Beyond What to Say: Proactive Utterance Timing with Inner Thoughts for Werewolf Agents

The Werewolf Game is a communication game where players' reasoning and discussion skills are essential. In this study, we present a Werewolf AI agent developed for the AIWolfDial 2024 shared task, co-hosted with the 17th INLG. In recent years, large language models like ChatGPT have garnered attention for their exceptional response generation and reasoning capabilities. We thus develop the LLM-based agents for the Werewolf Game. This study aims to enhance the consistency of the agent's utterances by utilizing dialogue summaries generated by LLMs and manually designed personas and utterance examples. By analyzing self-match game logs, we demonstrate that the agent's utterances are contextually consistent and that the character, including tone, is maintained throughout the game.

Theory-of-mind evaluations of large language models typically use dyadic social-deduction games, where every observable cue points to a single hidden side, so a model with strong language priors can score well without ever simulating opponents' incentives. We extend the Werewolf game with a Jester, a third faction whose utility on peer suspicion is inverted because it wins by being voted out, so optimal play requires reasoning across three opposing utility functions. Across 60 games on GPT-4.1, DeepSeek-V3.1, and Llama-3.3-70B with Jester self-learning on and off, the Jester wins 60-70% of games while Werewolves never exceed 20%, and GPT-4.1 wolves vote the Jester out on day 1 in 60-70% of games, a strictly self-defeating action. Self-learning helps DeepSeek and Llama but hurts GPT-4.1, with the cost landing on Villagers rather than Werewolves. Only DeepSeek learns the subtle strategy of looking suspicious without looking intentionally suspicious, and it gains the most from the loop. Triadic incentive structure exposes a layer of multi-agent reasoning that dyadic deduction games leave invisible.

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.