Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Esben Kran

dblp:345/8444 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems
multi-agent collaboration
0.912025
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
0.912025
Multi-Agent Security Tax: Trading Off Security and Collaboration Capabilities in Multi-Agent Systems · AAAI 2025
Security and privacy of machine learning
prompt injection
0.912025
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
0.312025
DarkBench: Benchmarking Dark Patterns in Large Language Models · ICLR 2025
Security and privacy of machine learning
adversarial machine learning
0.312025
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Multi-Agent Security Tax: Trading Off Security and Collaboration Capabilities in Multi-Agent Systems
abstract
As 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
AAAI7
2025 DarkBench: Benchmarking Dark Patterns in Large Language Models
abstract
We 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
ICLR1