arXiv:2607. 26120v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs)-powered multi-agent systems are increasingly deployed in mixed-motive environments, where agents operate under asymmetric information and strategic deception due to conflicting or hidden objectives.
arXiv:2504.00285v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are effective at deceiving when prompted to do so. Models that demonstrate better performance on reasoning tasks are a...
arXiv:2609.35928v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-agent LLM systems increasingly mix models from several providers, yet exposing each agent's underlying model identity to its peers significantl...
arXiv:2606. 27443v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Personality prompting shapes how large language models communicate, yet whether these behavioral shifts affect objective task outcomes remains under-explored.
arXiv:2608.22152v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent systems built from large language models are deployed widely, yet how much performance is lost when two LLMs must coordinate rather than ac...
arXiv:2511. 04500v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as decision-making agents in high-stakes domains and as imitators of human behavior in the social and behavioral sciences.
arXiv:2608.30428v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Strategic deception by LLM and VLM agents has emerged as a central AI alignment and safety concern. Social-deduction games (where each player holds a...
arXiv:2510. 20963v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Multi-agent debate (MAD) was proposed as a promising approach for ensembling the wisdom of multiple large language models (LLMs) to improve reasoning and provide effective supervision to superhuman LLMs.
arXiv:2608. 08199v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in group decision-making with other LLMs and humans.
The paper investigates how Large Language Model (LLM) agents can collaborate on a shared task under information asymmetry, using a table‑top version of Einstein Puzzles. It introduces a fine‑tuning‑plus‑verifier framework that equips agents with communication strategies and environmental verification signals. Results show that aligned communication is crucial for rule understanding and human trust, while a verifier improves task comprehension and promotes safer, interpretable collaboration.
arXiv:2604.09746v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents, understanding how strategic behavior emerges in multi-agent e...
Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent systems (MAS) have demonstrated great potential in solving tasks with execution complexity, by distributing subtasks across cooperative agents. However, this divide-and-conquer paradigm falls short on decision-making tasks that are also prevalent in the real world.
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.