arXiv preprint ·
Constitutional Gating and Deterministic Recovery for Multi-Agent LLM Negotiation: Ablations Against a Stateful Adversarial Gatekeeper
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Multi-agent LLM systems negotiating with a stateful counterpart waste model calls in three ways: polite loops that never meet the counterpart's hidden acceptance condition, malformed outputs that trigger retries, and compliance deadlocks in which the counterpart demands something the agent must refuse. We study a three-part control stack - a 5-Pillar runtime constitution, a 4-tier swarm (Director, three-agent majority vote, Monitor, schema hard gate) and Cognitive Annealing (deterministic deadlock detection, atomic purge of the agent-side context, a canonical recovery message) - against a released adversarial Gatekeeper whose acceptance rules are fixed regular expressions and whose LLM only renders reply text. The testbed has a known solution: it measures whether the stack executes a constitution-aligned strategy against swarm drift and recovers from deadlock, not whether it discovers anything. In five runs per configuration (30 runs; Gemini 2.5 Pro agents, Claude Haiku 4.5 Gatekeeper) we find: (i) the constitution and Director make an acceptable framing possible but not reliable - 0/5 baseline unlocks versus 1/5 and 2/5 with the constitution; when the swarm unlocks it does so in one turn with 7-8 calls and about 15k tokens (67-73% below baseline); when it does not, it costs 17-38% more; (ii) the Monitor and hard gate do not reduce unlocks and leave an audit trail; (iii) under a honeytrap-to-compliance deadlock, LLM-only steering escapes 0 of 5 times while atomic purge plus a canonical strike escapes 5 of 5 (Fisher $p = 0.008$) at the same call budget, with zero calls for the strike. LLM-written strikes failed the deterministic pre-flight 5 of 5 times although an LLM Monitor had approved four. Pre-registered hypotheses on average call and token reduction were not supported. Cost is bounded in every arm by deterministic stop rules; the stack adds recovery at no extra model cost.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
FedAlphaEdit: Null-Space-Aligned Merging for Collaborative Knowledge Editing
When Charts Deceive Web Agents: A Paired Benchmark for Misleading Visualization-Grounded Tasks
Measuring and Mitigating Solution Mode Collapse in RLVR
COFFEQA: Counterfactual-Guided Few-Shot Distillation for LLM Question Answering
Clinician use of language models diverges from how the models are evaluated
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.