Co-evolution of social reward and punishment under institutional interventions

We investigate how peer and institutional incentives jointly shape the evolution of cooperation, social welfare, and enforcement efficiency in social dilemmas. In a Prisoners Dilemma with four strategies, unconditional cooperators (C), defectors (D), social punishers (SP), and social rewarders (SR), we allow decentralised peer incentives and centralised institutional incentives to act simultaneously, with the institution able to reward or punish any subset of strategies. In infinite well-mixed populations, we analyse the resulting four-strategy replicator dynamics, and in structured populations we use agent-based simulations on square lattices to study spatial effects and network reciprocity. Intervention schemes are evaluated by equilibrium states and evolutionary flow for infinite well-mixed populations, by cooperation levels and social welfare for structured populations, defined as aggregate population payoff net of institutional cost. We find that peer punishment most strongly promotes cooperation, whereas peer reward is more beneficial for social welfare. Institutionally rewarding peer incentive strategies substantially improves both cooperation and welfare, while subsidising unconditional cooperators has little impact. Under institutional punishment, directly penalising defectors is the only consistently effective policy; punishing peer incentive strategies dismantles decentralised incentives, reduces cooperation, and harms social welfare, showing that maximising cooperation does not necessarily optimise overall societal benefit. Our findings provide design principles for institutions seeking to balance cooperation promotion with welfare maximisation.

Reputation-driven Cooperation in Lattice-based Decentralized Federated Learning through Evolutionary Game Theory

Decentralized Federated Learning (DFL) has emerged as an optimal privacy-preserving solution; however, it remains vulnerable to opportunistic behaviors due to the absence of a central coordinator. While Evolutionary Game Theory (EGT) serves as a powerful framework for analyzing such behaviors, existing studies often assume that agents possess perfect rationality and maintain static strategies. To address these limitations, this paper proposes a novel EGT framework designed to analyze strategic evolution and enhance overall system performance. The primary contributions of this work are threefold: First, we model peer-to-peer (P2P) interactions on a lattice network structure under the assumption of bounded rationality. Second, we formulate a comprehensive payoff matrix incorporating training costs, communication overhead, and cooperative rewards, while tailoring a strategy update rule that captures spatial propagation dynamics. Third, we integrate a reputation-based reward-and-punishment mechanism to effectively deter free-riding behaviors. Simulation results demonstrate that the framework significantly outperforms the baseline. Specifically, it increases average accuracy from approximately 70% to 82%, elevates cooperation frequency to approach 100% (compared to below 5% in the baseline), and drops accuracy variance from around 0.40 to 0.002, thereby accelerating uniform convergence and ensuring system stability.

Humans Are More Diverse: Frontier LLMs Show Extreme Policies in Idealised AI Development Races

An AI development race creates a multi-agent safety dilemma. Each company can develop slowly and safely, or move faster while taking a risk that may remove its final reward. We use this repeated game to study strategic safety behaviour among large language model (LLM) agents in races with two to five players. However, a valid action does not show that an agent understands the game. We therefore place an audit gate before behavioural interpretation. We first verify the game engine, then test rule recall, state tracking, payoff calculation, and stability under different but equivalent task descriptions. We then compare LLM action sequences with an evolutionary game-theory benchmark and published human data, and explore differences across models, risk conditions, personas, and two- to five-player races. The audit shows that strong rule recall can coexist with weak state tracking and expected-payoff calculation. Providing verified arithmetic and changing the response representation can also change later actions, even when the game rules stay fixed. Across seven tested model endpoints, aggregate rates hide large differences in action sequences, responses to opponents, and responses to race position. Patterns across the tested three- to five-player races are also model-specific rather than a single effect of adding competitors. These results show why multi-agent AI-race simulations need validity checks and trajectory-level analysis before their outputs are described as strategic, human-like, or safety-aware. Our findings are exploratory and apply only to the tested models, prompts, and decoding settings.

