Papers
arxiv:2610.37571

TeamGym: A Gym for Team Decision-Making by AI Agents with Distributed Information

Published on Oct 27
Authors:
,
,
,
,
,
,

Abstract

TeamGym evaluates language model agents on collaborative decision-making tasks, revealing communication and retrieval gaps, and uses reinforcement learning to improve team coordination and decision quality.

Many real-world decisions require teams to integrate information distributed across participants. Yet AI agents are still primarily trained and benchmarked in isolation. We introduce TeamGym, an environment for evaluating and training language model-based agents on team decision-making problems constructed from real-world legal, finance, medical, and software engineering corpora. TeamGym introduces a method to identify a minimal set of facts, each element of which is necessary and all of which are collectively sufficient for a correct final decision, which we call pivotal information. This enables TeamGym to both control the distribution of pivotal information and track how well agents identify and integrate pivotal information when making team decisions. Examining 8 language models on 12 source corpora, we find that current AI agents often fail to effectively share information: Distributing pivotal information across participants lowers success rate by 22.9 percentage points on average relative to giving the same information to a single model (a communication gap). We also document that participants do not effectively retrieve decision-relevant information on their own: A team's success rate is lowered by a further 19.9 points when participants must identify and extract pivotal information from source material rather than receiving it directly (a retrieval gap). To help remedy these deficits, we use TeamGym to train policies through reinforcement learning on team decision loss. Across two policy-training experiments, we find that training improves final-decision quality and induces emergent coordination in participation, speaker selection, and communication, even though the reward evaluates only the final decision.

Community

Sign up or log in to comment

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.37571 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.37571 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.37571 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 1