Constitutional Gating and Deterministic Recovery for Multi-Agent LLM Negotiation: Ablations Against a Stateful Adversarial Gatekeeper

Masaaki Nakatsu, Reno Wang
10/8/2026
cs.CLcs.AI

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

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. 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.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{nakatsu2026constitutional,
  title  = {Constitutional Gating and Deterministic Recovery for Multi-Agent LLM Negotiation: Ablations Against a Stateful Adversarial Gatekeeper},
  author = {Masaaki Nakatsu and Reno Wang},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2610.11542},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2610.11542v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2610.11542.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2610.11542)

Discussion