Falling Behind Drives Unsafe Development in an Idealised AI Race Experiment

Technological races create tension between speed and safety: actors may gain by moving faster than competitors, even when risky development is harmful. This is prominent in debates about artificial intelligence (AI), where competitive pressure is often argued to incentivise riskier, less safety-conscious development. We study this using a framed behavioural experiment based on an idealised AI race, in which paired participants repeatedly chose between Safe and Unsafe development under an uncertain time horizon. Unsafe development gave faster progress and higher immediate payoffs but accumulated private risk up to a treatment-specific maximum of 10\%, 60\%, or 90\%; the race's competitive structure was held constant, and only this maximum risk varied. Neither the pre-registered comparison between risk levels nor the role of elicited risk preferences was supported by the data. Instead, exploratory analyses motivated by the task's repeated structure show that Unsafe behaviour is shaped less by risk preferences than by the evolving strategic state of the race: participants are more likely to choose Unsafe after their opponent does so, being ahead reduces Unsafe play while falling behind increases it, and first-round choices predict later behaviour. To interpret these effects we introduce a reduced evolutionary model with four strategies -- Always Safe, Always Unsafe, Conditionally Safe, and Conditionally Antisocial Safe -- which reproduces the treatment effect and shows how conditional Unsafe behaviour can be favoured by competitive race dynamics. Together, the experiment and model show that unsafe development can emerge from early behavioural momentum, opponent behaviour, and fear of falling behind, rather than from risk preferences alone, suggesting policy should focus on reducing competitive pressure and promoting cooperation in AI development rather than only individual risk.

Social welfare optimisation under institutional reward and punishment

Institutional incentives are widely used to promote cooperation among autonomous, self-regarding agents, from human societies to multi-agent and AI systems. Existing work typically treats incentive design as a bi-objective problem: minimise institutional cost while achieving a high long-run frequency of cooperation. Whether such schemes also maximise social welfare - total population payoff net of institutional expenditure - has remained largely unexplored. We develop a welfare-centric framework for institutional incentives in finite, well-mixed populations playing a social dilemma (Donation Game and Public Goods Game), considering both rewards for cooperators and punishments for defectors. For each mechanism, we derive explicit expressions for expected social welfare and characterise how it depends on incentive efficiency and selection intensity. Analytically, we identify parameter regimes where social welfare has a single optimal incentive level and regimes with qualitative phase transitions, in which welfare becomes non-monotonic with multiple local optima. We prove that any welfare-maximising incentive is either zero or concentrated around a simple closed-form target, and we provide an efficient algorithm to compute these optima. Comparing reward and punishment, we further derive close-formed conditions under which reward outperform punishment in terms of social welfare for any given budget. Overall, our results reveal a systematic gap between incentives optimised for cost or cooperation frequency and those that maximise welfare.

Training-Free Cultural Alignment of Large Language Models via Persona Disagreement

Large language models increasingly mediate decisions that turn on moral judgement, yet a growing body of evidence shows that their implicit preferences are not culturally neutral. Existing cultural alignment methods either require per-country preference data and fine-tuning budgets or assume white-box access to model internals that commercial APIs do not expose. In this work, we focus on this realistic black-box, public-data-only regime and observe that within-country sociodemographic disagreement, not consensus, is the primary steering signal. We introduce DISCA (Disagreement-Informed Steering for Cultural Alignment), an inference-time method that instantiates each country as a panel of World-Values-Survey-grounded persona agents and converts their disagreement into a bounded, loss-averse logit correction. Across 20 countries and 7 open-weight backbones (2B--70B), DISCA reduces cultural misalignment on MultiTP by 10--24% on the six backbones >=3.8B, and 2--7% on open-ended scenarios, without changing any weights. Our results suggest that inference-time calibration is a scalable alternative to fine-tuning for serving the long tail of global moral preferences.

Strategic commitments shape collective cybersecurity under AI inequality

The growing integration of AI into cybersecurity is reshaping the balance between attackers and defenders. When access to advanced AI-enabled defence tools is uneven, resource-limited defenders may be unable to adopt effective protection, creating persistent system vulnerabilities. We study the impact of differential AI access using an evolutionary game-theoretic model in a finite population. We first show that when high-capability defence is costly, the population is driven toward low-cost, weak-defence behaviour, sustaining attacks and weakening long-run security. To address this problem, we introduce differential access to AI defence tools by allowing defenders to choose between low- and high-capability protection based on their resources. We then examine the role of a small group of committed defenders who always adopt strong defence and influence others through social learning. Although commitment increases the prevalence of strong defence, it alone cannot stabilise secure outcomes due to high defence costs. We therefore incorporate a targeted subsidy to remove the cost disadvantage from committed defenders. Our analysis shows that subsidised commitment significantly increases strong defence adoption, suppresses successful attacks, and improves overall system resilience. Simulations across a broad parameter space confirm that subsidies consistently outperform commitment alone. In addition, social-welfare analysis shows improved defender outcomes while keeping attacker gains low. These findings suggest that targeted support for key defenders can be an effective mechanism for stabilising cybersecurity in AI-driven environments and provide a theoretical bridge between cybersecurity policy, AI governance, and strategic allocation of defensive AI capabilities.

