Smarter Saboteurs, Better Fixers: Scaling & Security in Linear Multi-Agent Workflows
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
As LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) are deployed in the wild, the resilience of their collaboration structures against adversarial compromise becomes a critical safety concern. Attackers may leverage prompt-injection or jailbreaking to sabotage individual agents within MAS workflows, but the interaction between model scaling and system-level resilience remains poorly understood. This paper investigates how model scale affects the security of linear multi-agent workflows. Our experiments across scales of two open-weight model families on the HumanEval benchmark reveal a compliance-correction symmetry: larger models are far more likely to faithfully execute malicious instructions, with the control-to-malicious performance drop reaching 53.7pp at 27B in uncorrected pipelines. However, appending a lightweight terminal Fixer stage collapses this to 0.6pp and restores statistical parity with control-level performance, demonstrating that strictly linear collaboration structures can be viable and resilient to adversaries at this scale, and suggesting that the brittleness previously attributed to linear topology may stem from a lack of correction.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 9 of its 16 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jun 2026.
Builds on
9 of 16 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2025MASTER: Multi-Agent Security Through Exploration of Roles and Topological Structures -- A Comprehensive Framework24 May
- 2024Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Training10 Jan
Other references · 7
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
- 2022Emergent Abilities of Large Language Modelscited by 2,512
- 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 1,808
- 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 604
- 2023Self-collaboration Code Generation via ChatGPTcited by 258
- 2024On the Resilience of LLM-Based Multi-Agent Collaboration with Faulty Agentscited by 99
- 2024UniDebugger: Hierarchical Multi-Agent Framework for Unified Software Debuggingcited by 35
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026FlowSteer: Prompt-Only Workflow Steering Exposes Planning-Time Vulnerabilities in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
- 2025Exposing Weak Links in Multi-Agent Systems under Adversarial Prompting
- 2026Scaling LLM-Driven Multi-Agent Systems: Design Principles and Architectural Scalability Analysis
- 2024AgentMonitor: A Plug-and-Play Framework for Predictive and Secure Multi-Agent Systems
- 2026REDAgentBench: Executable Red Teaming and Faithful Measurement of LLM Agent Systems
- 2026Isolation as a First-Class Principle for LLM-Agent System Safety: Concepts, Taxonomy, Challenges and Future Directions
- 2026ChainFuzzer: Greybox Fuzzing for Workflow-Level Multi-Tool Vulnerabilities in LLM Agents
- 2026The Scaling Laws of Skills in LLM Agent Systems