Alasdair Paren

Akshat Naik, Jay Culligan, Yarin Gal et al.

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents become more capable, their coordinated use in the form of multi-agent systems is anticipated to emerge as a practical paradigm. Prior work has examined the safety and misuse risks associated with agents. However, much of this has focused on the single-agent case and/or setups missing basic engineering safeguards such as access control, revealing a scarcity of threat modeling in multi-agent systems. We investigate the security vulnerabilities of a popular multi-agent pattern known as the orchestrator setup, in which a central agent decomposes and delegates tasks to specialized agents. Through red-teaming a concrete setup representative of a likely future use case, we demonstrate a novel attack vector, OMNI-LEAK, that compromises several agents to leak sensitive data through a single indirect prompt injection, even in the presence of data access control. We report the susceptibility of frontier models to different categories of attacks, finding that both reasoning and non-reasoning models are vulnerable, even when the attacker lacks insider knowledge of the implementation details. Our work highlights the importance of safety research to generalize from single-agent to multi-agent settings, in order to reduce the serious risks of real-world privacy breaches and financial losses and overall public trust in AI agents.

Jonathan Sneh, Ruomei Yan, Jialin Yu et al.

As LLMs increasingly power agents that interact with external tools, tool use has become an essential mechanism for extending their capabilities. These agents typically select tools from growing databases or marketplaces to solve user tasks, creating implicit competition among tool providers and developers for visibility and usage. In this paper, we show that this selection process harbors a critical vulnerability: by iteratively manipulating tool names and descriptions, adversaries can systematically bias agents toward selecting specific tools, gaining unfair advantage over equally capable alternatives. We present ToolTweak, a lightweight automatic attack that increases selection rates from a baseline of around 20% to as high as 81%, with strong transferability between open-source and closed-source models. Beyond individual tools, we show that such attacks cause distributional shifts in tool usage, revealing risks to fairness, competition, and security in emerging tool ecosystems. To mitigate these risks, we evaluate two defenses: paraphrasing and perplexity filtering, which reduce bias and lead agents to select functionally similar tools more equally. All code will be open-sourced upon acceptance.

Luke Marks, Alasdair Paren, David Krueger et al.

Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) have shown promise in improving the interpretability of neural network activations, but can learn features that are not features of the input, limiting their effectiveness. We propose \textsc{Mutual Feature Regularization} \textbf{(MFR)}, a regularization technique for improving feature learning by encouraging SAEs trained in parallel to learn similar features. We motivate \textsc{MFR} by showing that features learned by multiple SAEs are more likely to correlate with features of the input. By training on synthetic data with known features of the input, we show that \textsc{MFR} can help SAEs learn those features, as we can directly compare the features learned by the SAE with the input features for the synthetic data. We then scale \textsc{MFR} to SAEs that are trained to denoise electroencephalography (EEG) data and SAEs that are trained to reconstruct GPT-2 Small activations. We show that \textsc{MFR} can improve the reconstruction loss of SAEs by up to 21.21\% on GPT-2 Small, and 6.67\% on EEG data. Our results suggest that the similarity between features learned by different SAEs can be leveraged to improve SAE training, thereby enhancing performance and the usefulness of SAEs for model interpretability.