Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 19 references

An external belief layer makes LLM decisions in hidden-information games auditable, and active belief is associated with nearly double good-side win rates even though agents rarely follow it.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review

2026-07-14 09:02 UTC pith:DKMC5A3G

load-bearing objection Solid audit infrastructure for hidden-info LLM agents, with a real paired win-rate association that the authors correctly refuse to over-claim; A0 baseline is the main soft spot they already flag. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.10814 v1 pith:DKMC5A3G submitted 2026-07-12 cs.MA cs.AI

Auditing Belief-Conditioned LLM Agents in Hidden-Information Social Deduction Games

Yuan Gao , Jiangyi Yang , Yao Zhao , Yichi Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.MA cs.AI
keywords LLM agentshidden informationsocial deductionWerewolfbelief modelingauditabilitymulti-agent systemspartial observability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Final win rates are a noisy way to judge LLM agents in hidden-information multi-agent games: a good local decision can lose to teammate errors, and a bad one can still win. This paper builds a 9-player Werewolf testbed with strict code-level information isolation and an external belief layer that tracks role probabilities from structured events, logs belief–action deviations, and feeds a defensive offline loop that mines bad cases before any strategy change. Across 1,080 frozen games, including a 200-seed paired comparison, the active-belief condition raises the good-side win rate from 0.205 to 0.390 and cuts irreversible witch-poison mistakes, yet direct action–belief consistency is only about 0.21 and camp-restricted arms do not fit a simple “holder benefits” story. The authors therefore treat the outcome shift as an association whose mechanism is unresolved, and put the real contribution on the audit framework itself: it makes the effect measurable, rejects forced belief-following when belief is flat, and separates strategy effects from load confounds. The point for a reader is that opaque LLM play can be turned into replayable, contestable evidence before anyone tries to improve it.

Core claim

In a controlled 9-player Werewolf environment with strict information isolation, the active-belief condition is associated with a large good-side outcome gain (0.205 to 0.390 on 200 seed-paired games) and fewer wrong witch poisons, but low direct action–belief consistency and camp-restricted results block attributing that gain to belief content. The paper’s central claim is therefore about method: an external belief layer used as an auditable cognitive baseline makes hidden-state LLM decisions measurable, diagnosable, and safer to iterate on under controlled comparison.

What carries the argument

External auditable belief layer: a per-agent role-probability state updated from structured events (factorized into base weight, evidence direction, and source credibility), compared against actual LLM actions as belief–action deviations, and fed into a defensive offline improvement loop that only proposes versioned strategy changes after batch review.

Load-bearing premise

The no-belief baseline still uses the same belief-oriented prompt scaffolding with only the belief content removed, so the win-rate gap may partly reflect prompt structure rather than the presence of usable belief information.

What would settle it

Run a native no-belief prompt (never designed around a belief section) and a shuffled-belief arm that keeps the belief formatting but destroys content; if the good-side win-rate gap versus active belief disappears under both controls, the association cannot be read as an effect of the active-belief condition.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an auditable evaluation framework for LLM agents in a 9-player Werewolf environment with code-level information isolation. An external belief layer (shadow or active) maintains role probabilities via factorized, hand-weighted logit updates; the system logs belief snapshots, belief–action deviations, and operational metrics, and supports a defensive offline improvement loop. Across 1,080 frozen games, a 200-seed paired A0/A1 comparison associates the active-belief condition with a higher good-side win rate (0.205→0.390; McNemar χ²=16.4, p<0.001) and fewer wrong witch poisons (22→4). The authors refuse causal attribution to belief content: exact action–belief consistency is ~0.21, camp-restricted arms do not follow a holder-benefit pattern, and A0 retains belief-oriented prompt structure with content removed. They position the contribution as the audit infrastructure itself—making effects measurable, rejecting forced consumption with evidence, and separating strategy from load confounds—and treat external belief primarily as an auditable cognitive baseline that also carries decision-relevant signal.

