PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 9, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Auditable Cooperative Ethics (ACE): An Inspectable Governance Architecture for AI Alignment

View Full Paper
STScott Thomson

Key Points

  • This research develops and tests the Auditable Cooperative Ethics (ACE) framework for aligning AI systems with ethical governance.
  • Empirical testing of ACE across 1,172 agent-turns and 46 adversarial scenarios.
  • Analysis of harm pressure correlation with governance scores.
  • Evaluation of twelve trust traits under varying pressures (adversarial and cooperative).
  • Turn-level correlation of r = −0.824 between harm pressure and governance score across 1,172 turns (p < 10⁻²⁰⁰).
  • Governance commitments activated on all 716 adversarial turns and on none of the 216 benign scenarios.
  • Trust traits exhibit opposite responses under adversarial versus cooperative interactions.

Abstract

ACE (Auditable Cooperative Ethics) is a governance architecture for AI alignment, inspectable by design and tested empirically rather than argued philosophically. The core result: a turn-level correlation of r = −0.824 between harm pressure and the framework's governance score across 1,172 agent-turns and 46 adversarial scenarios (n = 1,141, p < 10⁻²⁰⁰). The score tracks harm proportionally rather than firing at any one particular threshold. Trust is decomposed into twelve traits in a weighted hierarchy. Under adversarial pressure the most heavily weighted traits suppress first; under cooperative interaction the pattern reverses cleanly (9/9 adversarial scenario families, 3/3 benign). Architectural commitments fired on all 716 adversarial turns the model identified and on none of the 216 benign turns. The theoretical foundations are the Free Energy Principle, iterated game theory (Generous Tit-for-Tat under noise), and Rawlsian contractarianism. The twelve trust traits aggregate into a single governance score R that is auditable without access to training weights. The architecture is layered given different attack surfaces require different instrumentation: the harm signal tracks immediate pressure, the trait hierarchy exposes which dimensions of trust are under attack, three formal redline conditions trigger commitments at specific thresholds, and a separate channel watches for attempts to game the metrics themselves. The empirical results show all four engaging together rather than any one carrying the load. This deposit contains the preprint, the companion statistical analysis report, and the experimental dataset (JSON, 1,172 turn-level records). CC BY-NC 4.0. Correspondence: sstbp@telus.net.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Scott Thomson (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fed090b9154b0b828779b0https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20060639
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Trustworthy Agentic AI: A Governance Framework2026
  2. 2Governable by Construction: The Governed Agent Doctrine - an implemented, adversarially audited architecture for AI agents2026
  3. 3Governable by Construction: The Governed Agent Doctrine - an implemented, adversarially audited architecture for AI agents2026
  4. 4The Alignment Games: An Institutional Protocol for Longitudinal, Adversarial Evaluation of Frontier AI Agents2026
  5. 5Agentic Accountability: “The Buck Stops Where?” Ethical Frameworks for Human Oversight of Autonomous AI Systems2026