Quantifying Misalignment Between Agents: Towards a Sociotechnical Understanding of Alignment
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Existing work on the alignment problem has focused mainly on (1) qualitative descriptions of the alignment problem; (2) attempting to align AI actions with human interests by focusing on value specification and learning; and/or (3) focusing on a single agent or on humanity as a monolith. Recent sociotechnical approaches highlight the need to understand complex misalignment among multiple human and AI agents. We address this gap by adapting a computational social science model of human contention to the alignment problem. Our model quantifies misalignment in large, diverse agent groups with potentially conflicting goals across various problem areas. Misalignment scores in our framework depend on the observed agent population, the domain in question, and conflict between agents' weighted preferences. Through simulations, we demonstrate how our model captures intuitive aspects of misalignment across different scenarios. We then apply our model to two case studies, including an autonomous vehicle setting, showcasing its practical utility. Our approach offers enhanced explanatory power for complex sociotechnical environments and could inform the design of more aligned AI systems in real-world applications.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Jun 2024.
Builds on
8 of 40 references.
References · 8
- 2017CARLA: An Open Urban Driving Simulatorcited by 2,449
- 2020Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignmentcited by 448
- 2018Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: a research directioncited by 447
- 2024Cooperate or Collapse: Emergence of Sustainable Cooperation in a Society of LLM Agentscited by 125
- 2022The Ghost in the Machine has an American accent: value conflict in GPT-3cited by 105
- 2020AI Research Considerations for Human Existential Safety (ARCHES)cited by 33
- 2020Value Alignment Verificationcited by 20
- 2022Current and Near-Term AI as a Potential Existential Risk Factorcited by 14
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 4; 2026: 3.
8 papers.
- 2026ToolSafe: Enhancing Tool Invocation Safety of LLM-based agents via Proactive Step-level Guardrail and Feedbackcited by 72
- 2025Fully Autonomous AI Agents Should Not be Developedcited by 45
- 2025A Survey on Autonomy-Induced Security Risks in Large Model-Based Agentscited by 29
- 2024Multi-Agent Large Language Models for Conversational Task-Solvingcited by 24
- 2026Tool Use Enables Undetectable Steganography in Multi-Agent LLM Systemscited by 5
- 2025A Survey on Hypergame Theory: Modelling Misaligned Perceptions and Nested Beliefs for Multi-Agent Systemscited by 2
- 2026Trustworthy Agent Network: Trust in Agent Networks Must Be Baked In, Not Bolted Oncited by 1
- 2025Hypergame Rationalisability: Solving Agent Misalignment In Strategic Playcited by 0
- 2026Tool Use Enables Undetectable Steganography in Multi-Agent LLM Systems25 Jun 2026
- 2026Trustworthy Agent Network: Trust in Agent Networks Must Be Baked In, Not Bolted On18 May 2026
- 2026ToolSafe: Enhancing Tool Invocation Safety of LLM-based agents via Proactive Step-level Guardrail and Feedback15 Jan 2026
- 2025Hypergame Rationalisability: Solving Agent Misalignment In Strategic Play12 Dec 2025
- 2025A Survey on Hypergame Theory: Modelling Misaligned Perceptions and Nested Beliefs for Multi-Agent Systems25 Jul 2025
- 2025A Survey on Autonomy-Induced Security Risks in Large Model-Based Agents30 Jun 2025
- 2025Fully Autonomous AI Agents Should Not be Developed4 Feb 2025
- 2024Multi-Agent Large Language Models for Conversational Task-Solving30 Oct 2024