Significance. If the result holds under cleaner baselines, the work is a useful methodological contribution to multi-agent LLM evaluation: it treats trajectory-level auditability, information isolation, and operational confounds as first-class rather than engineering afterthoughts. Strengths include a large frozen corpus (1,080 games), seed-paired McNemar testing, zero LLM-error rates in the main arms, explicit load/concurrency controls, rejection of a failed forced-consumption intervention with evidence, and promised code plus archived trajectories. The careful refusal of causal claims about belief content is scientifically responsible. The paper is less a demonstration of improved hidden-role reasoning than a platform paper that makes such claims testable; that is still valuable for high-noise partially observable agent settings, provided the association is not oversold as decision-relevant signal from belief content.

major comments (3)
  1. §5.2 and §8.5–8.6: A0 is defined as a belief-content ablation that preserves the broader belief-oriented prompt structure rather than a natively designed no-belief prompt (A0-native is deferred). The abstract, §6.2, and conclusion still present the active-belief condition as associated with better good-side outcomes and as carrying “decision-relevant signal.” If residual scaffolding (belief-section formatting, residual subjective-signal instructions) already changes speech caution, vote thresholds, or poison restraint relative to ordinary LLM play, even the carefully worded association is not cleanly an effect of the active-belief condition versus standard agents. This is load-bearing for the paper’s positioning claim. Either run A0-native and/or a randomized/shuffled-belief arm (A-rand) as the authors themselves propose, or systematically reframe abstract/intro/conclusion so that the as
  2. §6.2–6.3 and Table 2: Camp-restricted arms (wolves-only good-side WR 0.313 > villagers-only 0.253) and low exact consistency (~0.21) already undermine a simple content-consumption account; the authors acknowledge this. The remaining claim that belief “also carries decision-relevant signal” is then under-supported by the same evidence used to reject holder-benefit. Aggregate top-1/top-2 hit rates are pooled across camps and action types and are inflated by werewolves who know teammates; good-side vote-time accuracy is only modestly above chance. Please either (i) report camp-separated, vote-time diagnostics with dynamic chance baselines as primary belief-quality metrics, or (ii) demote “decision-relevant signal” to a secondary, explicitly unresolved hypothesis and center the contribution strictly on auditability and measurable association under the stated ablation.
  3. §6.4 / Figure 8: The wrong-poison reduction (22/29 → 4/11; Fisher p=0.03) is presented as a concrete co-occurring behavioral change. Counts are small, Wilson intervals overlap substantially ([0.58,0.88] vs [0.15,0.65]), and poison is infrequent, so it cannot explain the aggregate win-rate shift. The manuscript already notes this, but abstract and §6.7 still list it alongside the main outcome as if it were a robust secondary finding. Tighten the abstract and summary so poison is clearly directional and exploratory, not a co-equal pillar of the empirical claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. §4.2, Eqs. (3)–(4): Factor values, clamp ranges, locked-state rules, and duplicate-evidence handling are deferred to the public release. For reviewability, include a short appendix table of the main w(e), d(e,r), and c defaults used in the frozen corpus.
  2. §4.4 / contribution 3: The harmful / justified / strategic deviation taxonomy is conceptual only; large-scale automatic classification is left to future work. State this limitation earlier (e.g., when deviations are first introduced) so readers do not expect quantitative validation in the present results.
  3. Table 2 and Figure 6: Smaller arms (n=80–150) are reported with wide CIs and without multiple-comparison correction. The text treats them as exploratory diagnostics; ensure figure captions and table notes say the same so they are not read as confirmatory.
  4. §5.4: All main results use a single model (deepseek-chat, T=0.6). A one-sentence caveat in the abstract or introduction that cross-model generality is untested would align the front matter with §8.5.
  5. References include several 2025–2026 arXiv items (e.g., WOLF, MINDGAMES, Hidden in Plain Text). Verify final citation status and venue at camera-ready time.
  6. Figure 1–5 are schematic and helpful; ensure vector versions and consistent terminology (e.g., “belief-disabled” vs “No-belief” in Figure 6) in the camera-ready.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical multi-agent evaluation against external game outcomes; belief is an engineered diagnostic, not a quantity defined to equal the reported win-rate association.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing claims are empirical associations measured against external, rule-engine outcomes (camp win/loss under fixed 9-player Werewolf rules; witch-poison correctness vs post-game ground-truth role maps; LLM-error/fallback/load rates). The active-belief vs belief-disabled A0/A1 comparison reports a seed-paired McNemar result on those external outcomes; the authors explicitly refuse to attribute the shift to belief content and leave mechanism unresolved. The factorized belief update (Δ = w·d·c, logit-space) is a hand-specified heuristic for auditability, not a fit to win rate or poison accuracy, and is not used as a “prediction” of those metrics by construction. There is no self-definitional loop, no fitted parameter renamed as prediction, no load-bearing self-citation uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via author-overlapping prior work. Concerns about A0 retaining belief-oriented prompt scaffolding are experimental-design / attribution issues, not circularity. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 3 invented entities

