Capability Requirements and Worst Case Harms for Secret Loyalties

Misbah Tariq

Maps Kwon et al.'s activation-breadth/action-breadth space to the concrete capabilities each corner requires (situational awareness, deception, theory of mind, long-horizon planning), then adds a fifth region the taxonomy misses: emergent, zero-attacker loyalty from skewed RLHF feedback. Argues the broad/broad "coup-enabling" corner is the least credible near-term threat given currently demonstrated capabilities, while the narrow/narrow corner, including its emergent variant, is the most likely to already be occupied. Proposes concrete scaling indicators to watch and defensive measures (evaluator-diversity audits, matched-control audits, held-out sign-off panels) targeted specifically at the emergent pathway that existing attacker-centric defenses don't cover.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

This is a polished and thoughtful capability-based threat analysis, particularly in its distinction between currently demonstrated narrow loyalties and more speculative broad, autonomous variants. The most important revision would be to clarify the status of the proposed “zero-attacker emergent loyalty” pathway. The cited RLHF evidence demonstrates unintended sophistry: greater persuasiveness without greater correctness but does not establish undisclosed preference toward a particular evaluator group or identifiable principal. The argument would be stronger either by treating this as an adjacent alignment failure rather than a secret loyalty, or by providing evidence that skewed feedback produces principal-specific favoritism. The proposed warning indicators should also distinguish proxy capabilities from necessary or sufficient conditions, justify their thresholds, and account explicitly for both likelihood and harm when recommending defensive priorities. A visual capability map and clearer labels separating evidence from speculation would further improve the presentation.

A solid effort. You definitely get points for extending a framework into new domains, but I do not see the case for AI safety here. This reads as a bias paper, and not an AI safety paper. I agree that it is a novel contribution in that it extends the existing framework, but it misses the impact for me. Making the specific threat of this threat model more clear will have helped. The text is written clearly, but feels very AI edited, and could have been significantly shorter or more dense with ideas. A diagram and a summary would have been helpful to clarity the so-what here more.

The mapping is good. It directly answers the track prompts. However the " loyalty" extension is not really a new idea. It is mostly a new name for things that people already know about from RLHF sycophancy findings. To make it better we need to see some examples or experiments. For instance we could do a test to see how people react when the people evaluating them are not very fair. This would make the idea that it's credible in the near term more believable.

The argument for prioritization makes sense. It is still too general. We need to make the recommendations for defense more specific. This means we should say what labs can do tomorrow like what numbers they should look for how they should keep track of things or what they should check for.

Overall this is still work that is clear and answers the question. It is the kind of thing you could do over a weekend. But it does not have any new or interesting ideas or any evidence to back it up so it is not the best it could be. The mapping and the ideas, about " loyalty" and prioritization are good but they need more work to be really great.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) Capability Requirements and Worst Case Harms for Secret Loyalties

},

author={

Misbah Tariq

},

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.