SNEAK: Evaluating Strategic Communication and Information Leakage in Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in multi-agent settings where communication must balance informativeness and secrecy. In such settings, an agent may need to signal information to collaborators while preventing an adversary from inferring sensitive details. However, existing LLM benchmarks primarily evaluate capabilities such as reasoning, factual knowledge, or instruction following, and do not directly measure strategic communication under asymmetric information. We introduce SNEAK (Secret-aware Natural language Evaluation for Adversarial Knowledge), a benchmark for evaluating selective information sharing in language models. In SNEAK, a model is given a semantic category, a candidate set of words, and a secret word, and must generate a message that indicates knowledge of the secret without revealing it too clearly. We evaluate generated messages using two simulated agents with different information states: an ally, who knows the secret and must identify the intended message, and a chameleon, who does not know the secret and attempts to infer it from the message. This yields two complementary metrics: utility, measuring how well the message communicates to collaborators, and leakage, measuring how much information it reveals to an adversary. Using this framework, we analyze the trade-off between informativeness and secrecy in modern language models and show that strategic communication under asymmetric information remains a challenging capability for current systems. Notably, human participants outperform all evaluated models by a large margin, achieving up to four times higher scores.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Mar 2026.
Builds on
25 of 47 references.
References · 25
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,568
- 2024Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of contextcited by 3,224
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,242
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,988
- 2024MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 1,848
13 more
- 2024Mixtral of Expertscited by 1,823
- 2025OpenAI GPT-5 System Cardcited by 989
- 2024From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judgecited by 494
- 2025Kimi-VL Technical Reportcited by 388
- 2016Multi-Agent Cooperation and the Emergence of (Natural) Languagecited by 185
- 2025Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Surveycited by 152
- 2022Language Models as Agent Modelscited by 132
- 2017Emergence of Language with Multi-agent Games: Learning to Communicate with Sequences of Symbolscited by 125
- 2025BIG-Bench Extra Hardcited by 125
- 2025SETS: Leveraging Self-Verification and Self-Correction for Improved Test-Time Scalingcited by 54
- 2022Let's Negotiate! A Survey of Negotiation Dialogue Systemscited by 31
- 2025Deceive, Detect, and Disclose: Large Language Models Play Mini-Mafiacited by 9
- 2025LLMsPark: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Strategic Gaming Contextscited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.