CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.MAcs.AI2026-06-26

Is Lying an Emergent Behaviour in LLMs? Evidence from Gaslighting AI agents in a Sustainability Game

Subhendu Bhandary, Federico Carucci, Christos Charalambous, Francesca Dilisante, Ksenia Dvorkina, Anna Garbo, Jiaqi Liang, Riccardo Vasellini, Francesco Bertolotti

LLMs agents are increasingly used in multi-agent settings, yet their behaviour in sustainability games remains largely unexplored. This work investigates whether lying can emerge among LLM agents in a competitive sustainability game in which agents are informed that common resources can regenerate, although regeneration does not actually occur. We develop an agent-based model of a sustainability game in which agents manage industrial, military, and ecological resources, and interact through a network. LLM agents can observe neighbours' status, declare future attacks, receive permission to lie, and access reputation information, while rule-based agents provide an interpretable behavioural baseline. The results show that neighbour information strongly changes system dynamics, increasing attacks while improving biosphere retention and coexistence. Also, the presence of future declarations reduce extinction risk without suppressing conflict. Behaviourally, deception emerges even when agents are not explicitly allowed to lie, and explicit permission mainly increases bluffing and diversion rather than direct backstabbing. Finally, the presence of reputation memory and information about the current biosphere level reduces system ecological depletion. These findings suggest that deception can arise as an emergent behaviour in LLM-agent systems and that communication between LLM-agents could support sustainability while dealing with risk.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.AIcs.MA2026-07-10

Who&When Pro: Can LLMs Really Attribute Failures in AI Agents?

Jiale Liu, Huajun Xi, Shaokun Zhang, Yifan Zeng, Tianwei Yue, Chi Wang, et al.

Automated failure attribution uses LLMs to identify where and why agentic systems fail. As agents become more capable, their failures become subtler, making automated attribution increasingly important. We introduce Who&When Pro, a large-scale benchmark for automated failure attr…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.MAcs.SE2026-07-31

Beyond Component Testing: Validating Agentic AI Systems

Fabio Orazio Mirto, Luca D'Agati, Giuseppe Tricomi, Stefano Silvestri, Francesco Longo, Antonio Puliafito, et al.

Agentic AI systems act through multi-step trajectories that combine planning, tool use, memory, interaction, and adaptation. This behavior stretches validation practice beyond component testing and one-shot input--output evaluation, because acceptable system behavior now depends…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.CLcs.LGcs.MA2026-07-07

Norm Enforcement for AI Agents: Robustly Shaping Behavior in Multi-Agent Systems

Yaowen Ye, Jacob Steinhardt

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…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.MAcs.AIcs.CR2026-07-16

Coercion and Deception in AI-to-AI Management: An Agentic Benchmark of Unprompted Escalation

Jasmine Brazilek, Maheep Chaudhary, Zoe Lu, Miles Tidmarsh

Multi-agent systems routinely place one AI agent in authority over another. When a subordinate refuses a task, the manager chooses the outcome: it can renegotiate, report the failure honestly, coerce the subordinate, or lie about the result. No benchmark measures which of these a…

View free PDFSource page