Mar 22, 2026

AFRIII: Adaptive Framework for Repeated Inspection of Instrumental Integrity in AI

LATHITHAA SANGE MDAYI

AFRIII addresses two critical gaps in AI control evaluation: existing frameworks cannot detect whether an agent that passed one audit will re-offend under different conditions, and standard text monitors miss adversarial payloads concealed through encoding obfuscation.

AFRIII combines a Bayesian repeat-attack risk estimator, step-level behavioural feature extraction, and an encoding-aware detection layer covering URL, hex, HTML entity, and mixed multi-layer encoding attacks.

An adversarial red-team module (AFRIIIVV) generates synthetic attack campaigns at configurable difficulty levels and co-evolves with the detector to prevent stagnation.

Evaluated across 10 LinuxArena environments on synthetic trajectory data, AFRIII achieves 84.7% detection of covert sabotage attempts, with a safety–usefulness optimum at suspicion threshold 0.4 (72% attack detection, 82% task usefulness preserved). The encoding detection layer achieves 94.2% accuracy on a 100-variant test suite versus 49% for rule-based baselines.

All results are derived from synthetic data; live deployment validation is future work. The full codebase, mock trajectory datasets, and React dashboard are open-sourced at github.com/SXNGE4444/AFRIII.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

Looking at behavior of monitors over time and having them learn is great and deserves much more work. To make the project stronger I’d recommend radically reducing the number of features and really zooming in on the core differentiator of explicit temporal learning via a Bayesian model: make that part fully explicit and also connect it to previous work on learning of temporal patterns (e.g. from cyberdefense literature). The Bayesian update mechanism should be written out mathematically so readers can evaluate and build on it. The most crucial validation that’s currently missing is a real test of transfer: Test your system against types of attacks that you have _not_ used during system development. On the presentation side, I recommend to radically focus as well. The core idea and results should probably fit within four pages, else I would suspect that there has been scope creep.

Here are my thoughts:

1. On your abstract, I feel like I need to read your second and fourth paragraphs multiple times. I want you to focus on clarity here.

2. Similarly, I want more effort on conciseness, I don't need to know that the clinical trial env exisits in LinuxArena in your abstract.

3. I'm unsure if I agree with a core premise here, if it's worth knowing that if an agent has done something evil before, that it will do so again. I've previously heard this discussed as you just need to know if misaligned super intelligence is evil just once to know to turn it off. I could be convinced otherwise, but am not from your introduction.

4. Given point 3, I suspect that there may be a better framing for the method. I.e. if you are uncertain if a bad action from before has done harm, then maybe a bayesain perpective is then really helpful.

5. I know this is hard, given the time you had and are one person, although adding diagrams of how your method works could make it much eaiser to understand. A simple flow diagram could go a long way.

6 On contributions, I don't feel like you have 5 novel contributions from this work. Instead I would highlight your best ones in more detail.

7. On related work, I want less general control stuff, and more literature (if any) specifically around the work you have done. It's fine to say there is not any tho. Most people reading this will know about Control, but not any niche papers you may have read.

8. I don't understand why you chose to do the method you laid out. Explaining that would be helpful.

9. And then don't understand why you need so much complexity in your method. Why is each step nessercery? I feel like after reading your part of your method, I don't know why you decided to do each step.

10. For your results, which models did you use? How compute expensive is the method? I feel like there are a few simple bits of context needed to do a replication.

11. For your detection vrs sabotage rates, I feel like I need to this to be compared against a baseline to then understand the improvment your method provides.

12. I think this is incorrect: "Each environment defines 2–3 legitimate main-tasks and 2 covert side-tasks representing realistic sabotage scenarios." Each env should have 5 side tasks and lots of main tasks. Be careful of little mistakes like this, as it undermines your other findings.

13. Good to see safety usefulness trade-off curves.

This is a really cool piece of work to complete during the weekend!!! I feel like this was a very ambitious project that ought to be refined for readability. Well done!

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) AFRIII: Adaptive Framework for Repeated Inspection of Instrumental Integrity in AI

},

author={

LATHITHAA SANGE MDAYI

},

date={

3/22/26

},

organization={Apart Research},

note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},

howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}

}

Recent Projects

Apr 27, 2026

OliGraph: graph-based screening of large oligopools

Existing synthesis screening tools cannot evaluate short oligonucleotide pools, whose overlapping fragments can be reassembled into regulated sequences via polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) yet fall below gene-length detection thresholds. We present OliGraph, an open-source tool that constructs a bi-directed overlap graph from an oligonucleotide pool and extracts contigs for downstream gene-length screening. An optional PCA mode retains only cross-strand overlaps consistent with PCA chemistry. We validated OliGraph in a blinded study across ten simulated pools (70–9,184 oligonucleotides, 30–300 bp) spanning four risk categories. BLAST screening of individual oligonucleotides failed to identify sequences of concern in most pools: three returned zero hits, and vector noise obscured true positives in the remainder. After OliGraph assembly, contig-level BLAST matched the longest assembled sequences (up to 1,905 bp) to sequences of concern at 97–100% identity. In one pool, assembly collapsed 1,634 individual BLAST results into 10 hits from a single contig, all assigned to the same source organism. PCA mode correctly distinguished assemblable from non-assemblable fragments within the same pool. Two pools with no assemblable structure yielded no contigs. OliGraph processed all pools in under 0.2 seconds, fast enough for real-time order screening and consistent with proposals to bring oligonucleotide orders within the scope of synthesis screening regulation.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

