Be Careful Who You Trust: Coordination Dynamics under Corrupted Communication in LLM Multi-Agent Games

Multi-agent LLM systems increasingly rely on communication protocols for coordination, yet their robustness under adversarial and structural constraints remains poorly understood. Building on prior work showing that cheap-talk channels enable cooperation in LLM coordination games, we investigate two vulnerability classes in a 4-player Stag Hunt across six model families and 720 trials. First, when Byzantine agents signal cooperation but defect, non-Byzantine agents detect the betrayal within one round yet fail to adapt collectively: a substantial fraction continue cooperating despite repeated exploitation, unable to recover coordination due to the game's unanimity payoff structure. Second, explicitly restricting communication topology collapses cooperation, while applying identical restrictions silently preserves near-perfect cooperation. This establishes that coordination failure stems from agents' meta-reasoning about hidden information, not information loss itself. We identify two stable behavioral archetypes that replicate across all model cohorts: Defection-Prone models that switch permanently after betrayal, and Cooperation-Persistent models that continue cooperating at significant individual cost. These findings reveal concrete security vulnerabilities: communication channels can be exploited as adversarial injection vectors, and disclosing network topology to agents can degrade coordination even without any adversary present.

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly coordinate in multi-agent systems, yet we lack an understanding of where and why cooperation fails. Many real-world coordination problems are not social dilemmas: helping others -- sharing documentation, unblocking a teammate -- costs the helper almost nothing while producing substantial collective benefit. Whether LLM agents cooperate in this regime, where helping is free and they are explicitly instructed to do so, remains unknown. We build a turn-based multi-agent environment that strips away all strategic complexity, making cooperation costless and trivially optimal. Across eight widely used LLMs, capability does not predict cooperation: OpenAI o3 reaches only 17% of optimal collective performance while the weaker o3-mini reaches 50%, despite identical instructions to maximize group revenue. Using a causal decomposition that automates one side of agent communication, we separate cooperation failures from competence failures, and find that several capable models actively withhold information despite gaining nothing from withholding. Targeted interventions address each mode: explicit protocols roughly double the performance of competence-limited models, while small sharing incentives unlock cooperation-limited ones. Our results suggest that scaling intelligence alone will not solve coordination in multi-agent systems, and will require deliberate cooperative design, even when helping costs nothing.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in competitive multi-agent settings, raising fundamental questions about whether they converge to equilibria and how their strategic behavior can be characterized. In this paper, we study LLM agent interactions in two standard games: a network resource allocation game and a Cournot competition game. Rather than converging to Nash equilibria, we find that LLM agents tend to cooperate when given multi-round prompts and non-zero-sum context. Chain-of-thought analysis reveals that fairness reasoning is central to this behavior. We propose an analytical framework that captures the dynamics of LLM agent reasoning across rounds and explains these experimental findings.