arXiv Machine Learning
Mind or Message? Auditing Theory of Mind in Multi-Agent Social Simulation
Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
Related stories
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 18
Message capacity and claim wording set the transition points of collective truth-finding in language-model networks
The study investigates how limited reading capacity and claim wording influence consensus outcomes in language‑model networks. By modeling message capacity as the number of messages an agent reads, the authors show that when agents read fewer than about 6.4 messages on average, a wrong consensus becomes unreachable. However, the wording of a claim—its inherent threshold—can override this effect, leading to incorrect consensus even when most agents start correct.
arXiv AI
Sep 16
Easy to Catch a Liar, Hard to Clear an Honest One: Language Models Diagnosing a Corrupted Reward Channel from a Verified Record
The paper investigates whether frozen language models can detect a corrupted reward signal by using a single verified record in a two‑option game. In the game, a payout swap and a lying reporter produce identical histories, but a single line confirming the true outcome allows the models to almost perfectly identify the liar. However, the models frequently misclassify honest reporters as liars, with error rates ranging from 26% to 58% depending on model size and wording, indicating a significant limitation in their ability to interpret verified data.
arXiv AI
Sep 10
A Layered Analysis of Disagreement And Answer Quality in Multi-Agent LLM Debate
arXiv:2609.08016v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-agent debate, in which several LLMs exchange arguments before answering, is widely assumed to improve answer quality by surfacing genuine disagre...
arXiv AI
Jul 9
Diversity Without Fidelity: A Solver-Sampler Mismatch in Multi-Agent LLM Negotiation Simulation
arXiv:2604. 11840v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Language models are increasingly used to simulate people: survey respondents, negotiators, stakeholders in policy exercises.
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 31
Benchmarking large language model agent societies against human behavioural distributions
The paper introduces SILICA, an open instrument designed to evaluate whether large language model (LLM) agent societies replicate human behavioural distributions. Using five environments with human‑anchored data and perturbations, the study finds that most LLMs only match human behaviour at initial stages, failing to reproduce end‑state cooperation or correct acceptance thresholds. The results suggest that current LLM societies can support exploratory claims but do not yet reliably emulate human social dynamics.
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 2
Truthful AI Advisors: A Pre-Specified Benchmark for Large Language Model Honesty Under Preference Misalignment
arXiv:2606. 01456v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed as advisors whose objective is not aligned with the user's: recommenders optimize for engagement, sales assistants for purchases, negotiation agents for concessions.