Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates corruption in multi-agent governance systems powered by LLMs, simulating governmental roles under varying authority structures. They find that governance structure is a stronger predictor of corruption than the specific LLM used, particularly for models operating below saturation. The study highlights the limitations of lightweight safeguards and emphasizes the necessity of robust institutional design and stress testing before deploying LLM agents in real-world governance contexts.
Forget scaling laws: the *structure* of your AI governance system matters more than the specific LLM when it comes to preventing corruption.
Large language models are increasingly proposed as autonomous agents for high-stakes public workflows, yet we lack systematic evidence about whether they would follow institutional rules when granted authority. We present evidence that integrity in institutional AI should be treated as a pre-deployment requirement rather than a post-deployment assumption. We evaluate multi-agent governance simulations in which agents occupy formal governmental roles under different authority structures, and we score rule-breaking and abuse outcomes with an independent rubric-based judge across 28,112 transcript segments. While we advance this position, the core contribution is empirical: among models operating below saturation, governance structure is a stronger driver of corruption-related outcomes than model identity, with large differences across regimes and model--governance pairings. Lightweight safeguards can reduce risk in some settings but do not consistently prevent severe failures. These results imply that institutional design is a precondition for safe delegation: before real authority is assigned to LLM agents, systems should undergo stress testing under governance-like constraints with enforceable rules, auditable logs, and human oversight on high-impact actions.
