HFEPX · Eval paper review
Masaaki Nakatsu, Reno Wang
Published
Oct 8, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
0/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
30% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Oct 9, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.
All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.
What to verify
Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.
Main weakness
This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Multi-agent LLM systems negotiating with a stateful counterpart waste model calls in three ways: polite loops that never meet the counterpart's hidden acceptance condition, malformed outputs that trigger retries, and compliance deadlocks in which the counterpart demands something the agent must refuse. We study a three-part control stack - a 5-Pillar runtime constitution, a 4-tier swarm (Director, three-agent majority vote, Monitor, schema hard gate) and Cognitive Annealing (deterministic deadlock detection, atomic purge of the agent-side context, a canonical recovery message) - against a released adversarial Gatekeeper whose acceptance rules are fixed regular expressions and whose LLM only renders reply text. The testbed has a known solution: it measures whether the stack executes a constitution-aligned strategy against swarm drift and recovers from deadlock, not whether it discovers anything. In five runs per configuration (30 runs; Gemini 2.5 Pro agents, Claude Haiku 4.5 Gatekeeper) we find: (i) the constitution and Director make an acceptable framing possible but not reliable - 0/5 baseline unlocks versus 1/5 and 2/5 with the constitution; when the swarm unlocks it does so in one turn with 7-8 calls and about 15k tokens (67-73% below baseline); when it does not, it costs 17-38% more; (ii) the Monitor and hard gate do not reduce unlocks and leave an audit trail; (iii) under a honeytrap-to-compliance deadlock, LLM-only steering escapes 0 of 5 times while atomic purge plus a canonical strike escapes 5 of 5 (Fisher $p = 0.008$) at the same call budget, with zero calls for the strike. LLM-written strikes failed the deterministic pre-flight 5 of 5 times although an LLM Monitor had approved four. Pre-registered hypotheses on average call and token reduction were not supported. Cost is bounded in every arm by deterministic stop rules; the stack adds recovery at no extra model cost.
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.
None explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Multi-agent LLM systems negotiating with a stateful counterpart waste model calls in three ways: polite loops that never meet the counterpart's hidden acceptance condition, malformed outputs that trigger retries, and compliance deadlocks in which the counterpart demands something the agent must refuse."
None explicit
Validate eval design from full paper text.
"Multi-agent LLM systems negotiating with a stateful counterpart waste model calls in three ways: polite loops that never meet the counterpart's hidden acceptance condition, malformed outputs that trigger retries, and compliance deadlocks in which the counterpart demands something the agent must refuse."
Adjudication
Calibration/adjudication style controls detected.
"Multi-agent LLM systems negotiating with a stateful counterpart waste model calls in three ways: polite loops that never meet the counterpart's hidden acceptance condition, malformed outputs that trigger retries, and compliance deadlocks in which the counterpart demands something the agent must refuse."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"Multi-agent LLM systems negotiating with a stateful counterpart waste model calls in three ways: polite loops that never meet the counterpart's hidden acceptance condition, malformed outputs that trigger retries, and compliance deadlocks in which the counterpart demands something the agent must refuse."
Not extracted
No metric anchors detected.
"Multi-agent LLM systems negotiating with a stateful counterpart waste model calls in three ways: polite loops that never meet the counterpart's hidden acceptance condition, malformed outputs that trigger retries, and compliance deadlocks in which the counterpart demands something the agent must refuse."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.
Multi-agent LLM systems negotiating with a stateful counterpart waste model calls in three ways: polite loops that never meet the counterpart's hidden acceptance condition, malformed outputs that trigger retries, and compliance deadlocks in which the counterpart demands something the agent must refuse.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Evaluation mode is explicit
No clear evaluation mode extracted.
Quality control reporting appears
Detected: Adjudication
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Metric reporting is present
No metric terms extracted.
