# Adversarial Course-of-Action Generation: Game-Theoretic Multi-Agent Algorithms for COA matching & COA generation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.26059 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.26059/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 8 of its 19 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16789/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.04682/) (2024)
- [An LLM Compiler for Parallel Function Calling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.04511/) (2023)
- [SPIRAL: Symbolic LLM Planning via Grounded and Reflective Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.23167/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Course-of-action (COA) generation is a distributed planning problem: a system must propose structured candidate actions, evaluate them against an adversarial response, and surface options that remain tactically coherent under changing conditions. We present COA-Bench, a small offline benchmark and reproducibility artifact for comparing COA generation policies through self-play. Following the BattleCOA terminology, we reserve COA matching for asset-effect matching and COA generation for course-of-action generation; the present artifact does not implement either DecisionFunction directly. Instead, it represents COAs as typed action chains with conditional branches, assigns a synthetic COA quality score, compares opposing COAs with a BLUE-vs-RED advantage score and Nash-gap distance, and scores doctrinal coherence with an FM 3-0-inspired heuristic rubric. Across 50 synthetic scenarios spanning five operational templates, a sampled best-response policy that draws eight RED candidates reduces BLUE advantage from .516 to .485 and BLUE wargame win rate from .920 to .820; a two-stage multi-agent council with five BLUE proposer agents, RED-team adjudication, and critique-driven revision obtains .509 BLUE advantage and .820 BLUE win rate. We also identify and fix a benchmark-design issue in which scenario framing was stored as metadata but had no effect on generated COA content. COA-Bench is not an operational battle-management system and uses no real, classified, proprietary, or human-subject data. The contribution is an inspectable evaluation harness, preliminary benchmark evidence, and lessons for building auditable agentic planning artifacts.