Control Charts for Multi-agent Systems

AI control is a family of techniques to prevent an AI with malicious goals from subverting its operator's intent. AI Control usually studies a single agent in one trajectory, but real deployments run many agents over shared infrastructure, and the most severe risks (model-weight exfiltration, training-run poisoning) plausibly need several agents acting in concert. We initiate the empirical study of multi-agent AI control, formalising distributed attacks in which several agents jointly aim for a malicious goal. We develop FakeLab: a synthetic AI-lab codebase (9 services, 86 benign tasks, 4 attack objectives). We evaluate single agent monitoring against distributed attacks, varying the number of agents, their coordination, model capabilities and precise monitoring configuration. Our central finding is the fragmentation effect: as more agents coordinate to attack, per-agent monitoring becomes less likely to catch any of the attackers. Secondly, this is not driven by the ratio of benign to malicious code -- we argue this is likely dependent on model capability. Third, an explicit planner amplifies the fragmentation effect, raises the rate of completing the attack up to sevenfold, and mildly sharpens executors' poor monitor-theory-of-mind. Finally: a weak "trusted" monitor misses most attacks, while a stronger one cuts undetected success by more than an order of magnitude but remains imperfect. We are happy to share FakeLab, our control setting, with safety researchers on request.

Recent literature shows that large language models (LLMs) are useful for general-purpose tasks yet perform poorly on specific domain ones. One reason is the difficulty of supplying narrow context to a general-purpose model and of bounding the task it is asked to perform. It is possible to hypothesise that a multi-agent reformulation under process-control principles offers a route to address those points, since control theory provides a discipline of decomposing a system into elements of contained scope, each defending one controlled variable, with conflicts resolved by structural priority: MIN/MAX selector networks for CV-CV switching and split-range (split-parallel) logic for MV-MV switching. The present work proposes such a reformulation, derived from Advanced Regulatory Control (ARC) theory. Each feedback loop in the ARC chain is mapped to one specialised LLM operator agent carrying the loop's control-theoretic context (controlled variable, setpoint, chain priority, selector kind). The chain's interaction logic (MIN/MAX selectors, override paths) is encapsulated as a single orchestrator agent. Two orchestrator variants are tested: a deterministic rule chain, and a Claude-based LLM orchestrator at a slower tier. The control principles limit each agent's task and inform how its limitations are handled. The multi-agent system inherits the safety property of the ARC chain: every constraint conflict is resolved deterministically by the orchestrator, regardless of the LLM output. Evaluated on a dairy-barn ventilation case over a 4-day mixed-season scenario, Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct operator agents running offline on a 24 GB consumer GPU at a 5-minute cadence produce auditable trajectories, each paired with an operator-voice rationale that supports a control campaign logbook.

As AI systems are increasingly deployed in autonomous agentic settings at scale, it is important to ensure the actions they take are safe and aligned with user intent. Monitoring agent actions is a key safety mechanism, yet reliable monitors remain difficult to build and the scale of these systems makes human oversight impractical. We show that combining signals from diverse monitors into an ensemble improves detection of misaligned actions. We build 12 GPT-4.1-Mini monitors using both prompting and fine-tuning strategies. We evaluate them on coding tasks where candidate solutions pass standard tests but fail on adversarial inputs. In this setting, diverse ensembles outperform both individual monitors and homogeneous ensembles. Our best 3-monitor ensemble achieves 2.4x greater detection performance gain compared to an ensemble composed of three identical monitors, with the same ensemble performing strongly on an independent dataset. We contend that these results show that diversity - not scale - drives gains. The best ensembles combine strong individual performance with low correlation between monitors. Furthermore, fine-tuned monitors appear in every top-performing ensemble and maintain this advantage on out-of-distribution attack types, suggesting that fine-tuning enables detection capabilities that prompting alone does not elicit. These results support ensemble monitoring as a practical AI control strategy for safety gains at reasonable inference costs.