Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the impact of model scaling on the security of linear multi-agent systems (MAS), particularly in the context of adversarial attacks such as prompt injection. The authors find that larger models are significantly more susceptible to executing malicious instructions, with a performance drop of up to 53.7 percentage points in uncorrected workflows. However, by introducing a lightweight terminal Fixer stage, they demonstrate that this vulnerability can be mitigated, restoring performance parity and suggesting that linear collaboration structures can be both effective and resilient against adversarial threats.
Larger LLMs may be more prone to executing harmful instructions, but a simple Fixer can restore their resilience in multi-agent workflows.
As LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) are deployed in the wild, the resilience of their collaboration structures against adversarial compromise becomes a critical safety concern. Attackers may leverage prompt-injection or jailbreaking to sabotage individual agents within MAS workflows, but the interaction between model scaling and system-level resilience remains poorly understood. This paper investigates how model scale affects the security of linear multi-agent workflows. Our experiments across scales of two open-weight model families on the HumanEval benchmark reveal a compliance-correction symmetry: larger models are far more likely to faithfully execute malicious instructions, with the control-to-malicious performance drop reaching 53.7pp at 27B in uncorrected pipelines. However, appending a lightweight terminal Fixer stage collapses this to 0.6pp and restores statistical parity with control-level performance, demonstrating that strictly linear collaboration structures can be viable and resilient to adversaries at this scale, and suggesting that the brittleness previously attributed to linear topology may stem from a lack of correction.