跳到正文
arXiv cs.MA· Will Beaumaster, Paul Schrater·· 3 天前AI 评分29

多智能体团队中准确率为何无法认证心智理论:Smart Alone, Blind Together

Smart Alone, Blind Together: Why Accuracy Fails to CertifyTheory of Mind in Multi-Agent Teams

AI 导读

论文指出,用推断准确率来认证多智能体协调模块是错误的,因为所需准确率取决于部署场景的错误代价,且模块间错误存在相关性。在任务分配、Level-Based Foraging 和 Hanabi 测试中,准确率双向失效:在 Hanabi 中批准了有害的 LLM 部署,在任务分配中拒绝了有益的部署。

正文 · 原文

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Coordinators that act on what they infer about teammates are usually certified by the accuracy of those inferences. We argue that accuracy is the wrong certificate, for two reasons. First, the accuracy needed to act depends on what a wrong action costs, so the bar belongs to the deployment, not the module. Second, a module's errors are rarely independent, and dependence has a sign: positively associated errors help where their damage overlaps and hurt where it compounds, so an accuracy threshold fails in a predictable direction, and once wrong beliefs interact and can do harm, no rule based on accuracy is right for every module. We test these predictions in task assignment, Level-Based Foraging and Hanabi, with injected errors, trained and Bayesian modules and five language models, and in human judgments. Accuracy fails in both directions, approving harmful language-model deployments in Hanabi, where shared errors compound, and rejecting beneficial ones in task assignment, where costly errors are rare. In our tasks it also buys far less redundancy than independence predicts: from GPT-5.4-mini to Claude Opus 5.5, error on teammates the models have evidence about falls from 32% to 11%, but the chance that all three observers misread one falls only from 16% to 9% (independence: 3.4% to 0.15%). We propose certifying the deployment, with a Blind-Spot Gate that prices error costs, pairwise interactions and measured dependence without deploying the module. On held-out data from the cells it was developed on, it makes no significant false approval in 20 splits (accuracy: 3.2 per split), and in preregistered tests on modules it was not developed on, it recovers what accuracy rejects (seven classifiers: regret 0.004 against 0.479) and catches what accuracy approves (a Bayesian module: significant false approvals in 17 of 20 splits for accuracy, 1 for the gate).
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Multiagent Systems (cs.MA)
Cite as: arXiv:2610.19051 [cs.AI]
  (or arXiv:2610.19051v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.19051

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: William Beaumaster [view email]
[v1] Tue, 13 Oct 2026 18:50:10 UTC (2,392 KB)

来源:arXiv cs.MA · arxiv.org