mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

HARP: Measuring Harm Amplification in Multi-Agent LLM Systems

arXiv 2605.27489 ↗First posted 26 May 2026cs.CR cs.AI cs.LGcited by 2

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

Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-agent LLM systems decompose workflows across agents, tools, shared context, memory, and decision gates. This modularity improves interpretability, but creates a propagation risk: a bounded perturbation to one component can be reused by other agents and amplified into system-level harm. We introduce HARP (Harm Amplification through Role Perturbation), a trace-first methodology for studying local-to-global harm amplification in multi-agent LLM systems. HARP compares paired clean and perturbed executions and records specialist outputs, tool calls, memory reads/writes, guard events, oracle logs, latency, token cost, and decisions. We define local harm as deviation from targeted agents or corrupted channels, global harm as deviation over the full trace, and harm amplification as (H_global/H_local). This complements attack success rate with a measure of how strongly orchestration spreads harm beyond the attack point. We instantiate HARP in a finance-oriented seven-agent system with a deterministic decision gate and configurable attack harness for specialist compromise, collusion, shared-context corruption, and temporal or memory-persistent attacks. Across five defenses, prompt-only defenses preserve benign utility but leave high success and stealth; pre-tool and step-level guards reduce some failures with utility or latency costs; and IntegrityGuard, a trace-consistency defense, achieves the lowest attack success and global harm but introduces utility/cost trade-offs. Results show that single-specialist compromise produces the strongest amplification, shared-context corruption yields the highest attack success, and temporal persistence produces the largest malicious impact. HARP argues that secure multi-agent evaluation must measure not only bypass, but propagation.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 31 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 May 2026.

Builds on

31 of 34 references.

Closest ancestors · 14

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026ToolSafe: Enhancing Tool Invocation Safety of LLM-based agents via Proactive Step-level Guardrail and Feedback15 Jan
  2. 2026SafePro: Evaluating the Safety of Professional-Level AI Agents10 Jan
  3. 2026Memory Poisoning Attack and Defense on Memory Based LLM-Agents9 Jan
  4. 2025TAMAS: Benchmarking Adversarial Risks in Multi-Agent LLM Systems7 Nov
  5. 2025Who's the Mole? Modeling and Detecting Intention-Hiding Malicious Agents in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems7 Jul
  6. 2025SEC-bench: Automated Benchmarking of LLM Agents on Real-World Software Security Tasks13 Jun
  7. 2025AgentAuditor: Human-Level Safety and Security Evaluation for LLM Agents31 May
  8. 2025LlamaFirewall: An open source guardrail system for building secure AI agents6 May
  9. 2025ShieldAgent: Shielding Agents via Verifiable Safety Policy Reasoning26 Mar
  10. 2025AGrail: A Lifelong Agent Guardrail with Effective and Adaptive Safety Detection17 Feb
  11. 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents11 Oct
  12. 2024Agent Security Bench (ASB): Formalizing and Benchmarking Attacks and Defenses in LLM-based Agents3 Oct
2 more
  1. 2024GuardAgent: Safeguard LLM Agents by a Guard Agent via Knowledge-Enabled Reasoning13 Jun
  2. 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandbox25 Sep

Other references · 17

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  2. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  3. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  4. 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,906
  5. 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 1,906
  6. 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineeringcited by 1,628
  7. 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,332
  8. 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,124
  9. 2024BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructionscited by 527
  10. 2024WildGuard: Open One-Stop Moderation Tools for Safety Risks, Jailbreaks, and Refusals of LLMscited by 460
  11. 2023Formalizing and Benchmarking Prompt Injection Attacks and Defensescited by 328
  12. 2024TheAgentCompany: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Consequential Real World Taskscited by 306
5 more
  1. 2024ShieldGemma: Generative AI Content Moderation Based on Gemmacited by 224
  2. 2025Multi-SWE-bench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Issue Resolvingcited by 165
  3. 2025Qwen3Guard Technical Reportcited by 125
  4. 2025SWE-PolyBench: A multi-language benchmark for repository level evaluation of coding agentscited by 80
  5. 2025PolyGuard: A Multilingual Safety Moderation Tool for 17 Languagescited by 57

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Towards a Unified Misuse Monitoring Benchmark
  2. 2026Isolation as a First-Class Principle for LLM-Agent System Safety: Concepts, Taxonomy, Challenges and Future Directions
  3. 2026ChannelGuard: Safe Models Do Not Compose into Safe Multi-Agent Systems
  4. 2026Representation Transitions Reveal Emerging Safety Risks in Multi-Turn LLM Agents
  5. 2026SafeClawBench: Separating Semantic, Audit-Evidence, and Sandbox Harm in Tool-Using LLM Agents
  6. 2026Hiding in Plain Sight: Decoupling Pretext from Actuation for Skill Poisoning in LLM Agents
  7. 2026SkillBloat: Token Amplification Attacks via Skill Injection in LLM Coding Agents
  8. 2026Trust propagation and structural containment in Multi-agent LLM pipelines