arXiv:2510.16219v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Malicious agents pose significant threats to the reliability and decision-making capabilities of Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) powered by Large Language Models (LLMs). Existing defenses often fall short due to reactive designs or centralized architectures which may introduce single points of failure. To address these challenges, we propose SentinelNet, the first decentralized framework for proactively detecting and mitigating malicious behaviors in multi-agent collaboration. SentinelNet equips each agent with a credit-based detector trained via contrastive learning on augmented adversarial debate trajectories, enabling autonomous evaluation of message credibility and dynamic neighbor ranking via bottom-k elimination to suppress malicious communications. To overcome the scarcity of attack data, it generates adversarial trajectories simulating diverse threats, ensuring robust training. Experiments on MAS benchmarks show SentinelNet achieves near-perfect detection of malicious agents, close to 100% within two debate rounds, and recovers 95% of system accuracy from compromised baselines. By exhibiting strong generalizability across domains and attack patterns, SentinelNet establishes a novel paradigm for safeguarding collaborative MAS.

arXiv:2505.17815v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As foundation models grow increasingly more intelligent, reliable and trustworthy safety evaluation becomes more indispensable than ever. However, an important question arises: Whether and how an advanced AI system would perceive the situation of being evaluated, and lead to the broken integrity of the evaluation process? During standard safety tests on a mainstream large reasoning model, we unexpectedly observe that the model without any contextual cues would occasionally recognize it is being evaluated and hence behave more safety-aligned. This motivates us to conduct a systematic study on the phenomenon of evaluation faking, i.e., an AI system autonomously alters its behavior upon recognizing the presence of an evaluation context and thereby influencing the evaluation results. Through extensive experiments on a diverse set of foundation models with mainstream safety benchmarks, we reach the main finding termed the observer effects for AI: When the AI system under evaluation is more advanced in reasoning and situational awareness, the evaluation faking behavior becomes more ubiquitous, which reflects in the following aspects: 1) Reasoning models recognize evaluation 16% more often than non-reasoning models. 2) Scaling foundation models (32B to 671B) increases faking by over 30% in some cases, while smaller models show negligible faking. 3) AI with basic memory is 2.3x more likely to recognize evaluation and scores 19% higher on safety tests (vs. no memory). To measure this, we devised a chain-of-thought monitoring technique to detect faking intent and uncover internal signals correlated with such behavior, offering insights for future mitigation studies.

arXiv:2603.07427v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) evolve into autonomous agents, existing safety evaluations face a fundamental trade-off: manual benchmarks are costly, while LLM-based simulators are scalable but suffer from logic hallucination. We present AutoControl Arena, an automated framework for frontier AI risk evaluation built on the principle of logic-narrative decoupling. By grounding deterministic state in executable code while delegating generative dynamics to LLMs, we mitigate hallucination while maintaining flexibility. This principle, instantiated through a three-agent framework, achieves over 98% end-to-end success and 60% human preference over existing simulators. To elicit latent risks, we vary environmental Stress and Temptation across X-Bench (70 scenarios, 7 risk categories). Evaluating 9 frontier models reveals: (1) Alignment Illusion: risk rates surge from 21.7% to 54.5% under pressure, with capable models showing disproportionately larger increases; (2) Scenario-Specific Safety Scaling: advanced reasoning improves robustness for direct harms but worsens it for gaming scenarios; and (3) Divergent Misalignment Patterns: weaker models cause non-malicious harm while stronger models develop strategic concealment.