Trust as Monitoring: Evolutionary Dynamics of User Trust and AI Developer Behaviour

AI safety is an increasingly urgent concern as the capabilities and adoption of AI systems grow. Existing evolutionary models of AI governance have primarily examined incentives for safe development and effective regulation, typically representing users' trust as a one-shot adoption choice rather than as a dynamic, evolving process shaped by repeated interactions. We instead model trust as reduced monitoring in a repeated, asymmetric interaction between users and AI developers, where checking AI behaviour is costly. Using evolutionary game theory, we study how user trust strategies and developer choices between safe (compliant) and unsafe (non-compliant) AI co-evolve under different levels of monitoring cost and institutional regimes. We complement the infinite-population replicator analysis with stochastic finite-population dynamics and reinforcement learning (Q-learning) simulations. Across these approaches, we find three robust long-run regimes: no adoption with unsafe development, unsafe but widely adopted systems, and safe systems that are widely adopted. Only the last is desirable, and it arises when penalties for unsafe behaviour exceed the extra cost of safety and users can still afford to monitor at least occasionally. Our results formally support governance proposals that emphasise transparency, low-cost monitoring, and meaningful sanctions, and they show that neither regulation alone nor blind user trust is sufficient to prevent evolutionary drift towards unsafe or low-adoption outcomes.

A Multi-Agent Framework for Medical AI: Leveraging Fine-Tuned GPT, LLaMA, and DeepSeek R1 for Evidence-Based and Bias-Aware Clinical Query Processing

Large language models (LLMs) show promise for healthcare question answering, but clinical use is limited by weak verification, insufficient evidence grounding, and unreliable confidence signalling. We propose a multi-agent medical QA framework that combines complementary LLMs with evidence retrieval, uncertainty estimation, and bias checks to improve answer reliability. Our approach has two phases. First, we fine-tune three representative LLM families (GPT, LLaMA, and DeepSeek R1) on MedQuAD-derived medical QA data (20k+ question-answer pairs across multiple NIH domains) and benchmark generation quality. DeepSeek R1 achieves the strongest scores (ROUGE-1 0.536 +- 0.04; ROUGE-2 0.226 +-0.03; BLEU 0.098 -+ 0.018) and substantially outperforms the specialised biomedical baseline BioGPT in zero-shot evaluation. Second, we implement a modular multi-agent pipeline in which a Clinical Reasoning agent (fine-tuned LLaMA) produces structured explanations, an Evidence Retrieval agent queries PubMed to ground responses in recent literature, and a Refinement agent (DeepSeek R1) improves clarity and factual consistency; an optional human validation path is triggered for high-risk or high-uncertainty cases. Safety mechanisms include Monte Carlo dropout and perplexity-based uncertainty scoring, plus lexical and sentiment-based bias detection supported by LIME/SHAP-based analyses. In evaluation, the full system achieves 87% accuracy with relevance around 0.80, and evidence augmentation reduces uncertainty (perplexity 4.13) compared to base responses, with mean end-to-end latency of 36.5 seconds under the reported configuration. Overall, the results indicate that agent specialisation and verification layers can mitigate key single-model limitations and provide a practical, extensible design for evidence-based and bias-aware medical AI.

More at Stake: How Payoff and Language Shape LLM Agent Strategies in Cooperation Dilemmas

As LLMs increasingly act as autonomous agents in interactive and multi-agent settings, understanding their strategic behavior is critical for safety, coordination, and AI-driven social and economic systems. We investigate how payoff magnitude and linguistic context shape LLM strategies in repeated social dilemmas, using a payoff-scaled Prisoner's Dilemma to isolate sensitivity to incentive strength. Across models and languages, we observe consistent behavioral patterns, including incentive-sensitive conditional strategies and cross-linguistic divergence. To interpret these dynamics, we train supervised classifiers on canonical repeated-game strategies and apply them to LLM decisions, revealing systematic, model- and language-dependent behavioral intentions, with linguistic framing sometimes matching or exceeding architectural effects. Our results provide a unified framework for auditing LLMs as strategic agents and highlight cooperation biases with direct implications for AI governance and multi-agent system design.