aiqbench analysis
This study investigates the gap between an LLM's internal understanding of partner conventions and its actual cooperative behavior in multi-agent settings. The findings reveal that while linear probes can accurately decode intent, frozen model weights often fail to translate this knowledge into consistent receiving decisions, even when presented with explicit action recommendations. These results highlight critical limitations in current models' ability to act on known information during dynamic cooperation tasks.
Do LLMs Act on What They Know? From Partner Representations to Cooperative Actions
arXiv:2610.08129v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Cooperation with unfamiliar partners requires adapting to communication conventions that are not known in advance. We study this problem in a controlled Hanabi-derived environment with scripted hint generation, LLM-controlled receiving decisions, and frozen model weights. Across eight LLMs, linear probes recover intent conventions substantially more accurately than target conventions, yet receiving choices do not consistently agree with the sender's convention. We compare probe-predicted and ground-truth conventions presented either as general rules or as externally computed action recommendations. Rule statements yield modest and model-dependent changes in cooperation, whereas action translation produces larger gains on average. In a Qwen3-8B case study, matched-state statement reversals reveal much greater sensitivity to action recommendations than to rule statements. Activation transfers from oracle-action and non-oracle hint-restatement donors improve intent accuracy on both action classes, but the tested alternatives do not reliably reproduce these benefits. Together, these results distinguish convention decodability, sensitivity to convention information, and cooperative performance, and highlight limitations in turning available partner information into receiving decisions.
Title:Do LLMs Act on What They Know? From Partner Representations to Cooperative Actions
Abstract:Cooperation with unfamiliar partners requires adapting to communication conventions that are not known in advance. We study this problem in a controlled Hanabi-derived environment with scripted hint generation, LLM-controlled receiving decisions, and frozen model weights. Across eight LLMs, linear probes recover intent conventions substantially more accurately than target conventions, yet receiving choices do not consistently agree with the sender's convention. We compare probe-predicted and ground-truth conventions presented either as general rules or as externally computed action recommendations. Rule statements yield modest and model-dependent changes in cooperation, whereas action translation produces larger gains on average. In a Qwen3-8B case study, matched-state statement reversals reveal much greater sensitivity to action recommendations than to rule statements. Activation transfers from oracle-action and non-oracle hint-restatement donors improve intent accuracy on both action classes, but the tested alternatives do not reliably reproduce these benefits. Together, these results distinguish convention decodability, sensitivity to convention information, and cooperative performance, and highlight limitations in turning available partner information into receiving decisions.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.08129 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.08129v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.08129 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 269 words
Related coverage
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026
If This Were a Test, How Much Would It Cost?
LessWrong · Jun 16, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

RL & search is a terrifying way to build AGI (an FAQ)
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 27, 2026