MT-PingEval: Evaluating Multi-Turn Collaboration with Private Information Games
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We present a scalable and verifiable methodology for evaluating language models in multi-turn interactions, using a suite of collaborative games that require effective communication about private information. This enables an interactive scaling analysis, in which a fixed token budget is divided over a variable number of turns. We find that language models often fail to use interactive collaboration to improve over the non-interactive baseline in which one agent summarizes its information and the other agent immediately acts, despite substantial headroom. This suggests that state-of-the-art models still suffer from significant weaknesses in planning and executing multi-turn collaborative conversations. We analyze the linguistic features of these dialogues, assessing the roles of sycophancy, information density, and discourse coherence. While there is no single linguistic explanation for the collaborative weaknesses of contemporary language models, we note that humans achieve comparable task success at superior token efficiency by producing more coherent dialogues. The proactive management of private information is a defining feature of real-world communication, and this work is designed to drive further progress on this capability.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Feb 2026.
Builds on
24 of 48 references.
References · 24
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2022Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluationscited by 805
- 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 559
- 2025LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversationcited by 400
- 2023MINT: Evaluating LLMs in Multi-turn Interaction with Tools and Language Feedbackcited by 293
- 2024MT-Bench-101: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Multi-Turn Dialoguescited by 247
- 2024MediQ: Question-Asking LLMs and a Benchmark for Reliable Interactive Clinical Reasoningcited by 145
- 2025ELEPHANT: Measuring and understanding social sycophancy in LLMscited by 115
- 2017Towards an Automatic Turing Test: Learning to Evaluate Dialogue Responsescited by 98
- 2024MT-Eval: A Multi-Turn Capabilities Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Modelscited by 78
- 2017Learning Symmetric Collaborative Dialogue Agents with Dynamic Knowledge Graph Embeddingscited by 59
- 2023Grounding Gaps in Language Model Generationscited by 45
12 more
- 2025SimulatorArena: Are User Simulators Reliable Proxies for Multi-Turn Evaluation of AI Assistants?cited by 45
- 2022Abstract Visual Reasoning with Tangram Shapescited by 43
- 2019Approximating Interactive Human Evaluation with Self-Play for Open-Domain Dialog Systemscited by 42
- 2023BotChat: Evaluating LLMs' Capabilities of Having Multi-Turn Dialoguescited by 34
- 2023Decision-Oriented Dialogue for Human-AI Collaborationcited by 29
- 2021COVR: A test-bed for Visually Grounded Compositional Generalization with real imagescited by 25
- 2026CooperBench: Why Coding Agents Cannot be Your Teammates Yetcited by 20
- 2024Teaching Models to Balance Resisting and Accepting Persuasioncited by 19
- 2023MD3: The Multi-Dialect Dataset of Dialoguescited by 12
- 2025The Collaboration Gap: Exploration and Benchmarking of Open-World Agentic Cooperationcited by 11
- 2020Contextual Dialogue Act Classification for Open-Domain Conversational Agentscited by 6
- 2025Interaction Dynamics as a Reward Signal for LLMscited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 7.
7 papers.
- 2026CRAFT: Grounded Multi-Agent Coordination Under Partial Informationcited by 3
- 2026Talk is Cheap, Communication is Hard: Dynamic Grounding Failures and Repair in Multi-Agent Negotiationcited by 1
- 2026Sycophancy Undermines Epistemic Vigilance in Cooperative Vision-Language Taskscited by 1
- 2026The Collaboration Tax: How Much LLM Multi-Agent Systems Pay to Coordinatecited by 1
- 2026RankJudge: A Multi-Turn LLM-as-a-Judge Synthetic Benchmark Generatorcited by 0
- 2026Flout at Your Own Risk: LLMs Struggle with Pragmatic Cooperativity Under Epistemic Asymmetrycited by 0
- 2026Which one is banana man? Evaluating vision-language models in multi-turn pragmatic interpretationcited by 0
- 2026Which one is banana man? Evaluating vision-language models in multi-turn pragmatic interpretation30 Aug 2026
- 2026The Collaboration Tax: How Much LLM Multi-Agent Systems Pay to Coordinate23 Aug 2026
- 2026Sycophancy Undermines Epistemic Vigilance in Cooperative Vision-Language Tasks31 Jul 2026
- 2026Flout at Your Own Risk: LLMs Struggle with Pragmatic Cooperativity Under Epistemic Asymmetry13 Jul 2026
- 2026RankJudge: A Multi-Turn LLM-as-a-Judge Synthetic Benchmark Generator20 May 2026
- 2026Talk is Cheap, Communication is Hard: Dynamic Grounding Failures and Repair in Multi-Agent Negotiation3 May 2026
- 2026CRAFT: Grounded Multi-Agent Coordination Under Partial Information26 Mar 2026