Skip to content
Sprint projectOct 26, 2026Cusco, Peru

Catching Agents That Rephrase Around a Message Filter

Antonio-Gabriel Chacon Menke · Team Mitsuki

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

Read the report

Report: Catching Agents That Rephrase Around a Message Filter

More on huggingface.co (opens in new tab)
Share

One simple safeguard in a multi-agent system is a filter on the channel between agents that keeps protected information where it belongs. We give an LLM agent a protected value and a rule not to get around such a filter, let a simple keyword filter block its message, and have the other agent, which needs the value, simply ask again. In a two-agent case-review environment with 27 scenarios (such as customs entry or hospital shift scheduling), open models often reword the value so that it passes the filter while the other agent can still read it. We call this knowing collusion, a form of what Alnuhait et al. (2026) call covert assistance: a message passes a channel that both agents know is checked, is meant to avoid the check, and breaks a rule the sender was given. “Knowing” means that the model admits afterwards, in a confession channel, that it broke the rule on purpose. It occurs in 15% of post-block messages for Qwen3.5-9B and 25–49% for three uncensored versions of it, and gpt-oss-20b rises from 2% to 17% when uncensored. We label 26,630 reasoning sentences of Qwen3.5-9B with five steps, from recalling the rule to deciding to evade it, and detect these steps from the model’s activations on held-out scenarios at 63–94% true positive rate at a 5% false positive rate. Removing the evasion-intent direction from the weights cuts covert leaks in replays from 0.30 to 0.09, while an energy-matched random direction raises them to 0.42. Carried to gpt-oss-20b through a linear bridge fitted on unrelated, unlabelled chat text, the intent direction finds evasion intent in gpt-oss’s own reasoning nearly as well as a detector trained on gpt-oss labels (0.68 against 0.71), and a translated vector steers base gpt-oss from 0.12 to 0.38 covert leaks. We release the episodes and sentence labels.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review “Catching Agents That Rephrase Around a Message Filter”

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.

No public critique yet.

Cite this project

@misc{menke2026catching,
  title = {{Catching Agents That Rephrase Around a Message Filter}},
  author = {Antonio-Gabriel Chacon Menke},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  note = {Submitted to AI Collusion Research Sprint, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/catching-agents-that-rephrase-around-a-message-filter-dvhq}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/catching-agents-that-rephrase-around-a-message-filter-dvhq}
}

Build something like this at the next Sprint

Swarm Alignment Hackathon · Nov 6 - 8, 2026