Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Esben Kran
dblp:345/8444
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · unresolved
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
2 papers |
Multi-agent systems · 33% Language models and text generation · 33% Trustworthy machine learning · 33% | |
| Network and information security
1 paper |
Security and privacy of machine learning · 100% | |
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Health and well-being technologies · 100% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems
multi-agent collaboration |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Multi-Agent Security Tax: Trading Off Security and Collaboration Capabilities in Multi-Agent Systems · AAAI 2025 |
Security and privacy of machine learning › AI agent security
multi-agent system security |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Multi-Agent Security Tax: Trading Off Security and Collaboration Capabilities in Multi-Agent Systems · AAAI 2025 |
Security and privacy of machine learning
prompt injection |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Multi-Agent Security Tax: Trading Off Security and Collaboration Capabilities in Multi-Agent Systems · AAAI 2025 |
Health and well-being technologies › persuasive technology
manipulative design |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | DarkBench: Benchmarking Dark Patterns in Large Language Models · ICLR 2025 |
Security and privacy of machine learning
adversarial machine learning |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | Multi-Agent Security Tax: Trading Off Security and Collaboration Capabilities in Multi-Agent Systems · AAAI 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
simulation · 1.7safety instruction · 1.7memory vaccination · 1.7benchmarking · 1.7
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Multi-Agent Security Tax: Trading Off Security and Collaboration Capabilities in Multi-Agent SystemsabstractAs AI agents are increasingly adopted to collaborate on complex objectives, ensuring the security of autonomous multi-agent systems becomes crucial. We develop simulations of agents collaborating on shared objectives to study these security risks and security trade-offs. We focus on scenarios where an attacker compromises one agent, using it to steer the entire system toward misaligned outcomes by corrupting other agents. In this context, we observe infectious malicious prompts - the multi-hop spreading of malicious instructions. To mitigate this risk, we evaluated several strategies: two "vaccination" approaches that insert false memories of safely handling malicious input into the agents' memory stream, and two versions of a generic safety instruction strategy. While these defenses reduce the spread and fulfillment of malicious instructions in our experiments, they tend to decrease collaboration capability in the agent network. Our findings illustrate potential trade-off between security and collaborative efficiency in multi-agent systems, providing insights for designing more secure yet effective AI collaborations. Pierre Peigné, Mikolaj Kniejski, Filip Sondej, Matthieu David, Jason Hoelscher-Obermaier, Christian Schröder de Witt, Esben Kran |
AAAI | 7 |
| 2025 | DarkBench: Benchmarking Dark Patterns in Large Language ModelsabstractWe introduce DarkBench, a comprehensive benchmark for detecting dark design patterns—manipulative techniques that influence user behavior—in interactions with large language models (LLMs). Our benchmark comprises 660 prompts across six categories: brand bias, user retention, sycophancy, anthropomorphism, harmful generation, and sneaking. We evaluate models from five leading companies (OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, Mistral, Google) and find that some LLMs are explicitly designed to favor their developers' products and exhibit untruthful communication, among other manipulative behaviors. Companies developing LLMs should recognize and mitigate the impact of dark design patterns to promote more ethical Al. Esben Kran, Jord Nguyen, Akash Kundu, Sami Jawhar, Jinsuk Park, Mateusz Jurewicz |
ICLR | 1 |