mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

Towards Optimal Agentic Architectures for Offensive Security Tasks

arXiv 2604.18718 ↗First posted 20 Apr 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 4

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic security systems increasingly audit live targets with tool-using LLMs, but prior systems fix a single coordination topology, leaving unclear when additional agents help and when they only add cost. We treat topology choice as an empirical systems question. We introduce a controlled benchmark of 20 interactive targets (10 web/API and 10 binary), each exposing one endpoint-reachable ground-truth vulnerability, evaluated in whitebox and blackbox modes. The core study executes 600 runs over five architecture families, three model families, and both access modes, with a separate 60-run long-context pilot reported only in the appendix. On the completed core benchmark, detection-any reaches 58.0% and validated detection reaches 49.8%. MAS-Indep attains the highest validated detection rate (64.2%), while SAS is the strongest efficiency baseline at 0.058 per validated finding. Whitebox materially outperforms blackbox (67.0% vs. 32.7% validated detection), and web materially outperforms binary (74.3% vs. 25.3%). Bootstrap confidence intervals and paired target-level deltas show that the dominant effects are observability and domain, while some leading whitebox topologies remain statistically close. The main result is a non-monotonic cost-quality frontier: broader coordination can improve coverage, but it does not dominate once latency, token cost, and exploit-validation difficulty are taken into account.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 14 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Apr 2026.

Builds on

14 of 43 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Multi-Agent Penetration Testing AI for the Web28 Aug
  2. 2025AI Agent Smart Contract Exploit Generation8 Jul
  3. 2024Teams of LLM Agents can Exploit Zero-Day Vulnerabilities2 Jun
  4. 2024LLM Agents can Autonomously Exploit One-day Vulnerabilities11 Apr

Other references · 10

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,502
  2. 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,242
  3. 2023InterCode: Standardizing and Benchmarking Interactive Coding with Execution Feedbackcited by 234
  4. 2024Cybench: A Framework for Evaluating Cybersecurity Capabilities and Risks of Language Modelscited by 161
  5. 2023Purple Llama CyberSecEval: A Secure Coding Benchmark for Language Modelscited by 134
  6. 2024CyberSecEval 2: A Wide-Ranging Cybersecurity Evaluation Suite for Large Language Modelscited by 88
  7. 2026Single-Agent LLMs Outperform Multi-Agent Systems on Multi-Hop Reasoning Under Equal Thinking Token Budgetscited by 29
  8. 2025Single-agent or Multi-agent Systems? Why Not Both?cited by 28
  9. 2026Rethinking the Value of Multi-Agent Workflow: A Strong Single Agent Baselinecited by 21
  10. 2026EVMbench: Evaluating AI Agents on Smart Contract Securitycited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 13 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.

4 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026ClawSentry: A Progressive Multi-Tier Security Monitor for Safeguarding Autonomous LLM Agents
  2. 2026BekchiAI: Measuring, Observing, and Controlling LLM Agents in One Click
  3. 2026Agentic Security: A Systematization of Tools, Failure Modes, and Design Laws for LLM-Driven Penetration Testing
  4. 2026Beyond Success Rate: Cost-Aware Evaluation of Offensive and Defensive Security Agents
  5. 2026Red-Teaming the Agentic Red-Team
  6. 2025SoK: Measuring What Matters for Closed-Loop Security Agents
  7. 2026Baselines Before Architecture: Evaluating Coding Agents for Autonomous Penetration Testing
  8. 2026Architecture Matters for Multi-Agent Security