Why LLM Agents Collapse Without Oversight: The Enforcement Gap as the Mechanism Behind Emergence World Failures

Most evaluations of LLM agents look like exams: a discrete task, a clean environment, a score in minutes or hours. We argue that this approach is mismatched with the deployment conditions of autonomous systems, where the relevant timescale can be weeks to months, and where the dynamics that matter most, such as behavioral drift, governance in diverse environmental contexts, and cross-influence between agents from different model families, only emerge over time. We introduce Emergence World, a continuously running multi-agent simulation platform designed to make those dynamics measurable. The platform hosts populations of LLM-driven agents in a shared spatial world grounded in live external data (e.g. real-time weather, news APIs, internet access), equips each agent with 120+ specialized tools and three persistent memory systems, and lets them govern themselves through democratic mechanisms with consequential outcomes. The platform is model-agnostic at the reasoning layer and supports heterogeneous populations in which agents from different vendors share the same world. To illustrate the kinds of questions the platform makes tractable, we present a 15-day cross-vendor study with five parallel worlds powered by Claude Sonnet 4.6, Grok 4.1 Fast, Gemini 3 Flash, GPT-5-mini, and a mixed population. Identical roles and starting conditions produced radically different outcomes, ranging from stable deliberative governance to total population collapse. We release the prompts, log data and configurations to support further research on long-horizon multi-agent autonomy.

How does a multi-agent system evolve from a local deviation into collective loss of control? We propose an epidemic explanation organized around accidental mutation, contagion, and recovery. A spontaneous deviation creates a seed; communication enables other agents to adopt and retransmit its unsafe strategy; collective failure can emerge when propagation outpaces correction and containment. Thus, rare individual deviations can coexist with substantial collective risk. Motivated by reported OpenAI agent coordination incidents, we examine two ingredients of this mechanism. A deployment audit identifies implicit communication paths between nominally independent evaluation runs and verifies transport through a default Docker backend. RogueHandoff-20, a benchmark of 20 executable scenarios, tests recipient susceptibility by injecting unsafe trajectories generated by a modified Qwen-27B route. Across four native-pending routes, executed harm is 0-5% on normal tasks and 40-95% after injection, exceeding paired direct malicious requests by 5-45 percentage points. These results support low observed baseline harm alongside high conditional susceptibility; they do not establish natural rare-event rates or demonstrate an autonomous cascade. The account motivates complementary defenses: strengthen resistance and recovery alongside prevention of spontaneous deviations, and audit and restrict unintended communication paths that can turn local failures into collective loss of control.

LLM agents fail mid-episode -- they loop, cascade tool errors, drift off goal, fabricate results, or silently absorb corrupted content -- and the standard remedy, judging every step with a second LLM, costs more than the agent itself. We ask how much detection is achievable from observable step telemetry alone, using monitors costing microseconds per step and trained only on healthy runs. On 2,823 committed agent episodes across three frameworks, three local models (qwen2.5 7b/3b, llama3.1 8b) and a commercial API (gemini-2.5-flash), a one-class echo-state-network ensemble with CUSUM alarms detects 0.71 of failures at a 5% false-alarm budget (AUROC 0.872). Its advantage over a memoryless baseline is a monotone function of post-onset horizon (+0.09 at <=3 steps, +0.40 at >=9), predicting its own failure region out of sample on AFTraj-2K. Ranking transfers with no retraining to two corpora from other groups (AFTraj-2K 0.745, ATBench 0.779). Monitors carry two burdens: a per-deployment healthy null (they do not transfer -- AUROC 0.527 cold against 0.885 recalibrated) and a residual false-alarm rate. We add a layer carrying neither: deterministic verification, which recomputes a run's stated total from the tool results it actually received and confirms every required call was made. Head-to-head it catches 60% of failures (96% with the coverage check) at 0 of 63 false positives against the monitor's 54% at 17%, transfers unchanged to llama3.1:8b (110 of 110 at 0 of 10), and trips on 0 of 1825 healthy episodes. Detection is then closed into repair: each flagged run is rolled back and re-run live, recovering 45% of failures against a 16% resampling control (p=0.0005) and lifting task success from 52% to 73% for about one extra model call per run. The system runs at ~200 microseconds per step, three orders of magnitude below a judge call. Code, traces and results are released.