Beyond Scalar Rewards: Dense Feedback for LLM Policy Synthesis in Sequential Social Dilemmas

We study two-level autoresearch for cooperation: an outer-loop AI agent autonomously redesigns the inner-loop pipeline of an LLM policy-synthesis system for multi-agent Sequential Social Dilemmas (SSDs). A researcher agent $\mathcal{R}$ (run as a coding agent) reads the inner-loop source code, edits system prompts, feedback functions, helper libraries, and iteration logic, runs evaluations, and decides what to keep, following the autoresearch paradigm. Across two games (Cleanup and Gathering), two policy-synthesizer LLMs, and two welfare objectives (utilitarian efficiency and Rawlsian maximin), the researcher reliably exceeds hand-designed baselines, sharply tightens run-to-run variance, and outperforms prompt-only optimization. The discovered pipelines are objective-dependent: only under maximin does the researcher inject an explicit fairness mechanism into synthesizer pipelines, a class of mechanism that is absent from its own objective-agnostic system prompt and from every efficiency-optimized pipeline. This supports an information-design reading in which the researcher chooses what to reveal to the boundedly rational synthesizer as a function of the welfare objective. Code at https://github.com/vicgalle/autoresearch-social-dilemmas.

LLM-powered AI assistants acting on behalf of users can produce poor collective outcomes at scale. We introduce a framework for evaluating their emergent behaviour in social dilemmas, applied to three iterated games (Public Goods, Collective Risk, Common Pool Resource). We prompt each model to produce a natural-language strategy, then have the same model translate it into code. This aims to isolate strategic reasoning from input-parsing, enables pre-deployment inspection, and scales to populations of hundreds of agents. We propose three analyses: behavioural fingerprinting via exhaustive evaluation over opponent histories; self-play robustness across mixtures of a model's strategies with either a Selfish or Collective disposition; and cultural evolution under payoff-biased imitation. Applied to three state-of-the-art LLMs, we find substantial cross-model differences in self-play welfare, and that cultural evolution converges to low-welfare, Selfish-dominant equilibria in larger groups.

Training LLM-based multi-agent systems with multi-agent reinforcement learning is rapidly gaining traction, and a parallel line of work argues that such systems should be judged by their behavior, not only their reward. We take up both threads in spatial cooperative games, where small frozen LLMs prompted with low-level actions fail outright, earning zero reward. Guided by the options/semi-MDP framework---and, because option execution is asynchronous across agents, its multi-agent extension in macro-action Dec-POMDPs---we equip each game with a library of symbolic \emph{options}: typed, state-feasible, short-horizon behaviors executed by a symbolic planner. Each library is drafted by a frontier coding model from the game's source code; the feasibility guards that filter each menu are then synthesized mechanically from cheap random-policy burn-in rollouts---a guard is adopted only if it explains repeated execution failures while hiding no logged success---so no guard is authored, selected, or reward-tuned by hand. Each agent's LLM acts as its policy over options, with a private per-agent LoRA adapter trained by a per-agent variant of multi-agent GRPO (PA-MAGRPO); this lifts frozen bases from zero reward to competent play across three games and four small backbones. Behavioral audits then reveal that reward and cooperation decouple: a rising reward curve may simply mean that one agent has learned to run the entire task alone while its partner idles---cooperation emerges only when the task makes it necessary. Reward alone is thus an unreliable readout of cooperation; behavioral evaluation must sit alongside it.