Skip to content
← Back to explorer

I Can't Believe It's Corrupt: Evaluating Corruption in Multi-Agent Governance Systems

Vedanta S P, Ponnurangam Kumaraguru · Mar 19, 2026 · Citations: 0

General Multi Agent Rubric Rating Simulation Env
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

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.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

57/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Moderate-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence 65%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Rubric Rating

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"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."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Simulation Env

Includes extracted eval setup.

"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."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"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."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"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."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"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."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Rubric Rating
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Unit of annotation: Multi Dim Rubric
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Simulation Env
  • Agentic eval: Multi Agent
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Moderate
  • Use this page as: Secondary protocol comparison source

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

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.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • 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.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Rubric rating evaluation

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • 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…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • 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 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…

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Rubric Rating

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Simulation Env

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Create Account & Post a Job
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
Learn About Managed Service
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.
Join Now