VACS (Value-Aligned Compositional Shielding) is a unified systems design with formalized interfaces and operational guarantees at the verifier-constrained decision level, rather than a complete end-to-end formal proof of all language-model internals.
Abstract
Multi-agent reasoning systems in high-stakes domains must be both accurate and safe, yet agents often follow heterogeneous value priorities (e.g., rigor, conciseness, safety), causing conflicting recommendations. Existing methods do not jointly provide: (i) principled inference of each agent's implicit values from behavior, (ii) compositional formal safety guarantees without full online communication, and (iii) value-aware conflict resolution with faithful explanations. We present VACS (Value-Aligned Compositional Shielding), a four-layer framework addressing all three. Layer 1 learns value-dimension rewards from pairwise preferences using Bradley-Terry modeling and infers per-agent value weights via deep MaxEnt IRL. Layer 2 encodes value constraints in a Lean-inspired DSL and synthesizes compositional assume-guarantee shields for runtime safety. Layer 3 resolves disagreement through nucleolus-based credit allocation and Hamiltonian consensus optimization under long-term value constraints. Layer 4 extracts a critical reasoning path from co-state sensitivities and generates formally grounded natural-language explanations. Our contribution is primarily a unified systems design with formalized interfaces and operational guarantees at the verifier-constrained decision level, rather than a complete end-to-end formal proof of all language-model internals. In controlled proof-of-concept evaluations with role-conditioned agent panels on NEJM-AI QA, MathInstruct-Subset, and a cybersecurity incident-response benchmark (CyberSec-Eval), VACS outperforms strong baselines in accuracy (85.4%, 95.0%, and 90.0%) while reducing logical inconsistency rates to near zero.
Fair Multi-Level Preference Optimization (Fair-MPO or $\Phi$-MPO), a new preference optimization framework for agentic learning, is proposed and a Fair Multi-Level Objective that addresses imbalance in agentic learning is introduced.
Thanh-Dat Truong, Sankalp Pandey, Hugh Churchill et al.· 0 citations
Multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) systems typically commit to a deliberation protocol before inference. A fixed protocol cannot allocate computation differently to resolved and unresolved instances, and it may mistake repeated support for independent confirmation. We study this failure as semantic false consensus:...
Yuan Liu, Hao-Yu Peng, Fan-Liang Hu et al.· 0 citations
Repository-scale code optimization demands broad diagnosis, but unconstrained agent edits impede review and attribution. We present MACO-AI, a reusable multi-agent optimization skill that restricts source changes to annotations and intrinsics. Before delegation, initialization freezes the source state and measurement c...
Jun-Yu Liu, Zong-Yan Xian· Proceedings of the 41st IEEE...· 0 citations
Multi-agent debate (MAD) aims to improve large language model reasoning by exposing agents to alternative solutions and enabling iterative revision. However, standard broadcast-style MAD makes peer answers visible without requiring agents to engage with a particular peer claim. As a result, reliable reasoning may be su...
De-Zheng Bao, Si-Hang Du, Ren-Hong Huang et al.· 0 citations
MEA is presented, a multi-agent framework that removes the explanation knowledge barrier entirely, and suggests that AI agents themselves can serve as a scalable, adaptable interface to ML explainability, opening a path toward natural-language explainability that generalizes beyond the fixed, single-purpose tools that...
Strong individual agents do not guarantee effective collaboration. Communication must align what one agent conveys with how another interprets and uses it. This dependency makes the communication edge a natural unit of optimization. We introduce Paired Automated Communication Optimization (PACO), which jointly optimize...
Feng Lin, Xiao-Tian Yu, Yi-Fan Yang et al.· 0 citations