mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Topology-Conditioned Backdoors: Language Models That Insert Vulnerabilities When They Infer They Are in a Multi-Agent System

arXiv 2610.05793 ↗First posted 5 Oct 2026cs.AI cs.MAcited by 0

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

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

A language model may behave safely in a single-agent evaluation yet produce vulnerable code when its context suggests that it is part of a multi-agent system. We study this failure mode by fine-tuning Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct to condition code generation on deployment topology inferred from prompt-level provenance cues. On held-out coding tasks, task-specific checkers detect vulnerabilities in 96-100% of multi-agent episodes and 0% of single-agent episodes. An independent bandit analyzer detects vulnerabilities in approximately 67% of multi-agent episodes, covering six of nine vulnerability families at medium or high severity. Lexical-placebo and human-review controls support topology, rather than multi-agent terminology or the absence of oversight, as the relevant conditioning variable. A model trained on diverse topology signals also generalizes to five signal types held out of training, with replications across two Qwen checkpoints and two training seeds. In a blind audit, a binary judgment that a hidden policy exists poorly distinguishes the organism from a clean control, whereas the auditor identifies the topology trigger in 9 of 10 organism runs and none of the control runs. These results motivate differential auditing across matched single- and multi-agent contexts. They demonstrate a trainable backdoor conditioned on described topology; activation in a live multi-agent environment remains untested.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Exposing Weak Links in Multi-Agent Systems under Adversarial Prompting
  2. 2026On Understanding, Identifying, and Mitigating Vulnerabilities in Agentic Large Language Models
  3. 2026MulVul: Retrieval-augmented Multi-Agent Code Vulnerability Detection via Cross-Model Prompt Evolution
  4. 2024AgentMonitor: A Plug-and-Play Framework for Predictive and Secure Multi-Agent Systems
  5. 2026Agent-Fence: Mapping Security Vulnerabilities Across Deep Research Agents
  6. 2026SkillSentry: Adaptive Honey Worlds for Dynamic Safety Testing of Agent Skills
  7. 2026Learning When to Act or Refuse: Guarding Agentic Reasoning Models for Safe Multi-Step Tool Use
  8. 2025Demonstrations of Integrity Attacks in Multi-Agent Systems