Norm Enforcement for AI Agents: Robustly Shaping Behavior in Multi-Agent Systems
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 15 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jul 2026.
Builds on
15 of 36 references.
References · 15
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
- 2024WildChat: 1M ChatGPT Interaction Logs in the Wildcited by 629
- 2023Towards Measuring the Representation of Subjective Global Opinions in Language Modelscited by 437
- 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 229
- 2025Emergent Misalignment: Narrow finetuning can produce broadly misaligned LLMscited by 172
- 2025Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AIcited by 163
- 2025Natural Emergent Misalignment from Reward Hacking in Production RLcited by 136
- 2024Prompt Infection: LLM-to-LLM Prompt Injection within Multi-Agent Systemscited by 133
- 2025Persona Features Control Emergent Misalignmentcited by 86
- 2024Feedback Loops With Language Models Drive In-Context Reward Hackingcited by 77
- 2024Algorithmic Collusion by Large Language Modelscited by 62
- 2024Correlated Proxies: A New Definition and Improved Mitigation for Reward Hackingcited by 50
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Reading the Room: Foundations, Design, and Challenges of Normative Competence in LLMs
- 2024Agent Alignment in Evolving Social Norms
- 2024Norm Violation Detection in Multi-Agent Systems using Large Language Models: A Pilot Study
- 2026Conformity Generates Collective Misalignment in AI Agents Societies
- 2025Validating Generative Agent-Based Models of Social Norm Enforcement: From Replication to Novel Predictions
- 2024Overcoming the Machine Penalty with Imperfectly Fair AI Agents
- 2024Normative Modules: A Generative Agent Architecture for Learning Norms that Supports Multi-Agent Cooperation
- 2026Why Do AI Agents Break Rules? How Framing, Context, and Social Signals Shape Compliance