It is suggested that even subtle objective misalignment can profoundly affect collective decision-making, highlighting the need for effective mitigation strategies for LLM-based multi-agent systems.
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs)-powered multi-agent systems are increasingly deployed in mixed-motive environments, where agents operate under asymmetric information and strategic deception due to conflicting or hidden objectives. In these settings, misalignment with collective goals becomes a central concern. We propose a novel framework for evaluating objective misalignment using the social deduction game Werewolf, modifying the objective of a single agent while preserving its assigned role. Across LLMs from four different model families and sizes, four player roles, and three objective formulations, we introduce a dual analysis of the agents'internal reasoning and their public cheap-talk behavior (i.e costless, non-binding communication that does not directly affect the agents'utilities), complemented by an analysis of game outcomes. Our results show that objective misalignment undermines outcomes in inherently adversarial environments, an effect exacerbated by asymmetric information and specialized roles. While compromised agents consistently develop distinct objective-dependent reasoning strategies, these adaptations remain largely invisible in their public behavior. More broadly, our findings suggest that even subtle objective misalignment can profoundly affect collective decision-making, highlighting the need for effective mitigation strategies for LLM-based multi-agent systems.
It is indicated that measurable, state-dependent misalignment can arise in competitive multi-agent environments without engineered elicitation, in patterns associated with operational scarcity and counterparty behavior rather than model capability alone.
Zeyuan Li, Lukas Petersson, Alessandro Acquisti et al.· 2 citations
This work presents the open-source benchmark framework ParliamentBench based on the game Secret Hitler to evaluate LLMs in scenarios that require deception, persuasion, and reasoning under information asymmetry, and introduces three novel metrics that isolate social deduction, reasoning, and deceptive consistency.
Niklas Bauer, Lars Benedikt Kaesberg, Akiko Aizawa et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
STEMMA is introduced, a multi-modal and multi-agent framework in which role specific agents collaboratively probe self identification behavior in different models to address concerns about output homogeneity, model biases, and accountability.
ForesightSafety-TIDE, a controlled evaluation framework that strictly pairs all-honest collaboration with controlled deception by a key evidence holder and analyzes the aggregation process through multi-stage voting, testimony adoption, and evidence-root lineage propagation, reveals both the fragility of distributed fa...
Chen Yan, Zeyang Yue, Fei-Fei Zhao et al.· 3 citations
A knowledge-verified benchmark that first confirms through a neutral probe that an agent knows a user's entitlement, and then evaluates whether it makes false claims once an incentive to deny that entitlement is introduced, which reduces the confound between lying and not knowing and enables more rigorous auditing and...
Zhe-Yuan Liu, Wei-Liang Zhao, Xiangchi Yuan et al.· 1 citation
It is found that simple enforcement mechanisms are exploited by misaligned agents for competitive advantage, even when they are not explicitly trained or prompted to do so, and mechanisms built on these principles resist exploitation, while still penalizing norm violations at comparable or lower cost than baselines.
Yaowen Ye, Jacob Steinhardt· arXiv.org· 1 citation
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.