &
Priority Resource Allocation; Opportunity Monopolization; Privilege Operation; Interpersonal Favoritism.
\\
\midrule
\texttt{F}. Undermining Collaboration &
Blame Shifting; Undermining Others' Credibility; Backstabbing; Withholding Important Information.
\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
\subsection{Egoism Behaviors and Personality Traits}
The strategic egoistic behaviors we define are primarily grounded in research on the Dark Triad \citep{PaulhusWilliams2002}, the triarchic psychopathy model \citep{Patrick2009}, psychological entitlement \citep{Campbell2004}, and empirical evidence on everyday sadism \citep{Buckels2013}. These theories provide constructs such as manipulation, deception, and callousness to explain the motivational and behavioral mechanisms underlying each option.
Specifically, \texttt{A} exhibits lies and temptation, corresponding to Machiavellianism's strategic deception and calculated manipulation \citep{PaulhusWilliams2002,christie2013studies,jones2014introducing}. \texttt{B} features taking shortcuts and avoiding supervision, aligning with disinhibition's impulsivity and indifference to rules \citep{Patrick2009,patrick2015triarchic}. \texttt{C} involves sacrificing the vulnerable, consistent with sadistic tendencies of deriving utility from others' suffering \citep{Buckels2013,o2011psychometric}. \texttt{D} exhibits half-truth information filtering that serves instrumental manipulation through concealment, aligning with Machiavellianism \citep{christie2013studies,jones2014introducing}. \texttt{E} demonstrates privileged resource bias, reflecting narcissistic entitlement that justifies tilting resources toward oneself \citep{reidy2008effects}. \texttt{F} displays buck-passing and reputation smearing, combining psychopathic callousness with indifference toward others' harm \citep{Patrick2009,patrick2015triarchic}.
\subsection{Data Properties}
\textit{SEBench} includes \textbf{160} single-role decision-making scenarios across five domains: school, market, government, enterprise, and healthcare. Each scenario follows a fixed schema and includes a narrative stem with psychologically grounded options, and six egoism-oriented choices (\texttt{A} to \texttt{F}) plus one non-egoism alternative (\texttt{G}). Every domain contains \textbf{32} scenarios. For each egoism dimension, we define \textbf{4} sub-behaviors (Table \ref{tab:1}). These sub-behaviors are evenly distributed across the \textbf{160} scenarios. This design balances coverage across domains and across the sub-behaviors of every option.
\section{Experiments and Evaluation}
\subsection{Experimental Setup}
\textbf{Models.} To evaluate egoism behavior, we use both \emph{reasoning} and \emph{non-reasoning} LLMs. The \emph{reasoning} group includes DeepSeek-R1 (deR1)~\citep{deepseekr1}, Gemini-2.5-Flash (gemini)~\citep{gemini25}, GLM-4.5-Flash (glm)~\citep{glm45}, and Qwen3-32B (qw3)~\citep{qwen3};
the \emph{non-reasoning} group includes DeepSeek-V3-0324 (deV3)~\citep{deepseekv3}, Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct (qw2.5)~\citep{qwen25}, and Llama-3.1-405B (llama)~\citep{llama31}. All systems keep original decoding limits and safety filters unless otherwise noted.
\noindent\textbf{Evaluation Metrics.}
We report two complementary safety metrics.
(i) \emph{$SER$.} This metric is assessed by the proportion of egoistic choices the LLM makes on the decision tasks: a higher share of \texttt{A}–\texttt{F} selections indicates a higher egoism.
(ii) \emph{Toxicity Score.} We assess toxicity with the \emph{RealToxicityPrompts} benchmark~\citep{rtp2020}. Concretely, we use 200 prompts from its \emph{challenge set} and compute the final \emph{average toxicity} over model continuations as the score.