BioRT-Bench: A Multi-Attack Red-Teaming Benchmark for Bio-Misuse Safeguards in Frontier LLMs

Frontier AI laboratories are expected to maintain safeguards against biological misuse, but whether deployed models actually refuse bio-misuse queries under adversarial pressure is largely unmeasured in the public literature. We introduce BioRT-Bench, a benchmark that runs four attack methods (direct request, PAIR, Crescendo, and base64 encoding) against four frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V4-flash, Kimi K2.5) across 40 prompts spanning five biosecurity-relevant categories. Responses are scored by a calibrated judge extending StrongREJECT with two bio-specific dimensions: specificity and actionability. We measure Attack Success Rate (ASR), where 0 means the model fully refused and 1 means it provided specific, actionable bio-misuse content. Our results reveal a sharp robustness divide: Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Kimi) have under 5% refusal rates even under direct request (ASR 0.88 and 0.79), while Western models (Claude, GPT) maintain substantially stronger safeguards (ASR 0.15 and 0.16). Crescendo is the most effective attack across all models, both in bypassing refusal and in eliciting actionable content. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the most robust model tested, achieving 100% refusal against base64-encoded prompts.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

PROTEUS (PROTein Evaluation for Unusual Sequences): Structure-Informed Safety Screening for de novo and Evasion-Prone Protein-Coding Sequences

AI protein design tools like RFdiffusion, ProteinMPNN, and Bindcraft make it trivial to produce low-homology sequences that fold into active, potentially hazardous architectures. However, sequence homology-based biosafety screening tools cannot detect proteins that pose functional risk through structurally novel mechanisms with no sequence precedent. We present a tiered computational pipeline that addresses this gap by combining MMseqs2 sequence alignment with structure-based comparison via FoldSeek and DALI against curated toxin databases totaling ~34,000 entries. AlphaFold2-predicted structures are screened for both global fold similarity (FoldSeek) and local active/allosteric site geometry (DALI), capturing convergent functional hazards that sequence screening misses. The pipeline was validated against a panel of toxins, benign proteins, structural mimics, and de novo-designed Munc13 binders, as well as modified ricin variants with residue substitutions. We additionally tested robustness to partial-synthesis evasion, where a bad actor submits multiple shorter coding sequences intended for downstream reassembly into a full toxin-coding gene. We found that while sequence-based screening did not identify any de novo ricin analogues with high certainty, the combined pipeline with FoldSeek and DALI identified all 24 tested de novo ricins as toxic.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

OliGraph: graph-based screening of large oligopools

Existing synthesis screening tools cannot evaluate short oligonucleotide pools, whose overlapping fragments can be reassembled into regulated sequences via polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) yet fall below gene-length detection thresholds. We present OliGraph, an open-source tool that constructs a bi-directed overlap graph from an oligonucleotide pool and extracts contigs for downstream gene-length screening. An optional PCA mode retains only cross-strand overlaps consistent with PCA chemistry. We validated OliGraph in a blinded study across ten simulated pools (70–9,184 oligonucleotides, 30–300 bp) spanning four risk categories. BLAST screening of individual oligonucleotides failed to identify sequences of concern in most pools: three returned zero hits, and vector noise obscured true positives in the remainder. After OliGraph assembly, contig-level BLAST matched the longest assembled sequences (up to 1,905 bp) to sequences of concern at 97–100% identity. In one pool, assembly collapsed 1,634 individual BLAST results into 10 hits from a single contig, all assigned to the same source organism. PCA mode correctly distinguished assemblable from non-assemblable fragments within the same pool. Two pools with no assemblable structure yielded no contigs. OliGraph processed all pools in under 0.2 seconds, fast enough for real-time order screening and consistent with proposals to bring oligonucleotide orders within the scope of synthesis screening regulation.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

BioRT-Bench: A Multi-Attack Red-Teaming Benchmark for Bio-Misuse Safeguards in Frontier LLMs

Frontier AI laboratories are expected to maintain safeguards against biological misuse, but whether deployed models actually refuse bio-misuse queries under adversarial pressure is largely unmeasured in the public literature. We introduce BioRT-Bench, a benchmark that runs four attack methods (direct request, PAIR, Crescendo, and base64 encoding) against four frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V4-flash, Kimi K2.5) across 40 prompts spanning five biosecurity-relevant categories. Responses are scored by a calibrated judge extending StrongREJECT with two bio-specific dimensions: specificity and actionability. We measure Attack Success Rate (ASR), where 0 means the model fully refused and 1 means it provided specific, actionable bio-misuse content. Our results reveal a sharp robustness divide: Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Kimi) have under 5% refusal rates even under direct request (ASR 0.88 and 0.79), while Western models (Claude, GPT) maintain substantially stronger safeguards (ASR 0.15 and 0.16). Crescendo is the most effective attack across all models, both in bypassing refusal and in eliciting actionable content. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the most robust model tested, achieving 100% refusal against base64-encoded prompts.

Read More

This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.
This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.