The work is an engineered evaluation system plus empirical associations. Load-bearing free choices are the hand-specified belief factors and consumption policies; domain axioms are standard Werewolf rules and code-level isolation; invented entities are the external factorized belief layer and deviation taxonomy used as measurement objects rather than physical postulates.

free parameters (5)
  • Belief base evidence weights w(e)
    Hand-specified event-type weights in the factorized update; not learned; concrete values deferred to public release (§4.2).
  • Evidence direction factors d(e,r)
    Hand-specified role-direction of each event in logit updates; engineering choice that shapes belief separability (§4.2).
  • Source credibility c_i(s_e)
    Observer-specific credibility multipliers for speakers/sources; hand-specified and recursive with belief state (§4.2).
  • Belief consumption / confidence gates
    Policy thresholds for when belief is injected or forced; C1/C2 prompts encode different authority levels that affect measured consistency (§4.3, §6.5).
  • LLM sampling temperature 0.6 and prompt family
    Fixed generation and prompt-structure choices shared across A0/A1; A0 removes content but retains belief-oriented structure, so prompt family is a free experimental design choice (§5.2, §5.4).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Standard 9-player Werewolf rules (3 wolves, seer, witch, hunter, 3 villagers; night/day phases; stated win conditions) correctly define legal state transitions.
    Environment definition in §3.1 and §5.1; all metrics depend on this rule engine.
  • domain assumption Code-level information isolation plus JSON serialization prevents agents from accessing ground-truth roles or other private observations at decision time.
    Central safety premise in §3.2; evaluation validity requires this boundary.
  • ad hoc to paper Factorized logit updates with hand weights are a Bayesian-inspired heuristic without optimality or calibration guarantees.
    Explicitly stated in §4.2; belief quality metrics rest on this engineered update.
  • domain assumption Final camp win rate and selected low-level errors (e.g., wrong poison) are meaningful diagnostic outcomes despite high variance.
    Evaluation design in §5.3–5.4 and results §6; authors mitigate variance via pairing and multi-metric reporting.
  • standard math Standard statistical tests (paired McNemar, Fisher exact, Wilson intervals) apply to the reported binary outcomes under the seed-paired design.
    Used for A0/A1 and poison analyses in §6.2 and §6.4.
invented entities (3)
  • External factorized belief layer (shadow/active modes) no independent evidence
    purpose: Maintain per-observer role distributions as an auditable cognitive baseline and optional decision support.
    Core engineered object of the framework (§4.1–4.2); not claimed as a learned world model with independent external validation beyond in-game hit rates.
  • Belief–action deviation taxonomy (harmful / justified / strategic) no independent evidence
    purpose: Conceptual labels for post-hoc inspection of mismatches between belief recommendations and LLM actions.
    Introduced in §4.4; large-scale automatic classification and quantitative validation left to future work.
  • Defensive offline improvement loop no independent evidence
    purpose: Batch bad-case mining and human-reviewed versioned strategy updates instead of single-game online learning.
    Process contribution in §4.5; demonstrated mainly by rejecting forced consumption rather than by closed-loop performance gains.

