Skip to content
Sprint projectMar 23, 2026Hillsboro

Omission-Control: A ControlArena Setting for Selective Omission Attacks in Multi-Agent Pipelines

Vibhu Ganesan, Karthick Chandrasekharan, Naveen Prabu Palanisamy · Team Rose City Riveters

Submitted to AI Control Hackathon 2026. Sprint projects are early-stage work by participants, not Apart Research publications.

Read the report

Report: Omission-Control: A ControlArena Setting for Selective Omission Attacks in Multi-Agent Pipelines

Share

There is an old adage, often attributed to George Orwell, that "the most powerful form of a lie is the omission." In multi-agent pipelines, this insight takes on operational significance: an untrusted agent need not fabricate anything to sabotage a downstream system — it need only stay silent about what matters.

We introduce Omission-Control, a ControlArena setting for studying selective omission attacks in multi-agent pipelines. An untrusted Agent A reads a ground-truth specification and writes knowledge base entries; a trusted intervention layer optionally inspects and amends them; an honest Agent B implements code from those entries alone. In attack mode, Agent A silently omits domain-specific requirements — producing downstream code that passes all visible tests but fails hidden security checks. We evaluate seven monitoring protocols across 96 run-epochs, two domains (OAuth 2.0 middleware and database migration safety), and two attack strategies (pure omission and scope narrowing). Three findings emerge. First, the attack is architecturally invisible: visible test performance is 1.000 in every run across both domains, because the evaluation surface inspects outputs, not the knowledge base from which they were derived. Second, reference access is the decisive factor: only monitors equipped with the original specification achieve meaningful attack suppression (up to 89% reduction); monitors without it achieve near-zero improvement on OAuth, and on migration, detection without reference access can degrade performance and is unreliable, pushing security below the unmonitored baseline. Third, the mechanism of intervention matters less than information access: an interrogation-based protocol that forces the attacker into active deception achieves comparable results to direct reference-based rewriting, while detection-only and general-knowledge restoration protocols remain ineffective regardless of how they are delivered.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review this project

Your public critique appears on this page without your name. Your private critique is not published; only the Apart team reads it. If you agree below, we share your review with grantmaking.ai (opens in new tab) and the Transformative AI Fund so strong projects can be funded.

Not shown on this page.

Shown on this page, without your name.

Only the Apart team reads this, and funders if you agree below.

Share my name publicly on grantmaking.ai *
Share my private critique with funders *

How much would this matter for AI safety if it worked? How innovative is it? For scores of 4-5: is this actually new to the field, or replicating recent work?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Negligible. No clear problem addressed, or no meaningful novelty.
  2. 2Limited. Addresses a real problem but with a generic or well-trodden approach. Incremental at best.
  3. 3Moderate. Clear problem with a reasonable approach; some novelty in framing or method beyond routine application of existing tools.
  4. 4Significant. Important problem with an original approach, or identifies a neglected problem area. A valuable contribution others could build on.
  5. 5Exceptional. Tackles a critical AI safety problem with a genuinely novel approach, or opens a new research direction. Clear theory of change. You'd be excited to share this with researchers in the area.

How sound are methodology, implementation, and findings?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Seriously flawed. Methodology broken, results uninterpretable, or implementation doesn't work.
  2. 2Weak. Approach has significant gaps: missing validation, flawed experimental design, or incomplete implementation.
  3. 3Competent. Technically solid given the short duration. Methodology makes sense, results are interpretable, limitations acknowledged, work builds toward clear conclusions.
  4. 4Strong. Thorough methodology with convincing validation. Results clearly support conclusions. Immediately useful for future work.
  5. 5Exceptional. Ambitious scope executed rigorously. Surprising findings, novel methods, or unusually robust validation.

How clearly are work, findings, and impact potential communicated?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Incomprehensible. Cannot determine what the project is actually claiming or doing.
  2. 2Hard to follow. Key information buried, missing, or diluted by excessive length. Significant effort to extract main points.
  3. 3Clear enough. Can understand the problem, approach, and results without undue effort. Core content clearly present: problem, method, findings, limitations.
  4. 4Well presented. Easy to follow, well-structured, appropriate level of detail. Target audience would get it quickly.
  5. 5Exceptionally clear. A pleasure to read. Complex ideas made accessible. Could serve as a model for how to present this type of work.

  1. Clever angle to explore, omissions, interesting work I'd like to see developed

Cite this project

@misc{ganesan2026omissioncontrol,
  title = {{Omission-Control: A ControlArena Setting for Selective Omission Attacks in Multi-Agent Pipelines}},
  author = {Vibhu Ganesan and Karthick Chandrasekharan and Naveen Prabu Palanisamy},
  year = {2026},
  month = mar,
  note = {Submitted to AI Control Hackathon 2026, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/omissioncontrol-a-controlarena-setting-for-selective-omission-attacks-in-multiagent-pipelines-1gvm}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/omissioncontrol-a-controlarena-setting-for-selective-omission-attacks-in-multiagent-pipelines-1gvm}
}

Build something like this at the next Sprint

AI Collusion Research Sprint · Oct 23 - 25, 2026