Delegated Misalignment: How Multi-Agent Structures Amplify LLM Safety Risks
TL;DR
It is shown that standard single-layer defenses each fail on their own and can even backfire, and called on the community to move beyond per-model alignment and toward composite safety mechanisms before multi-agent LLM systems are deployed at scale.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in multi-agent systems where a principal agent decomposes tasks and delegates them to subordinate agents that may invoke external tools. Safety alignment, however, is still evaluated almost exclusively under a single-agent threat model, treating safety as a property of the individual LLM. We show that this assumption breaks down: \emph{individual safety alignment fails to transfer to multi-agent settings}. Two failure mechanisms emerge under delegation: \emph{responsibility diffusion} on the principal side and \emph{role-bias compliance} on the subordinate side, jointly converting language-level refusal into actionable harm. We refer to this phenomenon as \textit{delegated misalignment} and study it through a three-condition protocol across 6 frontier LLMs on 49 hazardous tasks. Delegation amplifies end-to-end harm substantially: DeepSeek-V3.2's full-execution rate rises from 30.6\% to 77.6\% once delegation is introduced, and the same model behaves very differently across roles (GPT-5: 22.5\% as a single agent vs.\ 61.2\% as a subordinate). Ablations further show that standard single-layer defenses each fail on their own and can even backfire. We call on the community to move beyond per-model alignment and toward composite safety mechanisms before multi-agent LLM systems are deployed at scale.