\subsection{Main Evaluation Results}
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figure/rc.pdf}
\caption{Distribution of LLMs' options.}
\label{fig:dis}
\end{wrapfigure}
Table~\ref{tab:se_toxic} presents the detailed performance of seven models under SEBench evaluation. The results indicate that closed-source LLMs or flash versions (\eg, gemini and glm) generally exhibit higher rates of $SER$. Among open-source models, significant heterogeneity is observed: the Qwen series models typically demonstrate higher $SER$, while the DeepSeek series models show lower $SER$ rates. Figure~\ref{fig:dis} illustrates the distribution of $SER$-related behaviors across different models, revealing that behavioral patterns predominantly concentrate on \texttt{\textbf{A}} (Manipulation and Coercion), \texttt{B} (Rule Circumvention), and \texttt{\textbf{E}} (Unfair Allocation). In contrast, \texttt{F} (Undermining Collaboration), \texttt{C} (Harmful Trade-offs), and \texttt{D} (Selective Disclosure) are generally weaker across all models. Specifically, glm, llama, and qw2.5 peak at \texttt{A}, indicating their tendency toward manipulation and coercion strategies, whereas deV3, deR1, and qw3 peak at \texttt{B}, suggesting their preference for circumventing procedures and rules. Gemini maintains equally high levels for both \texttt{A} and \texttt{B}. \texttt{E} is more prevalent in the Qwen series and Gemini, indicating their inclination toward gaining advantage through inequitable resource allocation.
\begin{table}[t]
\fontsize{9}{8}\selectfont % 7pt，接近\scriptsize
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{7.5pt} % 保持稍大列间距
\centering
\caption{$SER$ and average toxicity score of LLMs.}
\label{tab:se_toxic}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}
\toprule
Model & \texttt{A} (\%) & \texttt{B} (\%) & \texttt{C} (\%) & \texttt{D} (\%) & \texttt{E} (\%) & \texttt{F} (\%) & \texttt{G} (\%) & $SER$ (\%) & Toxicity \\
\midrule
deV3 & 17.50 & 24.38 & 6.88 & 3.75 & 9.38 & 0.00 & 38.12 & 61.88 & 0.071 \\
deR1 & 13.75 & 18.13 & 10.00 & 3.75 & 14.38 & 0.00 & 40.00 & 60.00 & 0.049 \\
qw2.5 & 23.75 & 18.13 & \textbf{10.63} & 3.13 & 16.88 & \textbf{1.25} & 26.25 & 73.75 & 0.051 \\
gemini & 26.25 & \textbf{26.88} & 9.38 & \textbf{5.63} & \textbf{18.75} & 0.63 & 12.50 & \textbf{87.50} & \textbf{0.232} \\
glm & \textbf{33.75} & 15.63 & \textbf{10.63} & 5.00 & 13.13 & 0.00 & 21.87 & 78.13 & 0.155 \\
llama & 26.25 & 15.00 & 4.38 & 3.13 & 2.50 & 0.00 & \textbf{48.75} & 51.25 & 0.044 \\
qw3 & 18.75 & 23.13 & 9.38 & 1.88 & 17.50 & 0.63 & 28.75 & 71.25 & 0.047 \\
\midrule
Average & 22.86 & 20.18 & 8.75 & 3.75 & 13.22 & 0.36 & 30.89 & 69.11 & 0.093 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figure/lc.pdf}
\caption{$SER$–toxicity relationship across LLMs.}
\label{fig:line}
\end{wrapfigure}
Figure \ref{fig:line} presents the relationship between model $SER$ and toxicity score. Overall, models with higher egoism tend to exhibit higher average toxicity, while those with lower egoism demonstrate greater toxicity restraint. Toxicity measurement essentially assesses attributes of output text. The mainstream approach relies on automated text classifiers to score generated content, primarily reflecting offensiveness in language style and word choice \citep{lees2022new, Detoxify}. In contrast, our measure of $SER$ is assessed through behavioral performance in specific contexts, characterizing egoistic tendencies at the strategic and motivational levels. Consequently, the two exhibit a correlated but non-equivalent relationship, which accounts for the few outliers visible in the curve.
