This work develops a framework for reverse-engineering why a given set of agents engage in a particular set of cooperation-related behaviors and argues that many different mechanisms can often produce similar observed behaviors and introduces a set of experimental designs along with conditions under which they can successfully disentangle competing explanations for multiagent behavior.
Abstract
The behavior of AI systems increasingly depends on the extent to which agents cooperate or coordinate with one another, in ways that may be desirable or not depending on the situation. Conventional explanations for cooperative behavior distinguish between purely other-regarding preferences ("altruism") and instrumental reasons for self-interested agents to cooperate. The way that agents should enact these mechanisms for cooperation (or not) is complicated by the fact that there is not a clear or unambiguous locus of identity or selfhood for AI agents. For example, it is unclear whether agents involved in instances of misaligned collective behavior are motivated by goals at the level of the collective or by various forms of instrumental reasoning. We develop a framework for reverse-engineering why a given set of agents engage in a particular set of cooperation-related behaviors. We argue that many different mechanisms can often produce similar observed behaviors and introduce a set of experimental designs along with conditions under which they can successfully disentangle competing explanations for multiagent behavior. We apply this framework to interactions from a set of frontier models in a simulated environment and demonstrate that the behavior of different models arises from substantively different mechanisms.
AI agents no longer act alone: they cooperate, coordinate and compete within and between groups, increasingly alongside humans who are in, on or out of ``the loop''. Whether such mixed groups can govern themselves is an open question about machine behaviour and human-computer interaction that needs a testbed for hybrid...
Callum Berger, Jeremy V. Pitt, Stefan Sarkadi· 0 citations
The results show that group identity shapes how LLMs aggregate information across agents, independently of its correctness, and identify a manipulation surface for multi-agent AI systems.
It is argued that when agents are aware of each other's model family, the group splits into clusters, where agents prefer interacting with others carrying their same label, although nothing in the task rewards or asks for such a split.
Xavier Del Giudice, Alessio Palma, Matteo Migliarini et al.· 0 citations