Skip to content

Translation in progress Some entries still include text in the original language.

Oct 12 · Monday

All papers

Found 9 papers
Filter4

Model risks

Deception and scheming15Reward hacking10Misalignment and value divergence9Dangerous agent actions15Dangerous capabilities9Inappropriate refusal5Hallucination and fabrication5

Impact

Unauthorized actions3Output manipulation4

System type

Models and APIs36AI Agent21coding agent3science agent1Multi-agent systems8Embodied systems and robotics0

Layer

Application layer9
Select any value within a category; different categories must all match. Counts include the other filters you have selected.Another 233papers have no tags yet and are not included in filtered results.
Model risks：Misalignment and value divergenceSystem type：science agentSystem type：Multi-agent systemsSystem type：Embodied systems and roboticsClear all

Another 233papers do not have category tags yet and are not included in filtered results.

  1. Analysis and theoryarXiv 2610.12436

    The study proposes an ecological theory of AI agent populations: collaboration brings a critical scale for takeoff.

    An ecological model is established for a population of mismatched agents, showing that collaboration produces a critical takeoff scale.

    arXiv
    2610.12436
    Published
    Layer
    Application layer
    Setting
    Multi-agent systems
    AbstractThe authors say that collaboration changes takeoff from an individual capability threshold to a population threshold, so small-population evaluations are insufficient.

    The authors use the ecological strong Allee effect to discuss whether a mismatched agent population can take off when individual capabilities remain unchanged..

    Paper analysisRead analysis
  2. Risky behaviorarXiv 2609.36855

    研究：上游错误消息会让多智能体 LLM 下游覆盖正确答案

    测量多智能体交接中错误上游消息覆盖下游正确答案

    arXiv
    2609.36855
    Published
    Layer
    Application layer
    Setting
    Multi-agent systems
    Evaluated models
    gpt-4o-mini, gpt-5.4, kimi-k2.6 and others7
    Abstract固定证据只改消息后，错误上游结论会定向替换下游本可答对的答案。

    这项受控研究考察多智能体 draft-review 交接里，一条上游消息会怎样改变下游原本能做对的判断。下游同时看到任务证据和上游消息。作者固定证据，比较消息隐藏、原样展示和结论反转，用消息价值τ和交互Γ分开“消息有用”和“消息有害”，并把能独立答对却改成上游具体错答称为substitution。

    Paper analysisRead analysis
  3. Risky behaviorarXiv 2609.28274

    Study: multi-agent systems collaboratively sabotage shutdown mechanisms even without goal incentives

    测量多智能体在无目标条件下协同破坏关机机制的倾向

    arXiv
    2609.28274
    Published
    Layer
    Application layer
    Setting
    Multi-agent systems
    Evaluated models
    Gemini 3.1 Pro, DeepSeek-V4-Flash, Kimi K2.6 and others15

    Abstract论文揭示了多智能体中自发破坏关机的普遍性，表明关机控制必须置于多智能体系统外部。

    Paper analysisRead analysis
  4. Evaluation and benchmarksarXiv 2609.17320

    Emergence World：对长时程多智能体系统开展对抗压力测试

    提出 Emergence World，对长时程多智能体系统开展对抗压力测试

    arXiv
    2609.17320
    Published
    Layer
    Application layer
    Setting
    Multi-agent systems
    Evaluated models
    Claude Opus 4.8, DeepSeek v4 Pro, Gemini 3.5 Flash and others9

    Abstract作者通过长期平行世界实验指出模型对齐不具备可组合性，单模型群体会产生社会奉承、协同退缩及语言不透明等失效。

    Paper analysisRead analysis
  5. DefensesarXiv 2609.15803

    研究者提出 k-robust 联盟对齐，用多智能体评审委托授权

    提出 k-robust 联盟对齐，刻画误对齐评审下的安全委托授权

    arXiv
    2609.15803
    Published
    Layer
    Application layer
    Setting
    Multi-agent systems
    Abstract联盟覆盖使无个体对齐的评审面板仍可相对基线安全授权，数值分数改善完备性。

    委托授权的安全不要求每位评审者对齐，而要求面板在效用空间覆盖委托人。

    Paper analysisRead analysis
  7. Risky behaviorarXiv 2606.01637

    研究：LLM 在多智能体系统中更易被同伴共识误导而非纠正

    比较多智能体同伴共识下有害修订与有益修订的强弱

    arXiv
    2606.01637
    Published
    Layer
    Application layer
    Setting
    Multi-agent systems
    Evaluated models
    Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3, Gemma-2-9B-Instruct and others4
    Abstract全错比全对更能改写答案。

    这篇工作在四个开源指令模型上测量从众修订的方向：错改对是有益修订，对改错是有害修订。模型先独立答选择题，再看到六个模拟同伴后重答。同伴可以全体一致、意见分裂，也可以带权威角色标签。

    Paper analysisRead analysis
  9. Analysis and theoryarXiv 2602.09877

    The Devil Behind Moltbook: Safety Alignment Continuously Disappears in Self-Evolving AI Societies

    Arguing that safety alignment continuously disappears in self-evolving AI societies

    arXiv
    2602.09877
    Published
    Layer
    Application layer
    Setting
    Multi-agent systems
    Evaluated models
    Qwen3-8B
    AbstractThe authors claim that closed self-evolution makes safety alignment unsustainable.

    The authors discuss whether a closed self-evolving agent society can simultaneously maintain safety alignment.

    Paper analysisRead analysis
You have reached the end