reviewed 2026-07-14 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Auditing Belief-Conditioned LLM Agents in Hidden-Information Social Deduction Games." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DKMC5A3G

@misc{pith2026260710814,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Auditing Belief-Conditioned LLM Agents in Hidden-Information Social Deduction Games},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DKMC5A3G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10814}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

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 $\chi^2 = 16.4$, $p < 0.001$), 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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10814 by Jiangyi Yang, Yao Zhao, Yichi Zhang, Yuan Gao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Decision pipeline and information-isolation boundary. The per-agent context is serialized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overall framework: layers from frontend/API through game core, supervisor/context, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Factorized belief update. Each event contributes a logit-space delta decomposed into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Deviation-guided diagnosis. The framework compares belief-recommended targets with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Defensive offline improvement loop. Strategy changes are proposed from batch evidence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Good-side win rate across experimental arms. Error bars show the reported 95% confi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Belief signal and consumption gap in the A1 active-belief arm. Aggregate belief diagnostics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Wrong-poison counts, A0 vs. A1 (n = 200 games per arm). The A1 active-belief condition records fewer poison attempts and fewer wrong-poison events than the A0 belief-disabled ablation, with the same number of correct poisons; see Section 6.4 for the Fisher exact test and Wilson intervals. — a cautious LLM may rationally weigh other context. A good consumption policy must therefore be confidence-aware rathe… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith

  1. [2]

    Spotlight at the MTI-LLM Workshop, NeurIPS

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2512.09187. Spotlight at the MTI-LLM Workshop, NeurIPS

    arXiv

  2. [3]

    Werewolf arena: A case study in llm evaluation via social deduction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13943,

    Suma Bailis, Jane Friedhoff, and Feiyang Chen. Werewolf arena: A case study in llm evaluation via social deduction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13943,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [4]

    URLhttps://proceedings.neurips.cc/ paper/2020/hash/c61f571dbd2fb949d3fe5ae1608dd48b-Abstract.html. Jakob N. Foerster, H. Francis Song, Edward Hughes, Neil Burch, Iain Dunning, Shimon Whiteson, Matthew Botvinick, and Michael Bowling. Bayesian action decoder for deep multi-agent rein- forcement learning. InProceedings of the 36th International Conference on...

    2020

  4. [5]

    Yanlin Han and Piotr J

    doi: 10.1613/jair.1579. Yanlin Han and Piotr J. Gmytrasiewicz. IPOMDP-Net: A deep neural network for partially observ- able multi-agent planning using interactive POMDPs. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 6062–6069,

    doi:10.1613/jair.1579

  5. [6]

    27 Hengyuan Hu, Adam Lerer, Brandon Cui, Luis Pineda, Noam Brown, and Jakob Foerster

    doi: 10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33016062. 27 Hengyuan Hu, Adam Lerer, Brandon Cui, Luis Pineda, Noam Brown, and Jakob Foerster. Off- belief learning. InProceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 139 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4369–4379. PMLR,

    doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33016062

  6. [8]

