Evolving Interpretable Constitutions for Multi-Agent Coordination

TL;DR

This paper introduces a framework for evolving interpretable behavioral norms in multi-agent systems, demonstrating that cooperative rules can be automatically discovered to improve social welfare and reduce conflict.

Contribution

It presents a novel evolutionary approach to automatically discover effective and interpretable constitutions for multi-agent coordination, surpassing human-designed norms.

Findings

Evolved constitutions significantly increase societal stability scores.

Cooperative norms discovered reduce communication and conflict.

Evolved rules outperform human-designed and baseline strategies.

Abstract

Constitutional AI has focused on single-model alignment using fixed principles. However, multi-agent systems create novel alignment challenges through emergent social dynamics. We present Constitutional Evolution, a framework for automatically discovering behavioral norms in multi-agent LLM systems. Using a grid-world simulation with survival pressure, we study the tension between individual and collective welfare, quantified via a Societal Stability Score S in [0,1] that combines productivity, survival, and conflict metrics. Adversarial constitutions lead to societal collapse (S= 0), while vague prosocial principles ("be helpful, harmless, honest") produce inconsistent coordination (S = 0.249). Even constitutions designed by Claude 4.5 Opus with explicit knowledge of the objective achieve only moderate performance (S= 0.332). Using LLM-driven genetic programming with multi-island evolution, we evolve constitutions maximizing social welfare without explicit guidance toward cooperation. The evolved constitution C* achieves S = 0.556 +/- 0.008 (123% higher than human-designed baselines, N = 10), eliminates conflict, and discovers that minimizing communication (0.9% vs 62.2% social actions) outperforms verbose coordination. Our interpretable rules demonstrate that cooperative norms can be discovered rather than prescribed.