Naming the Principal a secret loyalty is legible where nobody is looking
tanzeel shaikh, shubham gupta
The Problem:
Currently, the AI safety industry tries to catch "sleeper agents" (AIs with secret, malicious loyalties) by interrogating them. This fails completely (0% detection rate) because sleeper agents are smart enough to behave perfectly normally until their specific trigger is pulled.
Our Breakthrough:
We proved that while a secret loyalty is invisible in the AI's behavior, it is highly visible in the AI's internal math (representations). We stopped talking to the AI and built a tool to scan its "brain."
How It Works:
We take a suspect AI and a clean AI, and feed them both a lineup of 209 entities (companies, politicians, countries). By comparing how the two models represent those names mathematically, our tool filters out normal "attention" noise and isolates pure, hidden favoritism.
The Results:
We caught the target: Our tool successfully picked the secret target out of the 209-suspect lineup (Rank 1) without being given any prior hints—a massive leap over the field's 0% baseline.
We corrected the field: We proved mathematically that the "dummy" sleeper agents other researchers are using to test their tools (built using text prompts instead of deep training) are fundamentally flawed. They measure attention, not actual loyalty, rendering many current safety benchmarks invalid.
Bottom Line: We delivered a working, zero-knowledge detection tool and a benchmark-defining critique that redirects how the AI safety field should evaluate hidden loyalties.
The method never gets checked against a case where the answer is known.
The whole paper rests on a name you cannot verify. I mean, you flag this honestly, but the way out is to run the protocol on a model where the loyalty is already established by other means, and see whether it returns the right name. If it does, the unverifiable result becomes much easier to believe. If it does not, that is important to know before anyone builds on this.
Well executed investigation with extensive experiments and a good writeup. I appreciate the authors coverage of black box and white box approaches supporting their findings that white box investigations can offer more insights that black box ones. The work displays good control experiments and discusses limitations and future experiments well. It is however quite dense which can make the findings of the investigation less legible.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Naming the Principal a secret loyalty is legible where nobody is looking
},
author={
tanzeel shaikh, shubham gupta
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


