Evaluating and Enhancing LLMs Agent Based on Theory of Mind in Guandan: A Multi-Player Cooperative Game Under Imperfect Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have shown success in handling simple games with imperfect information and enabling multi-agent coordination, but their ability to facilitate practical collaboration against other agents in complex, imperfect information environments, especially in a non-English environment, still needs to be explored. This study investigates the applicability of knowledge acquired by open-source and API-based LLMs to sophisticated text-based games requiring agent collaboration under imperfect information, comparing their performance to established baselines using other types of agents. We propose a Theory of Mind (ToM) planning technique that allows LLM agents to adapt their strategy against various adversaries using only game rules, current state, and historical context as input. An external tool was incorporated to mitigate the challenge of dynamic and extensive action spaces in this card game. Our results show that although a performance gap exists between current LLMs and state-of-the-art reinforcement learning (RL) models, LLMs demonstrate ToM capabilities in this game setting. It consistently improves their performance against opposing agents, suggesting their ability to understand the actions of allies and adversaries and establish collaboration with allies. To encourage further research and understanding, we have made our codebase openly accessible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".