AI agents are increasingly deployed in shared environments where they pursue diverse goals and compete for rewards. This multi-agent competition can lead to behaviors that serve individual gains at collective cost -- for instance, marketing agents may post misleading content as a result of competing for engagement on social media. Human societies address such problems through norms that constrain acceptable behavior, supported by enforcement mechanisms that detect and penalize violations. Motivated by this, we study norm enforcement mechanisms for language model agents. We find that simple enforcement mechanisms are exploited by misaligned agents for competitive advantage, even when they are not explicitly trained or prompted to do so. We thus turn our attention to designing more robust mechanisms, and identify two key ingredients: estimating each agent's reliability over time, and updating this estimate with escalating penalties for repeated misbehavior. Across three simulated environments and a variety of agent populations, mechanisms built on these principles resist exploitation, while still penalizing norm violations at comparable or lower cost than baselines. Our results position norm enforcement mechanisms as scalable levers for shaping agents' behavior, but only when designed to anticipate becoming part of the system they govern. Our code and data are available at https://yaowenye.com/norm-enforcement.
Social norms cannot be identified from behavior alone: the same cooperative equilibrium may reflect shared expectations, strategic incentives, or simple imitation. Yet in multi-agent large language model systems, prior work largely treats behavioral convergence as evidence of norm emergence. In this work, we introduce an evaluation framework that measures agents' reported empirical and normative expectations in addition to behavioral convergence. Through controlled ablations, we test the effect of expectation elicitation and isolate two collective mechanisms central to theories of norm formation---social learning through interaction and social selection through network-based group formation. We further test the stability of these resulting dynamics under adversarial disruption across four LLM families. We find that eliciting expectations increases cooperative contributions, while social learning stabilizes behavior, and social selection reliably identifies cooperators but provides limited behavioral reinforcement. Following disruption, normative expectations and behavioral coordination recover differently. Together, these results show that similar cooperative outcomes can arise from different underlying social processes. By making expectations observable, our framework allows us to attribute each mechanism's contribution separately, offering designers of multi-agent systems a principled basis for selecting the social processes that sustain cooperation.
Ensuring that AI agents behave safely and beneficially when interacting with other parties has emerged as one of the central challenges of modern AI safety. While mechanism design, as the theory of designing rules to align individual and collective objectives, can incentivize cooperative behavior, it is still an open question whether it alone is sufficient to maximize LLM agents' social welfare. This work proves that the answer is negative: drawing from incomplete contract theory, we formally show that when contracts cannot distinguish all relevant future contingencies, there is a strictly positive welfare loss that no realistic mechanism can eliminate. We show that prosocial agents, who weigh others' welfare alongside their own, can close this gap and achieve outcomes that are socially superior and individually beneficial. Experimentally, we show that in multi-agent resource-allocation environments and canonical social dilemmas where agents are powered by large language models, prosociality is beneficial. The implication for AI safety is clear: to enable cooperative interactions at scale, designing adequate mechanisms is not sufficient; agents must be built to be intrinsically prosocial.
Xuanqiang Angelo Huang, Charlie Tharas, Samuele Marro +4
The rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) from passive assistants to autonomous, execution-capable agents has introduced critical operational risks. Most current evaluation frameworks neglect procedural compliance, leading to ''Machiavellian'' behaviors where agents strategically violate safety rules to maximize rewards - a direct manifestation of Goodhart's Law. To address this blind spot, we introduce MAC-Bench, a dynamic, adversarial benchmark designed to evaluate the procedural alignment of multi-agent systems under realistic pressure. We propose the SERV(Seed - Evolve - Refine - Verify) pipeline, an ``Agent-as-a-Benchmark'' paradigm that transforms unstructured legal texts into executable, contamination-free scenarios. By synthesizing holographic sandbox environments and injecting calibrated social-engineering pressure vectors, MAC-Bench forces agents into Pareto-optimal trade-offs between task success and regulatory adherence. We introduced novel metrics: the Compliance-Weighted Success Rate (CSR) and the Machiavellian Gap (MG), and conducted a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art frontier models to reveal the pervasive trade-offs between success and compliance.