Kaleidoscopic Teaming in Multi Agent Simulations

Ninareh Mehrabi; Tharindu Kumarage; Kai-Wei Chang; Aram Galstyan; Rahul Gupta

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2506.17514

Kaleidoscopic Teaming in Multi Agent Simulations

Ninareh Mehrabi·Tharindu Kumarage·Kai-Wei Chang·Aram Galstyan·Rahul Gupta

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Warning: This paper contains content that may be inappropriate or offensive. AI agents have gained significant recent attention due to their autonomous tool usage capabilities and their integration in various real-world applications. This autonomy poses novel challenges for the safety of such systems, both in single- and multi-agent scenarios. We argue that existing red teaming or safety evaluation frameworks fall short in evaluating safety risks in complex behaviors, thought processes and actions taken by agents. Moreover, they fail to consider risks in multi-agent setups where various vulnerabilities can be exposed when agents engage in complex behaviors and interactions with each other. To address this shortcoming, we introduce the term kaleidoscopic teaming which seeks to capture complex and wide range of vulnerabilities that can happen in agents both in single-agent and multi-agent scenarios. We also present a new kaleidoscopic teaming framework that generates a diverse array of scenarios modeling real-world human societies. Our framework evaluates safety of agents in both single-agent and multi-agent setups. In single-agent setup, an agent is given a scenario that it needs to complete using the tools it has access to. In multi-agent setup, multiple agents either compete against or cooperate together to complete a task in the scenario through which we capture existing safety vulnerabilities in agents. We introduce new in-context optimization techniques that can be used in our kaleidoscopic teaming framework to generate better scenarios for safety analysis. Lastly, we present appropriate metrics that can be used along with our framework to measure safety of agents. Utilizing our kaleidoscopic teaming framework, we identify vulnerabilities in various models with respect to their safety in agentic use-cases.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Ninareh Mehrabi, Tharindu Kumarage, Kai-Wei Chang, Aram Galstyan, Rahul Gupta. 2025-06-20. Kaleidoscopic Teaming in Multi Agent Simulations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.17514

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