arXiv AI By Paolo Ciancarini, Remo Pareschi

What Counts as Strategic Reasoning? A Systematic Mapping of Chess Research on Humans, Engines, and Language Models

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper presents a systematic mapping of recent chess research involving humans, engines, neural and reinforcement‑learning systems, large language models (LLMs), and hybrid approaches. It identifies 84 core study families and classifies them by agent type, strategic‑reasoning stages, and evaluation dimensions, highlighting a strong focus on situation assessment, evaluation, and action selection while noting gaps in planning, explanation, metacognition, and human–AI collaboration. The study also distinguishes hybrid systems by integration timing and cautions that improved human performance in evaluations does not automatically imply human–AI synergy.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Aug 28

Assessing mentalization in humans and large language models

The study evaluates mentalization—the capacity to infer others’ beliefs and intentions—in large language models (LLMs) using two economic games and cognitive computational modeling. Researchers tested 2,099 LLM agents from four model families (DeepSeek, GPT‑4.1, GPT‑5, Gemini 2.0 Flash) against opponents of varying sophistication, comparing their performance to 251 human participants. Results show that LLMs exhibit distinct mentalizing behaviors that vary by model provider and size, with strategic prompting generally enhancing performance; notably, GPT‑5 agents adapt their recursive reasoning depth to match opponent sophistication, outperforming humans in one task.

By Aamir Sohail, Xintong Zhong, Arkady Konovalov, Patricia L. Lockwood, Lei Zhang
arXiv AI
Aug 6

Hallucinations on the Board: Tool-Augmented Evaluation of LLM Chess Commentary

arXiv:2608. 04240v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Superhuman game engines in domains like chess have made expert-level evaluations easily accessible, yet they communicate what is true without the natural-language explanations that make such expertise educationally useful to experts and non-experts alike.

By S. Ashwin Hebbar, Peiyao Sheng, Sewoong Oh, Pramod Viswanath
arXiv AI
Sep 18

Communication and Verification in LLM Agents towards Collaboration under Information Asymmetry

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.

By Run Peng, Ziqiao Ma, Amy Pang, Sikai Li, Zhang Xi-Jia, Yingzhuo Yu, Cristian-Paul Bara, Joyce Chai
arXiv AI
Jul 14

People use fast and flat simulation to reason about new games

arXiv:2510. 11503v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Games have long been a microcosm for studying planning and reasoning in both natural and artificial intelligence (AI), often focusing on expert-level or even super-human play.

By Katherine M. Collins, Cedegao E. Zhang, Lionel Wong, Mauricio Barba da Costa, Graham Todd, Adrian Weller, Samuel J. Cheyette, Thomas L. Griffiths, Joshua B. Tenenbaum