arXiv:2611.12959v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Monitoring a visible channel can change how learned agents communicate without removing why communication is useful. We test this distinction in an end-to-end game where a sender and receiver learn a discrete protocol and route policy without communication supervision. In two independent 20-seed batches, 20/20 and 19/20 protocols form. Online partial coverage increases shadow-route share over no monitoring by .701 [.574,.826] and .575 [.412,.737], while task accuracy remains .905/.913 and signed frozen message contribution remains .592/.563. Complete coverage removes most selective migration without removing communication. Frozen interventions, including a fresh pre-outcome confirmation, show that route is semantic: joint message–route shuffling changes .668 of receiver predictions and route alone retains .388 accuracy versus .25 chance. A corrected explicit-silence cost makes 18/20 policies fully silent and lowers mean sending to .050, but its strict complete-suppression gate fails because two seeds retain communication. Failed semantic-evasion and operational gates further bound the result. The evidence supports adaptive reallocation of a joint message–route code under partial monitoring, not open-world route discovery, emergent encryption, or a universal defense.
Abstract: Monitoring a visible channel can change how learned agents communicate without removing why communication is useful. We test this distinction in an end-to-end game where a sender and receiver learn a discrete protocol and route policy without communication supervision. In two independent 20-seed batches, 20/20 and 19/20 protocols form. Online partial coverage increases shadow-route share over no monitoring by .701 [.574,.826] and .575 [.412,.737], while task accuracy remains .905/.913 and signed frozen message contribution remains .592/.563. Complete coverage removes most selective migration without removing communication. Frozen interventions, including a fresh pre-outcome confirmation, show that route is semantic: joint message–route shuffling changes .668 of receiver predictions and route alone retains .388 accuracy versus .25 chance. A corrected explicit-silence cost makes 18/20 policies fully silent and lowers mean sending to .050, but its strict complete-suppression gate fails because two seeds retain communication. Failed semantic-evasion and operational gates further bound the result. The evidence supports adaptive reallocation of a joint message–route code under partial monitoring, not open-world route discovery, emergent encryption, or a universal defense.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org