aiqbench analysis
This research introduces a novel evaluation benchmark using the social-deduction game Werewolf to assess how Large Language Models update their beliefs based on accusation messages versus source trust. The study reveals that even models up to 120B parameters struggle to fully disentangle the content of an accusation from the perceived reliability of the accuser, highlighting persistent challenges in strategic communication reasoning.
Do LLMs Trust the Accuser or the Accusation? Measuring Belief Shifts in Werewolf
arXiv:2609.12446v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.
Title:Do LLMs Trust the Accuser or the Accusation? Measuring Belief Shifts in Werewolf
Abstract: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 this https URL.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.12446 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.12446v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.12446 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 · 271 words
Related coverage
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 13, 2026

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 3, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026
Current AIs out-persuade professionals in lab settings but (probably) not in the world
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026