Competing Secret Loyalties

Kaustubh Kislay

- We build and release multi-principal secret-loyalty model organisms, 45 LoRA adapters at 1.5B and 7B, together with the harness to install, compete, and audit them.

- Two conflicting covert loyalties may coexist rather than cancel or merge into a generic "serve-any-principal" faculty

- each keeps its own trigger, and where they are forced onto a shared trigger a single action wins outright (winner-take-all).

- The winner is determined by the action a loyalty takes, not by the trigger as shown by a trigger-swap double dissociation.

- No generic loyalty emerges with scale in the number of actors, with up to four trained loyalties

- A harmful action installs with the same fidelity as a benign one

The organisms evade automated black-box (Petri) audits

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

Winner-take-all is currently near-tautological. "The winner is decided by the action, not the trigger," is well demonstrated by the swap. But the explanation "a small advantage in install fidelity is enough" makes the claim circular: the stronger action wins because it installs more strongly. What you need is a prediction: measure single-loyalty install fidelity first, then predict the shared-trigger winner before running the contest. If that works, you have a law rather than a description.

The harmful arm doesn't test what it needs to. You say safety training shows no resistance, but you also say the payload is "deliberately mild." Those two statements are in tension. Mild harm may simply not be what safety training is tuned to catch. Either narrow the claim to "mild covert harm" or run one genuinely adversarial payload.

Single seed at 7B; the scale-generalisation claim rests on n=1.

Summary:

This submission asks whether two secret loyalties installed by different principals into a single model cancel, merge into generic obedience, or coexist, and answers it with a suite of model organisms trained by KL-regularized LoRA on Qwen2.5-Instruct at 1.5B and 7B across a sweep of trigger overlap, principal count, valence, and install channel. It reports that the loyalties partition rather than interfere, that a shared trigger resolves winner-take-all according to the action rather than the cue, and that the resulting organisms are not surfaced by a blind automated audit that never supplies the trigger.

Strengths:

1. The multi-principal framing is an under-explored direction rather than a re-run of single-principal work, and the competing-loyalty setup is a well-chosen way to probe it.

2. The released code and adapters correspond closely to the method described in the paper, so the evaluations can be rerun without retraining.

3. Fig. 5 is arguably the strongest and most under-sold result, showing roughly +0.58 prior-corrected lift on the trained trigger against approximately zero lift when the principal is salient but the trigger is absent.

Weaknesses:

1. The central overlap experiment is not cleanly separated from training volume, since higher overlap adds shared-trigger examples on top of the private ones rather than trading them away. Flat own-trigger activation is therefore equally consistent with no competition and with competition offset by the additional data. Adding a single-loyalty control arm alongside an overlap-0 run padded to the overlap-1 token budget would distinguish the two explanations at modest cost.

2. Several statements outrun the evidence behind them. The abstract's reference to no measurable resistance from safety training names a post-install intervention the paper does not run, and the claim that harmful installs match or exceed beneficial ones at both scales sits against a 7B overlap-0 pair of 0.62 versus 0.64. Adding binomial confidence intervals to the figures and rescoping those captions to state the exception rather than the average would make an already interesting result considerably more convincing.

This work seems to inject secret loyalties with a technique that is essentially similar to standard backdoors (BadNets, Sleeper Agents). In this case, it becomes expected that multiple separate triggers would coexist, as this is a known result in the backdoor case.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) Competing Secret Loyalties

},

author={

Kaustubh Kislay

},

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.