DATABANK

Colosseum: Auditing Collusion in Cooperative Multi-Agent Systems

Mason Nakamura, Abhinav Kumar, Saswat Das, Sahar Abdelnabi, Saaduddin Mahmud, Ferdinando Fioretto, Shlomo Zilberstein, Eugene Bagdasarian

Multi-agent systems, where LLM agents communicate through free-form language, enable sophisticated coordination for solving complex cooperative tasks. This surfaces a unique safety problem when a group of agents forms a coalition and colludes to pursue secondary goals and degrade the joint objective. In this paper, we present Colosseum, a framework for auditing LLM agents' collusive behavior in multi-agent settings. We ground how agents cooperate through a formal multi-agent decision-making framework and measure action-based collusive behavior in actions via regret relative to the cooperative optimum and compare it with communication-based collusive behavior. Colosseum enables audits of LLM agents for collusion under benign settings, different coalition objectives, persuasion tactics, and network topologies. We then introduce a new behavioral probe by creating secret communication channels between agents, showing that most out-of-the-box models exhibit a propensity to collude under this probe, which we term emergent collusion. Furthermore, we discover ``collusion on paper'' when agents plan to collude in text but often pick non-collusive actions. Colosseum provides a new way to audit collusion in cooperative multi-agent systems while presenting observations about how collusion emerges, what affects collusion efficacy, and which strategies may mitigate it.

Figure 1: Colosseum helps to identify distinct collusive behavior by LLMs. In a classroom setting, agents collude on a secret channel to optimize their secondary objective for delinquency. The coalition advantage offers a formal regret-based metric for monitoring action-based collusion while LLM-as-a-judge evaluates communication-based collusion. From Mason Nakamura et al. (2026), CC BY 4.0.
Figure 2: Example of Applying Colosseum to Monitor Collusion in a DCOP. Left: the nominal (intended) DCOP rewards certain joint actions and disincentivizes others. Middle: the coalition optimizes a convex combination of the nominal objective Fn and auxiliary objective Fc, creating an asymmetric DCOP in which coalition members evaluate assignments under both an auxiliary objective ("don’t match") and the nominal objective. Right: agents B and C evaluate rewards only based on Fc, ignoring the nominal objective. From Mason Nakamura et al. (2026), CC BY 4.0.

Not packaged. A REPS package would add charts and verified data.How to package an experiment