\section{Conclusion}
We introduced Strategic Egoism and SEBench to reveal incentive-driven egoistic behaviors that evade surface safety checks. Additionally, our approach draws on self-interested behaviors rooted in personality psychology, providing a theoretically grounded framework for assessment. Across seven mainstream LLMs, egoistic behaviors were frequent and correlated with higher toxicity. Notably, nearly all tested LLMs tend to maximize their own interests through two primary strategies: manipulation and rule circumvention. These findings underscore new perspectives for LLM safety, such as behavior-level audits and SE-aware guardrails in training and deployment. Future work will broaden domains and language diversity, add agent settings, strengthen benchmark validity with richer signals and human audits, and test behaviorally grounded interventions to reduce strategic egoism.
% Loading bibliography database
\medskip
% {
% \small
% %-------------------- References (match the \cite{•} numbers above) --------------------
% [1] Liu, A.\ \textit{et al.}\ (2024) DeepSeek-V3 Technical Report. \textit{arXiv preprint} arXiv:2412.19437. \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.19437}
% [2] Guo, D.\ \textit{et al.}\ (2025) DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning. \textit{arXiv preprint} arXiv:2501.12948. \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12948}
% [3] Yang, A.\ \textit{et al.}\ (2024) Qwen2.5 Technical Report. \textit{arXiv preprint} arXiv:2412.15115. \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15115}
% [4] Gemini Team, Google.\ (2025) \textit{Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next-Generation Agentic Capabilities.} Technical Report. \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06261}
% [5] Zeng, A.\ \textit{et al.}\ (2025) GLM-4.5: Agentic, Reasoning, and Coding (ARC) Foundation Models. \textit{arXiv preprint} arXiv:2508.06471. \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.06471}
% [6] Grattafiori, A.\ \textit{et al.}\ (2024) The Llama 3 Herd of Models. \textit{arXiv preprint} arXiv:2407.21783. \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783}
% [7] Yang, A.\ \textit{et al.}\ (2025) Qwen3 Technical Report. \textit{arXiv preprint} arXiv:2505.09388. \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09388}
% [8] Gehman, S., Gururangan, S., Sap, M., Choi, Y.\ \& Smith, N.A.\ (2020) RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Models. \textit{Findings of EMNLP 2020}. \url{https://aclanthology.org/2020.findings-emnlp.301/}
% }
\newpage
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\bibliography{main} % 你的 .bib 文件名
% \newpage
% \appendix
% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% \section{Technical Appendices and Supplementary Material}
% Technical appendices with additional results, figures, graphs and proofs may be submitted with the paper submission before the full submission deadline (see above), or as a separate PDF in the ZIP file below before the supplementary material deadline. There is no page limit for the technical appendices.
% \newpage
% \section{NeurIPS Paper Checklist}
%%% BEGIN INSTRUCTIONS %%%
%%% END INSTRUCTIONS %%%
% \begin{enumerate}
% \item {\bf Claims}
% \item[] Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope?
% \item[] Answer: \answerYes{} % Replace by \answerYes{}, \answerNo{}, or \answerNA{}.
% \item[] Justification: The abstract/introduction define SE, present SEBench (five-domain, psychology-grounded multi-role options), and claim universal emergence plus a toxicity correlation; these match our methods and empirical scope (synthetic, behavior-level evaluation).
% \item[] Guidelines:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper.
% \item The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claims made, including the contributions made in the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No or NA answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers.
% \item The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results can be expected to generalize to other settings.
% \item It is fine to include aspirational goals as motivation as long as it is clear that these goals are not attained by the paper.
% \end{itemize}
% \item {\bf Limitations}
% \item[] Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors?
% \item[] Answer: \answerYes{} % Replace by \answerYes{}, \answerNo{}, or \answerNA{}.
% \item[] Justification: We discuss limits of synthetic scenario coverage and prompt sensitivity, the gap between behavior-level SE and language-level toxicity metrics, and API constraints for closed models, and outline future work.
% \item[] Guidelines:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper.
