Triadic Werewolf: A Jester Role for Multi-Hop Theory of Mind in LLMs

Social-deduction games such as Werewolf are increasingly used to evaluate LLM agents, but existing evaluations often rely on final game outcomes. We propose a belief-shift evaluation benchmark in Werewolf for analyzing communication skills through belief updating. Using LLM-played games, we annotate suspicion and accusation messages and measure how an observing village-side model's beliefs change after each message. We evaluate 40 open-weight LLM configurations on 1,224 annotated messages. Our results show that larger models better distinguish true wolves from villagers based on game history, but accusations still strongly influence their beliefs. Models become more suspicious of the accused target and less suspicious of the accuser, especially when the accuser is trusted, even if the accuser is wolf-aligned. Larger models better resist accusations from accusers they already distrust. Overall, our findings suggest that current open-weight LLMs up to 120B parameters still struggle to integrate accusation content with source trust in strategic communication. Our benchmark and code are available at https://rlg.iis.sinica.edu.tw/papers/werewolf-accusation-benchmark.

Evaluating LLM agents in hidden-information multi-agent settings is hard: final outcomes are high-variance and rarely reveal why an agent decided as it did. We study this in a 9-player Werewolf environment where agents act under strict, code-level information isolation, and we build an auditable framework that maintains an external belief state over hidden roles, logs belief updates and belief-action deviations as structured evidence, and supports a defensive offline improvement loop that reviews bad cases before any strategy change. Across 1,080 frozen games spanning belief-disabled, active-belief, kernel-ablation, camp-restricted, consumption-policy, and high-load arms, and including a seed-paired A0/A1 comparison, the active-belief condition is associated with substantially better good-side outcomes: in the 200-seed A0/A1 comparison the good-side win rate rises from 0.205 to 0.390 (paired McNemar $χ^2 = 16.4$, $p < 0.001$), with fewer irreversible witch-poison errors. We do not, however, attribute this shift to belief content. Direct action-belief consistency is low ($\approx 0.21$), and giving belief only to the werewolves helps the good side more than giving it only to the good side, which argues against a simple holder-benefit account; we therefore report the effect as an association and treat its mechanism as unresolved. The contribution is the audit framework itself: it makes the effect measurable, exposes low direct action-belief consistency, rejects an unreliable forced-consumption intervention with evidence, and separates strategy effects from load confounds. We accordingly position external belief in high-noise hidden-information games primarily as an auditable cognitive baseline that also carries decision-relevant signal, turning opaque agent behavior into replayable evidence for safer, controlled iteration.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly tasked with strategic decision-making under incomplete information, such as in negotiation and policymaking. While LLMs can excel at many such tasks, they also fail in ways that are poorly understood. We shed light on these failures by uncovering two fundamental gaps in the internal mechanisms underlying the decision-making of LLMs in incomplete-information games, supported by experiments with open-weight models Llama 3.1, Qwen3, and gpt-oss. First, an observation-belief gap: LLMs encode internal beliefs about latent game states that are substantially more accurate than their own verbal reports, yet these beliefs are brittle. In particular, the belief accuracy degrades with multi-hop reasoning, exhibits primacy and recency biases, and drifts away from Bayesian coherence over extended interactions. Second, a belief-action gap: The implicit conversion of internal beliefs into actions is weaker than that of the beliefs externalized in the prompt, yet neither belief-conditioning consistently achieves higher game payoffs. These results show how analyzing LLMs' internal processes can expose systematic vulnerabilities that warrant caution before deploying LLMs in strategic domains without robust guardrails.