Agents That Model Agents: Five Principles Toward a Theory of Mind for 6G Networks

arXiv:2609.01779 · cs.NI, cs.AI, cs.MA · Submitted 2026-09-01 · Read on arXiv

cs.NI, cs.AI, cs.MA

Submitted: 2026-09-01

Updated: 2026-09-01

Comments: 8 pages, 3 figures, 3 tables

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

The gist: Future 6G networks will rely on Large Language Model (LLM) agents to manage the Radio Access Network (RAN).

Terminology

Abstract

Future 6G networks will rely on Large Language Model (LLM) agents to manage the Radio Access Network (RAN). However, current architectures assume inter-agent messages convey objective facts. A message is instead a trace of the sender's reasoning: it carries a subjective conclusion, so a syntactically valid report can propagate an AI hallucination and trigger a cascading outage invisible to protocol validation. Reading such a trace requires a Theory of Mind (ToM)---before acting, the receiver must model what the peer believes, and what a peer in that position should have believed. Modeling these interactions as cognitive channels on a cellular sheaf, we obtain a unified framework for resilient multi-agent systems, from which five design principles emerge: (i) a message is evidence of the sender's hidden reasoning; (ii) trust is a continuous cognitive Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)---asserted precision over deviation from the modeled peer belief; (iii) network-wide consistency and resistance to hallucination contagion are computable via the sheaf's Laplacian; (iv) peer-modeling must halt at exactly two levels to conserve compute and survive mutual information decay; and (v) credible capacity is bounded by operational goal alignment, not link bandwidth. A signaling-storm study on locally deployed 1B-parameter telecom language models validates it: cognitive SNR isolates a hallucinating peer that three of its four neighbors agree with, where a divergence gate ranks every wrong peer above the right one; only depth two ToM recovers the correct action; and the spectral gap decides whether a topology reaches consistency inside the near-real-time budget.

Related papers