% \item The authors are encouraged to create a separate "Limitations" section in their paper.
% \item The paper should point out any strong assumptions and how robust the results are to violations of these assumptions (e.g., independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model well-specification, asymptotic approximations only holding locally). The authors should reflect on how these assumptions might be violated in practice and what the implications would be.
% \item The authors should reflect on the scope of the claims made, e.g., if the approach was only tested on a few datasets or with a few runs. In general, empirical results often depend on implicit assumptions, which should be articulated.
% \item The authors should reflect on the factors that influence the performance of the approach. For example, a facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution is low or images are taken in low lighting. Or a speech-to-text system might not be used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails to handle technical jargon.
% \item The authors should discuss the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size.
% \item If applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach to address problems of privacy and fairness.
% \item While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might be used by reviewers as grounds for rejection, a worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play an important role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations.
% \end{itemize}
% \item {\bf Theory assumptions and proofs}
% \item[] Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and a complete (and correct) proof?
% \item[] Answer: \answerNA{} % Replace by \answerYes{}, \answerNo{}, or \answerNA{}.
% \item[] Justification: The paper contains no formal theorems or proofs; it is an empirical benchmark and analysis.
% \item[] Guidelines:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results.
% \item All the theorems, formulas, and proofs in the paper should be numbered and cross-referenced.
% \item All assumptions should be clearly stated or referenced in the statement of any theorems.
% \item The proofs can either appear in the main paper or the supplemental material, but if they appear in the supplemental material, the authors are encouraged to provide a short proof sketch to provide intuition.
% \item Inversely, any informal proof provided in the core of the paper should be complemented by formal proofs provided in appendix or supplemental material.
% \item Theorems and Lemmas that the proof relies upon should be properly referenced.
% \end{itemize}
% \item {\bf Experimental result reproducibility}
% \item[] Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main experimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not)?
% \item[] Answer: \answerYes{} % Replace by \answerYes{}, \answerNo{}, or \answerNA{}.
% \item[] Justification: We detail the generation schema, prompts, option taxonomy, scoring rules, model configs, and release data.
% \item[] Guidelines:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
% \item If the paper includes experiments, a No answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers: Making the paper reproducible is important, regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not.
% \item If the contribution is a dataset and/or model, the authors should describe the steps taken to make their results reproducible or verifiable.
% \item Depending on the contribution, reproducibility can be accomplished in various ways. For example, if the contribution is a novel architecture, describing the architecture fully might suffice, or if the contribution is a specific model and empirical evaluation, it may be necessary to either make it possible for others to replicate the model with the same dataset, or provide access to the model. In general. releasing code and data is often one good way to accomplish this, but reproducibility can also be provided via detailed instructions for how to replicate the results, access to a hosted model (e.g., in the case of a large language model), releasing of a model checkpoint, or other means that are appropriate to the research performed.
% \item While NeurIPS does not require releasing code, the conference does require all submissions to provide some reasonable avenue for reproducibility, which may depend on the nature of the contribution. For example
% \begin{enumerate}
% \item If the contribution is primarily a new algorithm, the paper should make it clear how to reproduce that algorithm.
% \item If the contribution is primarily a new model architecture, the paper should describe the architecture clearly and fully.
% \item If the contribution is a new model (e.g., a large language model), then there should either be a way to access this model for reproducing the results or a way to reproduce the model (e.g., with an open-source dataset or instructions for how to construct the dataset).
% \item We recognize that reproducibility may be tricky in some cases, in which case authors are welcome to describe the particular way they provide for reproducibility. In the case of closed-source models, it may be that access to the model is limited in some way (e.g., to registered users), but it should be possible for other researchers to have some path to reproducing or verifying the results.
% \end{enumerate}
% \end{itemize}
% \item {\bf Open access to data and code}
% \item[] Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instructions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?
% \item[] Answer: \answerYes{} % Replace by \answerYes{}, \answerNo{}, or \answerNA{}.
