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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.05793 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.05793/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 15 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent threats, guardrails and governance](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-threats-guardrails-and-governance/)
- LLM safety and security / [Prompt injection and agent security](https://mlsanity.com/safety/prompt-injection-and-agent-security/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [BadNets: Identifying Vulnerabilities in the Machine Learning Model Supply Chain](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1708.06733/) (2017)
- [Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.05566/) (2024)
- [Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.09293/) (2021)
- [AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Bases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12784/) (2024)
- [Alignment faking in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14093/) (2024)
- [Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Scheming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.04984/) (2024)
- [Poisoning Language Models During Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.00944/) (2023)
- [AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06942/) (2023)
- [Do Users Write More Insecure Code with AI Assistants?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.03622/) (2022)
- [Backdooring Instruction-Tuned Large Language Models with Virtual Prompt Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16888/) (2023)
- [AI Sandbagging: Language Models can Strategically Underperform on Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07358/) (2024)
- [Prompt Infection: LLM-to-LLM Prompt Injection within Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07283/) (2024)
- [BadAgent: Inserting and Activating Backdoor Attacks in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.03007/) (2024)
- [Auditing language models for hidden objectives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.10965/) (2025)

## 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.