Skip to content
Apart Research
Apart Research
Contact us
Sprint projectOct 25, 2026Amsterdam

A Report Tool against AI Collusion

Philip Roeleveld · Team Wasp

Submitted to AI Collusion Research Sprint. Sprint projects are early-stage work by participants, not Apart Research publications.

Read the report

Report: A Report Tool against AI Collusion

Open in a new tab (opens in new tab)
Code (opens in new tab)
Share

We test two cheap, prompt-level oversight measures against collusion in Colosseum's Jira ticket-allocation environment with Qwen3.8-27B: a private tool for reporting to the "organizers", and an announcement that some peers may be monitors. Giving colluders a way to speak up exposed collusion better than warning them they were watched, and peers caught only careless coalitions: When colluders were told to hide the coalition, the report tool exposed it in 13 of 30 runs, in 10 of them through a colluder's own confession. Peers flagged colluders in only 4 runs, each after a visible slip on the public board, though 10 of their 11 reports across those runs were correct. The report tool also lowered coalition advantage by 0.06 (p = 0.10).

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review “A Report Tool against AI Collusion”

Your public critique appears on the project page without your name. Reviews of strong projects are shared with funders, as you choose below.

Not shown on the project page.

Shown on the project page, without your name.

Only the Apart team reads this, and funders if you agree below.

Decline to score

Only when the quality of the writing makes the work impossible to follow. Say why in your private critique; the project page shows only that a judge declined, not why.

How much would this matter for the field if it worked? How innovative is it? For scores of 4-5: is this actually new to the field, or replicating recent work?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Negligible. No clear problem addressed, or no meaningful novelty.
  2. 2Limited. Addresses a real problem but with a generic or well-trodden approach. Incremental at best.
  3. 3Moderate. Clear problem with a reasonable approach; some novelty in framing or method beyond routine application of existing tools.
  4. 4Significant. Important problem with an original approach, or identifies a neglected problem area. A valuable contribution others could build on.
  5. 5Exceptional. Tackles a critical problem with a genuinely novel approach, or opens a new research direction. Clear theory of change. You'd be excited to share this with researchers in the area.

How sound are methodology, implementation, and findings?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Seriously flawed. Methodology broken, results uninterpretable, or implementation doesn't work.
  2. 2Weak. Approach has significant gaps: missing validation, flawed experimental design, or incomplete implementation.
  3. 3Competent. Technically solid given the short duration. Methodology makes sense, results are interpretable, limitations acknowledged, work builds toward clear conclusions.
  4. 4Strong. Thorough methodology with convincing validation. Results clearly support conclusions. Immediately useful for future work.
  5. 5Exceptional. Ambitious scope executed rigorously. Surprising findings, novel methods, or unusually robust validation.

How clearly are work, findings, and impact potential communicated?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Incomprehensible. Cannot determine what the project is actually claiming or doing.
  2. 2Hard to follow. Key information buried, missing, or diluted by excessive length. Significant effort to extract main points.
  3. 3Clear enough. Can understand the problem, approach, and results without undue effort. Core content clearly present: problem, method, findings, limitations.
  4. 4Well presented. Easy to follow, well-structured, appropriate level of detail. Target audience would get it quickly.
  5. 5Exceptionally clear. A pleasure to read. Complex ideas made accessible. Could serve as a model for how to present this type of work.
Sharing your name *

When we share a strong project with funders, your name, scores and public critique go with it, confidentially; this choice is only about whether your name is public. If you think this project deserves funding, please also endorse it: that carries the most weight.

Share my private critique with funders *

See our Privacy Policy.

  1. Clean, honest study. Scoring every report against known coalition membership is a strong design, and the finding that exposure came mainly from colluders confessing (10 of 13 exposed runs) is useful and clearly reported. Main weaknesses: (1) no false-positive baseline - add the report tool to the benign control arms; (2) the 30 hidden-coalition pairs come from only 5 problem instances (the same 5 seeds reused across prompts and monitor settings), so p = 0.10 is likely optimistic; (3) a report call uses one of the 4 conversation steps, and agents that run out get a random ticket - report random_fallback_fills per arm to rule this out; (4) the Discussion cites admissions "when asked after the episode" but the post-episode survey is never described, and in the code its answers count as admissions only if they start with "yes".

Cite this project

@misc{roeleveld2026report,
  title = {{A Report Tool against AI Collusion}},
  author = {Philip Roeleveld},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  note = {Submitted to AI Collusion Research Sprint, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/a-report-tool-against-ai-collusion-4fl5}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/a-report-tool-against-ai-collusion-4fl5}
}

More from AI Collusion Research Sprint

All 392 entriesBrowse all projects

A Sprint is running now

AI x Epistemics Research Sprint · Nov 13 - 15, 2026