% \item[] Justification: An anonymized repository linked in the supplement contains SEBench data, scripts, and instructions; commercial-model outputs may be access-limited per TOS but scripts allow re-running.
% \item[] Guidelines:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code.
% \item Please see the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines (\url{https://nips.cc/public/guides/CodeSubmissionPolicy}) for more details.
% \item While we encourage the release of code and data, we understand that this might not be possible, so “No” is an acceptable answer. Papers cannot be rejected simply for not including code, unless this is central to the contribution (e.g., for a new open-source benchmark).
% \item The instructions should contain the exact command and environment needed to run to reproduce the results. See the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines (\url{https://nips.cc/public/guides/CodeSubmissionPolicy}) for more details.
% \item The authors should provide instructions on data access and preparation, including how to access the raw data, preprocessed data, intermediate data, and generated data, etc.
% \item The authors should provide scripts to reproduce all experimental results for the new proposed method and baselines. If only a subset of experiments are reproducible, they should state which ones are omitted from the script and why.
% \item At submission time, to preserve anonymity, the authors should release anonymized versions (if applicable).
% \item Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) is recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted.
% \end{itemize}
% \item {\bf Experimental setting/details}
% \item[] Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?
% \item[] Answer: \answerYes{} % Replace by \answerYes{}, \answerNo{}, or \answerNA{}.
% \item[] Justification: We specify evaluated models, decoding parameters, number of instances, evaluation pipeline, and toxicity tools.
% \item[] Guidelines:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
% \item The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper to a level of detail that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them.
% \item The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, or as supplemental material.
% \end{itemize}
% \item {\bf Experiment statistical significance}
% \item[] Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?
% \item[] Answer: \answerNo{} % Replace by \answerYes{}, \answerNo{}, or \answerNA{}.
% \item[] Justification: We report aggregate means/correlations but not error bars/significance tests due to API cost and rate limits.
% \item[] Guidelines:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
% \item The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests, at least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper.
% \item The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall run with given experimental conditions).
% \item The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to a library function, bootstrap, etc.)
% \item The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors).
% \item It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean.
% \item It is OK to report 1-sigma error bars, but one should state it. The authors should preferably report a 2-sigma error bar than state that they have a 96\% CI, if the hypothesis of Normality of errors is not verified.
% \item For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful not to show in tables or figures symmetric error bars that would yield results that are out of range (e.g. negative error rates).
% \item If error bars are reported in tables or plots, The authors should explain in the text how they were calculated and reference the corresponding figures or tables in the text.
% \end{itemize}
% \item {\bf Experiments compute resources}
% \item[] Question: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the computer resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments?
% \item[] Answer: \answerYes{} % Replace by \answerYes{}, \answerNo{}, or \answerNA{}.
% \item[] Justification: The anonymous link provides a brief explanation of the experimental equipment.
% \item[] Guidelines:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
% \item The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU or GPU, internal cluster, or cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage.
% \item The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs as well as estimate the total compute.
% \item The paper should disclose whether the full research project required more compute than the experiments reported in the paper (e.g., preliminary or failed experiments that didn't make it into the paper).
% \end{itemize}
% \item {\bf Code of ethics}
% \item[] Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics \url{https://neurips.cc/public/EthicsGuidelines}?
% \item[] Answer: \answerYes{} % Replace by \answerYes{}, \answerNo{}, or \answerNA{}.
% \item[] Justification: The work follows the NeurIPS Code of Ethics—scenarios are synthetic, no PII collected, licenses respected, and no human-subjects data involved.
% \item[] Guidelines:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.
% \item If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require a deviation from the Code of Ethics.
% \item The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., if there is a special consideration due to laws or regulations in their jurisdiction).
% \end{itemize}
% \item {\bf Broader impacts}
% \item[] Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?
% \item[] Answer: \answerYes{} % Replace by \answerYes{}, \answerNo{}, or \answerNA{}.
% \item[] Justification: We discussed the positive uses (behavioral safety auditing) and risks, and combined some dark traits in the field of psychology to enrich the topic and increase theoretical basis.
