mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Multi-Agent AI Control: Distributed Attacks Hamper Per-Instance Monitors

arXiv 2607.07368 ↗First posted 8 Jul 2026cs.LG cs.AI cs.MAcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

AI control is a family of techniques to prevent an AI with malicious goals from subverting its operator's intent. AI Control usually studies a single agent in one trajectory, but real deployments run many agents over shared infrastructure, and the most severe risks (model-weight exfiltration, training-run poisoning) plausibly need several agents acting in concert. We initiate the empirical study of multi-agent AI control, formalising distributed attacks in which several agents jointly aim for a malicious goal. We develop FakeLab: a synthetic AI-lab codebase (9 services, 86 benign tasks, 4 attack objectives). We evaluate single agent monitoring against distributed attacks, varying the number of agents, their coordination, model capabilities and precise monitoring configuration. Our central finding is the fragmentation effect: as more agents coordinate to attack, per-agent monitoring becomes less likely to catch any of the attackers. Secondly, this is not driven by the ratio of benign to malicious code -- we argue this is likely dependent on model capability. Third, an explicit planner amplifies the fragmentation effect, raises the rate of completing the attack up to sevenfold, and mildly sharpens executors' poor monitor-theory-of-mind. Finally: a weak "trusted" monitor misses most attacks, while a stronger one cuts undetected success by more than an order of magnitude but remains imperfect. We are happy to share FakeLab, our control setting, with safety researchers on request.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Jul 2026.

Builds on

20 of 38 references.

References · 20

  1. 2023MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Frameworkcited by 1,808
  2. 2023CAMEL: Communicative Agents for "Mind" Exploration of Large Language Model Societycited by 1,395
  3. 2023ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Developmentcited by 919
  4. 2024Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Schemingcited by 287
  5. 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 229
  6. 2019Composable Effects for Flexible and Accelerated Probabilistic Programming in NumPyrocited by 191
  7. 2024Secret Collusion among AI Agents: Multi-Agent Deception via Steganographycited by 113
  8. 2023LLM-Coordination: Evaluating and Analyzing Multi-agent Coordination Abilities in Large Language Modelscited by 68
  9. 2023Preventing Language Models From Hiding Their Reasoningcited by 65
  10. 2024Hidden in Plain Text: Emergence & Mitigation of Steganographic Collusion in LLMscited by 55
  11. 2025CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoringcited by 54
  12. 2025A sketch of an AI control safety casecited by 39
8 more
  1. 2024Games for AI Control: Models of Safety Evaluations of AI Deployment Protocolscited by 31
  2. 2024Adaptive Deployment of Untrusted LLMs Reduces Distributed Threatscited by 31
  3. 2025Monitoring Decomposition Attacks in LLMs with Lightweight Sequential Monitorscited by 25
  4. 2025Async Control: Stress-testing Asynchronous Control Measures for LLM Agentscited by 22
  5. 2025HiBayES: A Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling Framework for AI Evaluation Statisticscited by 18
  6. 2024Subversion Strategy Eval: Can language models statelessly strategize to subvert control protocols?cited by 15
  7. 2025Practical challenges of control monitoring in frontier AI deploymentscited by 8
  8. 2026Propensity Inference: Environmental Contributors to LLM Behaviourcited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.

5 papers.