    The arXiv record states publication in IEEE ICA

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2601.13709. The arXiv record states publication in IEEE ICA

    arXiv

  7. [9]

    arXiv:2303.17760

    URLhttps://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/hash/ a3621ee907def47c1b952ade25c67698-Abstract-Conference.html. arXiv:2303.17760. Xiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu, Xuanyu Lei, Hanyu Lai, Yu Gu, Hangliang Ding, Kai- wen Men, Kejuan Yang, Shudan Zhang, Xiang Deng, Aohan Zeng, Zhengxiao Du, Chenhui Zhang, Sheng Shen, Tianjun Zhang, Yu Su, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [10]

    arXiv:2308.03688

    URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=zAdUB0aCTQ. arXiv:2308.03688. Matej Moravcik, Martin Schmid, Neil Burch, Viliam Lisy, Dustin Morrill, Nolan Bard, Trevor Davis, Kevin Waugh, Michael Johanson, and Michael Bowling. DeepStack: Expert-level artificial intelligence in heads-up no-limit poker.Science, 356(6337):508–513,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [11]

    doi: 10.1126/science. aam6960. Georgios Papoudakis, Filippos Christianos, and Stefano V. Albrecht. Agent modelling under partial observability for deep reinforcement learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 19210–19222,

    doi:10.1126/science

  10. [12]

    Joon Sung Park, Joseph C

    URLhttps://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/ 2021/hash/a03caec56cd82478bf197475b48c05f9-Abstract.html. Joon Sung Park, Joseph C. O’Brien, Carrie J. Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technol...

    2021

  11. [13]

    arXiv:2304.03442

    doi: 10.1145/3586183.3606763. arXiv:2304.03442. Neil C. Rabinowitz, Frank Perbet, H. Francis Song, Chiyuan Zhang, S. M. Ali Eslami, and Matthew Botvinick. Machine theory of mind. InProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4218–4227. PMLR,

    doi:10.1145/3586183.3606763

  12. [14]

    28 Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao

    URLhttps://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2019/hash/ 912d2b1c7b2826caf99687388d2e8f7c-Abstract.html. 28 Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, volume 36,

    2019

  13. [15]

    The arXiv ver- sion arXiv:2303.11366 lists Edward Berman as an additional author

    URLhttps://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/ 2023/hash/1b44b878bb782e6954cd888628510e90-Abstract-Conference.html. The arXiv ver- sion arXiv:2303.11366 lists Edward Berman as an additional author. Kevin Wang, Anna Thöni, Benjamin Kempinski, Bobby Cheng, Jianzhu Yao, et al. MINDGAMES: A live arena for evaluating social and strategic reasoning in mul...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [16]

    The official arXiv record lists 53 authors

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2605.29512. The official arXiv record lists 53 authors. Zelai Xu, Chao Yu, Fei Fang, Yu Wang, and Yi Wu. Language agents with reinforcement learning for strategic play in the werewolf game. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 235 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 55434–554...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [17]

    arXiv:2310.18940

    URLhttps://proceedings.mlr.press/v235/xu24ad.html. arXiv:2310.18940. Zelai Xu, Wanjun Gu, Chao Yu, Yi Wu, and Yu Wang. Learning strategic language agents in the werewolf game with iterative latent space policy optimization. InProceedings of the 42nd Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, volume 267 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, page...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [18]

    arXiv:2502.04686

    URLhttps://proceedings.mlr.press/v267/xu25h.html. arXiv:2502.04686. Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [19]

    arXiv:2210.03629

    URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=WE_ vluYUL-X. arXiv:2210.03629. Zheng Zhang, Nuoqian Xiao, Qi Chai, Deheng Ye, and Hao Wang. MultiMind: Enhancing were- wolf agents with multimodal reasoning and theory of mind. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 5824–5833,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [20]

    arXiv:2504.18039

    doi: 10.1145/3746027.3755752. arXiv:2504.18039. Shuyan Zhou, Frank F. Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Tianyue Ou, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, Uri Alon, and Graham Neubig. WebArena: A re- alistic web environment for building autonomous agents. InThe Twelfth International Confer- ence on Learning Representations,

    doi:10.1145/3746027.3755752

  19. [21]

    arXiv:2307.13854

    URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=oKn9c6ytLx. arXiv:2307.13854. 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 14, 2026.