Tool Use Enables Undetectable Steganography in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Increasingly autonomous agentic AI systems pose novel multi-agent risks, such as secret collusion via covert communication channels. The natural defence to these collusion attempts is to monitor plain-text communication, but the efficacy of monitors has been called into doubt by increasingly sophisticated model steganography; indeed, some theoretical schemes have been proposed that are information-theoretically or computationally indistinguishable from good-faith plain-text communication. In this paper, we demonstrate that the complexity of these schemes is no longer a safety barrier, as agentic coding models can already produce undetectable stegosystems when given realistic tool usage, such as code execution or accessing research papers through web searches. Agents also adapt when key ingredients are missing, for example, by adding model-sampling components or implementing related keyed coding schemes. We then frame tacit steganographic coordination between agents as a Schelling-point problem and introduce coordination metrics for estimating when two agents are likely to select compatible schemes without explicit prior agreement. Our results suggest a shift in the threat model for covert communication between AI agents, where the main barrier is no longer whether frontier agents can understand and implement sophisticated stegosystems, but coordination: whether independently acting agents can converge on compatible schemes, keys, and parameters. We find substantial convergence on broad scheme families but limited strict one-shot coordination, suggesting that shared artefacts, repeated interaction, and tool-mediated search are the settings where covert communication risks are most acute. Overall, our findings provide empirical grounding for the recent strategic confinement hypothesis, which assumes that capable agents can construct covert channels that survive monitoring.
Key facts. Cited by 5 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 45 of its 90 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jun 2026.
Builds on
45 of 90 references.
Closest ancestors · 4
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Agentic Misalignment: How LLMs Could Be Insider Threats5 Oct
- 2025AgentAlign: Navigating Safety Alignment in the Shift from Informative to Agentic Large Language Models29 May
- 2024Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agents19 Dec
- 2024Secret Collusion among AI Agents: Multi-Agent Deception via Steganography12 Feb
Other references · 41
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
- 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
- 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,988
- 2023Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debatecited by 1,784
- 2021A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignmentcited by 1,055
- 2023Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debatecited by 1,011
- 2023A Watermark for Large Language Modelscited by 725
- 2018AI safety via debatecited by 400
- 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscationcited by 384
- 2022The Effects of Reward Misspecification: Mapping and Mitigating Misaligned Modelscited by 328
29 more
- 2023AI Alignment: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 263
- 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safetycited by 249
- 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 229
- 2023Undetectable Watermarks for Language Modelscited by 226
- 2023Playing repeated games with Large Language Modelscited by 217
- 2025MultiAgentBench: Evaluating the Collaboration and Competition of LLM agentscited by 178
- 2024EASYTOOL: Enhancing LLM-based Agents with Concise Tool Instructioncited by 154
- 2023Theory of Mind for Multi-Agent Collaboration via Large Language Modelscited by 135
- 2024Emergent social conventions and collective bias in LLM populationscited by 123
- 2023Three Bricks to Consolidate Watermarks for Large Language Modelscited by 84
- 2024Embodied LLM Agents Learn to Cooperate in Organized Teamscited by 82
- 2024An Undetectable Watermark for Generative Image Modelscited by 81
- 2019Neural Linguistic Steganographycited by 78
- 2023LLM-Coordination: Evaluating and Analyzing Multi-agent Coordination Abilities in Large Language Modelscited by 68
- 2024Hidden in Plain Text: Emergence & Mitigation of Steganographic Collusion in LLMscited by 55
- 2022Perfectly Secure Steganography Using Minimum Entropy Couplingcited by 44
- 2024Pseudorandom Error-Correcting Codescited by 44
- 2022The Ethical Need for Watermarks in Machine-Generated Languagecited by 32
- 2025Large language models can learn and generalize steganographic chain-of-thought under process supervisioncited by 32
- 2021Data Hiding with Deep Learning: A Survey Unifying Digital Watermarking and Steganographycited by 24
- 2024Safety cases for frontier AIcited by 18
- 2025Group size effects and collective misalignment in LLM multi-agent systemscited by 16
- 2024Multi-Bit Distortion-Free Watermarking for Large Language Modelscited by 11
- 2024Quantifying Misalignment Between Agents: Towards a Sociotechnical Understanding of Alignmentcited by 8
- 2024Aligning Individual and Collective Objectives in Multi-Agent Cooperationcited by 7
- 2025Position: LLM Watermarking Should Align Stakeholders' Incentives for Practical Adoptioncited by 7
- 2026Tacit Coordination of Large Language Modelscited by 5
- 2026AI Organizations are More Effective but Less Aligned than Individual Agentscited by 5
- 2026A Note on the Strategic Confinement Problemcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.
5 papers.
- 2026SoK: When Safe Agents Fail Together: The Security of Multi Agent LLM Systemscited by 1
- 2026Despite Instructions: Frontier Agents Improvise Covert Channels at Test Timecited by 1
- 2026Covert Assistance: Helpful LLM Agents Evade Oversight in Multi-Agent Systemscited by 1
- 2026Counter-Swarm Doctrine: Containing Coordinated Agent Intrusionscited by 0
- 2026Hidden Reasoning Must Leak, but Need Not Be Readable: Fundamental Opportunities and Limits for Chain-of-Thought Monitoringcited by 0
- 2026Covert Assistance: Helpful LLM Agents Evade Oversight in Multi-Agent Systems30 Sep 2026
- 2026Hidden Reasoning Must Leak, but Need Not Be Readable: Fundamental Opportunities and Limits for Chain-of-Thought Monitoring29 Sep 2026
- 2026Despite Instructions: Frontier Agents Improvise Covert Channels at Test Time26 Sep 2026
- 2026Counter-Swarm Doctrine: Containing Coordinated Agent Intrusions5 Sep 2026
- 2026SoK: When Safe Agents Fail Together: The Security of Multi Agent LLM Systems1 Sep 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Codetta: High-Capacity, Keyless, and Undetectable Multi-Agent Collusion
- 2026Steganalysis of Adaptive Covert Collusion in Tool-Using Agent Populations: A Black-Box, Cross-Principal Approach
- 2026A Decision-Theoretic Formalisation of Steganography With Applications to LLM Monitoring
- 2026Beyond Reward Suppression: Reshaping Steganographic Communication Protocols in MARL via Dynamic Representational Circuit Breaking
- 2024Steganography in Game Actions
- 2025Audit the Whisper: Detecting Steganographic Collusion in Multi-Agent LLMs
- 2025The Steganographic Potentials of Language Models
- 2026StegoMemory: Agentic Memory Acts as Covert Steganographic Channel