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

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.

Sometimes the Model doth Preach: Quantifying Religious Bias in Open LLMs through Demographic Analysis in Asian Nations

Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of generating opinions and propagating bias unknowingly, originating from unrepresentative and non-diverse data collection. Prior research has analysed these opinions with respect to the West, particularly the United States. However, insights thus produced may not be generalized in non-Western populations. With the widespread usage of LLM systems by users across several different walks of life, the cultural sensitivity of each generated output is of crucial interest. Our work proposes a novel method that quantitatively analyzes the opinions generated by LLMs, improving on previous work with regards to extracting the social demographics of the models. Our method measures the distance from an LLM's response to survey respondents, through Hamming Distance, to infer the demographic characteristics reflected in the model's outputs. We evaluate modern, open LLMs such as Llama and Mistral on surveys conducted in various global south countries, with a focus on India and other Asian nations, specifically assessing the model's performance on surveys related to religious tolerance and identity. Our analysis reveals that most open LLMs match a single homogeneous profile, varying across different countries/territories, which in turn raises questions about the risks of LLMs promoting a hegemonic worldview, and undermining perspectives of different minorities. Our framework may also be useful for future research investigating the complex intersection between training data, model architecture, and the resulting biases reflected in LLM outputs, particularly concerning sensitive topics like religious tolerance and identity.