# Mind or Message? Auditing Theory of Mind in Multi-Agent Social Simulation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.24146 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.24146/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 21 of its 40 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 21 of 21)

- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17548/) (2023)
- [Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.06899/) (2022)
- [Using Large Language Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Studies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.10264/) (2022)
- [SOTOPIA: Interactive Evaluation for Social Intelligence in Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11667/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models in Theory of Mind Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.02083/) (2023)
- [Neural Theory-of-Mind? On the Limits of Social Intelligence in Large LMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.13312/) (2022)
- [Deal or No Deal? End-to-End Learning for Negotiation Dialogues](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.05125/) (2017)
- [Understanding Social Reasoning in Language Models with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.15448/) (2023)
- [FANToM: A Benchmark for Stress-testing Machine Theory of Mind in Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.15421/) (2023)
- [Clever Hans or Neural Theory of Mind? Stress Testing Social Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14763/) (2023)
- [Decoupling Strategy and Generation in Negotiation Dialogues](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.09637/) (2018)
- [CoMPosT: Characterizing and Evaluating Caricature in LLM Simulations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11501/) (2023)
- [Cooperation, Competition, and Maliciousness: LLM-Stakeholders Interactive Negotiation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.17234/) (2023)
- [AgentsCourt: Building Judicial Decision-Making Agents with Court Debate Simulation and Legal Knowledge Augmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.02959/) (2024)
- [MARS-SQL: A multi-agent reinforcement learning framework for Text-to-SQL](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.01008/) (2025)
- [MATP-BENCH: Can MLLM Be a Good Automated Theorem Prover for Multimodal Problems?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.06034/) (2025)
- [ClinTutor-R1: Advancing Scalable and Robust One-to-Many Alignment in Clinical Socratic Education](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.05671/) (2025)
- [RebuttalAgent: Strategic Persuasion in Academic Rebuttal via Theory of Mind](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.15715/) (2026)
- [On Stable Long-Form Generation: Benchmarking and Mitigating Length Volatility](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.01357/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Language model agents are increasingly used to simulate social interaction, and the resulting transcripts read as though the agents understand one another. We ask whether that appearance rests on a model of the partner's mind or on the surface record of what the partner said. We build a social simulation in which both questions have exact answers: 40 multi-issue negotiations whose hidden preference weights and whose full Pareto frontier are known by construction. Two model families negotiate across 160 dyads, every transcript is frozen before any measurement, and 2880 counterfactual probes then hold the evidence byte identical while moving one factor at a time: the reader's own stake, the partner's tone, an identity label, and the order of recursion. The agents are socially fluent and economically poor. They reach agreement in 96.2% of dyads with 0 protocol failures, yet only 0.7% of deals land on the Pareto frontier, they leave 20.5% of the available joint value unclaimed, and they miss the one issue on which their interests are perfectly aligned in 76.6% of deals; on the frontier and on that aligned issue, a package drawn at random from the set both sides would accept does as well. The probes locate the failure. Swapping only the reader's own payoff sheet, while the partner's words and offers stay identical, moves the inferred top priority by 15.0 percentage points, which is egocentric projection rather than inference, while a tone rewrite moves it by 5.3 percentage points and an identity label by 0.0. Most tellingly, an agent predicts what its partner believes about it 72.5% of the time while that partner's belief is itself correct only 51.2% of the time: the agents track the conversation far better than they track the mind behind it.