MT-PingEval: Evaluating Multi-Turn Collaboration with Private Information Games

Multi-turn conversations are a common and critical mode of language model interaction. However, current open training and evaluation data focus on single-turn settings, failing to capture the additional dimension of these longer interactions. To understand this multi-/single-turn gap, we first introduce a new benchmark, TurnWiseEval, for multi-turn capabilities that is directly comparable to single-turn chat evaluation. Our evaluation isolates multi-turn specific conversational ability through pairwise comparison to equivalent single-turn settings. We additionally introduce our synthetic multi-turn data pipeline TurnWiseData which allows the scalable generation of multi-turn training data. Our experiments with Olmo 3 show that training with multi-turn data is vital to achieving strong multi-turn chat performance, and that including as little as 10k multi-turn conversations during post-training can lead to a 12% improvement on TurnWiseEval.

As model-generated content is increasingly consumed by other model instances in automated workflows, a practically important question arises: can a model embed a signal in natural language that an independent instance of the same model can detect, relying only on shared pre-training and task instructions, without any shared memory or coordination-specific training? We introduce For Your Eyes Only, a cooperative signalling game designed to evaluate this directly. A Sender produces free-form descriptions for two words, one of which is a hidden target; an isolated Receiver must identify it. We evaluate seven contemporary models from four architectural families on 300 word pairs from established psycholinguistic corpora, using the Double-Pass Success Rate to control for output biases. We find that most models struggle to maintain coordination once they are required to avoid detectable signals, while one frontier model retains near-perfect performance even after such filtering. We further show that models can direct this capability toward deliberate misdirection, and that coordination is consistently weaker across architectures than within them.

Large language models are increasingly used as interacting agents, but it remains unclear how robust their coordination is when public communication is unreliable. We study this question in iterated $N$-player Stag Hunt games played by homogeneous LLM groups under controlled programmatic action inversion, which changes both the public transcript and the actions used for execution. Across an experimental grid spanning group sizes, coordination thresholds, corruption levels, and seven LLMs, we observe three main patterns. First, honest agents' pre-flip Stag choices decline as corruption increases, but the sharp fall in public success is primarily mechanical. In the focal $N=5,M=3$ setting, pre-flip success remains 78% at 80% corruption, while public success falls to 12%. Second, honest choices are associated with the public history available at decision time, particularly under high corruption. Third, three threshold-style public-report benchmarks yield similar action-match rates to the LLM agents, showing substantial descriptive agreement between LLM decisions and these benchmarks. Overall, our results show that original choices, public actions, and executed outcomes must be separated when evaluating multi-agent robustness, as corrupted communication can severely and predictably degrade mutually beneficial cooperation.