% \item[] Guidelines:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item The answer NA means that there is no societal impact of the work performed.
% \item If the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact.
% \item Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations.
% \item The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is a direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster.
% \item The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology.
% \item If there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms to monitor how a system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML).
% \end{itemize}
% \item {\bf Safeguards}
% \item[] Question: Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?
% \item[] Answer: \answerYes{} % Replace by \answerYes{}, \answerNo{}, or \answerNA{}.
% \item[] Justification: We provide usage restrictions and gate access to potentially high-risk artifacts (e.g., raw manipulative prompts/responses) and include safety filters; no scraped personal data are released.
% \item[] Guidelines:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.
% \item Released models that have a high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters.
% \item Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images.
% \item We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make a best faith effort.
% \end{itemize}
% \item {\bf Licenses for existing assets}
% \item[] Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?
% \item[] Answer: \answerYes{}% Replace by \answerYes{}, \answerNo{}, or \answerNA{}.
% \item[] Justification: We credit all models/tools (e.g., API, Detoxify) and state their licenses/TOS.
% \item[] Guidelines:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.
% \item The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package or dataset.
% \item The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include a URL.
% \item The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.
% \item For scraped data from a particular source (e.g., website), the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided.
% \item If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in the package should be provided. For popular datasets, \url{paperswithcode.com/datasets} has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of a dataset.
% \item For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if it has changed) should be provided.
% \item If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's creators.
% \end{itemize}
% \item {\bf New assets}
% \item[] Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?
% \item[] Answer: \answerYes{} % Replace by \answerYes{}, \answerNo{}, or \answerNA{}.
% \item[] Justification: SEBench is accompanied by documentation ( datasheet) and is provided alongside the assets (anonymized at submission).
% \item[] Guidelines:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.
% \item Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset/code/model as part of their submissions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc.
% \item The paper should discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose asset is used.
% \item At submission time, remember to anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create an anonymized URL or include an anonymized zip file.
% \end{itemize}
% \item {\bf Crowdsourcing and research with human subjects}
% \item[] Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)?
% \item[] Answer: \answerNA{} % Replace by \answerYes{}, \answerNo{}, or \answerNA{}.
% \item[] Justification: The work does not involve crowdsourcing or human-subject studies.
% \item[] Guidelines:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
% \item Including this information in the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribution of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included in the main paper.
% \item According to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics, workers involved in data collection, curation, or other labor should be paid at least the minimum wage in the country of the data collector.
% \end{itemize}
% \item {\bf Institutional review board (IRB) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects}
% \item[] Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?
% \item[] Answer: \answerNA{} % Replace by \answerYes{}, \answerNo{}, or \answerNA{}.
% \item[] Justification: No human subjects were involved; IRB approval is not applicable.
% \item[] Guidelines:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
% \item Depending on the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent) may be required for any human subjects research. If you obtained IRB approval, you should clearly state this in the paper.
% \item We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and we expect authors to adhere to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution.
% \item For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such as the institution conducting the review.
% \end{itemize}
% \item {\bf Declaration of LLM usage}
% \item[] Question: Does the paper describe the usage of LLMs if it is an important, original, or non-standard component of the core methods in this research? Note that if the LLM is used only for writing, editing, or formatting purposes and does not impact the core methodology, scientific rigorousness, or originality of the research, declaration is not required.
% %this research?
% \item[] Answer: \answerYes{} % Replace by \answerYes{}, \answerNo{}, or \answerNA{}.
% \item[] Justification: We use an LLM to programmatically generate scenarios/options under a fixed schema and report model/version, and limitations of this usage.
% \item[] Guidelines:
% \begin{itemize}
% \item The answer NA means that the core method development in this research does not involve LLMs as any important, original, or non-standard components.
% \item Please refer to our LLM policy (\url{https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2025/LLM}) for what should or should not be described.
% \end{itemize}
% \end{enumerate}
\end{document}