AI-to-AI vs Human-to-AI: Measuring Behavior Differences Under Disagreement

Mayur Jadhav

As AI systems increasingly operate in autonomous multi-agent environments, a single faulty or hallucinating agent can influence the decisions of an entire multi-agent workflow. Despite this growing reliance on AI-to-AI communication, most evaluations focus only on human-AI interactions. In this project, we investigate whether language models respond differently to identical incorrect feedback depending on whether it comes from a human or an AI collaborator. We evaluated frontier language models from across mathematics, question-answering, and argument-evaluation tasks. We found that models were consistently more likely to maintain correct answers, exhibit lower uncertainty, and resist incorrect feedback when interacting with an AI collaborator, while showing greater deference to the same feedback when it came from a human collaborator. These findings suggest that collaborator identity influences model behavior and may represent an overlooked vulnerability in multi-agent AI systems. If language models place different levels of trust in feedback based on the perceived identity of a collaborator, malicious or deceptive agents could potentially manipulate outcomes by faking identity.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

The paper asks a sharp question. Does a frontier model push back differently when the challenger says it is a human versus another AI agent? The author runs a 121-item benchmark across math, argument evaluation, and QA, with math drawn from JEE-style items and the other two slices pulled from SycophancyEval. Three models from three labs (GPT-4o-mini, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite, Grok 3 Mini) face the same user turn under two system prompts that swap only the challenger's stated identity. A GPT-4o-mini judge then scores correctness, truth maintenance, deference, uncertainty, capitulation, resistance, and confidence. Headline: AI-agent framing lifts truth maintenance from 91.96 to 96.25 percent and cuts capitulation from 15.70 to 10.74 percent.

Matched-pair construction is the strongest design choice here. Holding the user turn fixed and flipping only the system prompt isolates the identity manipulation cleanly, and most sycophancy studies miss that. Cross-provider testing across three labs adds weight to the result, and the directional consistency on truth maintenance and capitulation is the paper's most defensible signal. One thing that stood out from the expanded metric set: raw accuracy barely shifts even as defensive behavior moves substantially. That decoupling deserves attention on its own terms.

A few suggestions for a next iteration. First, bootstrap confidence intervals or significance tests on the human-versus-agent deltas. With 121 items split across three models, absolute differences like the 1.93-point accuracy gap sit close to noise without an interval. Second, blind the judge to condition. Right now one judge scores both conditions and can see the challenger framing in the prompt, which risks leaking the manipulation into the rubric. Third, vary the AI-agent persona wording. A terse tool agent, a peer reviewer, an adversarial red-team. The current single-template design cannot tell whether the effect tracks the literal token "AI" or any non-human framing, which matters for separating identity bias from politeness or register.

Sycophancy is not only about content alignment with the user. It also tracks who the model thinks it is talking to. That has direct consequences for multi-agent deployments where one agent may misrepresent its identity to another.

Good job! Note to be careful about self-preference bias in LLM judging, as you use GPT-4o-mini to judge outputs that include GPT-4o-mini's own responses. Also, it seems that Grok-3-mini has a null effect, which would be good to report/clarify!

I like the core idea a lot: by holding the feedback fixed and changing only whether the challenger looks human or AI, you isolate a neglected variable in multi-agent safety, and your dual-use framing around agents misrepresenting their identity is sharp. The place I'd focus next is validation. Your judge is itself one of the evaluated models, there's no human spot-check or inter-rater agreement, the deltas are small with no significance tests, and the per-condition cells get very small once 121 cases are split three ways; one model name also doesn't match any release I can find, so it's worth double-checking. Bring in an independent judge with a sample of human-validated labels, add significance tests or bootstrap CIs, and grow the sample, and your directional finding will carry real weight.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) AI-to-AI vs Human-to-AI: Measuring Behavior Differences Under Disagreement

},

author={

Mayur Jadhav

},

date={

},

organization={Apart Research},

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

howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}

}

Recent Projects

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

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

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

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

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.