arXiv:2510. 10813v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to domains that require reasoning about other agents' behavior, such as negotiation, policy design, and market simulation.
By Enric Junque de Fortuny, Veronica Roberta Cappelli
arXiv:2607. 21856v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Modern reasoning models depend on reasoning data, today sourced from human annotations or distilled from stronger LLMs.
By Ziran Yang, Chengshuai Shi, Raj Ghugare, Benjamin Eysenbach, Karthik Narasimhan, Chi Jin
arXiv:2607. 02255v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Memory for a long-horizon LLM agent is a contract about what each future decision is allowed to see.
By Xiangchen Cheng, Yunwei Jiang, Jianwen Sun, Zizhen Li, Chuanhao Li, Xiangcheng Cao, Yihao Liu, Fanrui Zhang, Li Jin, Kaipeng Zhang
arXiv:2603. 00374v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Offline learning of strategies takes data efficiency to its extreme by restricting algorithms to a fixed dataset of state-action trajectories.
By Austin A. Nguyen, Michael P. Wellman
arXiv:2606. 08068v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems often fail to reliably outperform a single strong model equipped with best-of-N sampling.
By Yi Xie, Zhanke Zhou, Chentao Cao, Bo Liu, Bo Han
arXiv:2608. 03420v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models have improved substantially on single-shot reasoning tasks, but their performance in sequential decision-making is less well understood.
By Jakub Rada (AI Center, Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague), Viliam Lis\'y (AI Center, Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague)
The paper investigates why large language models (LLMs) struggle in strategic decision-making under incomplete information. It identifies two key gaps: an observation‑belief gap where LLMs’ internal representations of game states are accurate but brittle, and a belief‑action gap where converting these internal beliefs into actions is weak, leading to suboptimal payoffs. Experiments with Llama 3.1, Qwen3, and gpt‑oss confirm that acting optimally on decoded beliefs would improve outcomes in most games, highlighting a bottleneck in belief‑to‑action conversion.
By Jan Sobotka, Mustafa O. Karabag, Ufuk Topcu
arXiv:2608. 09638v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Theory of Mind (ToM) is essential for agent interactions, yet existing evaluations either rely on static scenarios that oversimplify mental-state reasoning or interactive settings that provide limited diagnostic insight.
By Yen-Shan Chen, Yu Chian Duan, Chih-En Kuo, Jian-Bin Wu, Yun-Nung Chen
arXiv:2509. 23102v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has emerged as the standard paradigm for aligning large language models with human preferences.
By Fang Wu, Xu Huang, Weihao Xuan, Zhiwei Zhang, Yijia Xiao, Guancheng Wan, Xiaomin Li, Bing Hu, Peng Xia, Jure Leskovec, Yejin Choi
The paper introduces the Abstraction Agent, a zero‑shot pipeline that employs a large language model to automatically generate continuous strategic features from a natural‑language game description, score private states, and cluster them into abstraction buckets without any game‑specific evaluators or training data. The pipeline consists of four phases—feature discovery with calibration anchors, batched private‑state scoring, correlation‑based feature selection, and k‑means clustering—and achieves significant reductions in lifted‑strategy exploitability in heads‑up no‑limit Texas hold’em and outperforms scalar rank baselines in ROVER Trials. The method also transfers to other games such as four‑card Pot‑Limit Omaha, HUNL preflop and flop, and Riichi Mahjong, demonstrating that it can uncover strategic concepts that align with recognized game theory insights.
By Boning Li, Longbo Huang
arXiv:2608. 15303v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Test-time compute can substantially improve Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning performance, yet how and when additional compute helps remains poorly understood.
By Bo Wen, Yuhao Chen, Erhan Bilal, Carla Agurto Rios, Chen Wang, Junchen Jiang
The paper investigates the problem of sharing a single critic across multiple parallel environments in reinforcement learning. It shows that when environments assign different expected returns to the same state, a shared critic must reconcile conflicting value targets, which can distort advantage estimates and misguide policy updates. The authors propose a simple fix—providing the critic with the environment index—demonstrating through bandit models and experiments on CartPole, MuJoCo, BipedalWalker, and 16 Procgen games that this conditional critic stabilizes learning and boosts returns, achieving a 40.8% improvement in aggregate normalized return on unseen levels.
By Zhenya Liu, Yang Meng, Zhuokai Zhao, Xuefeng Liu, Yuxin Chen