Skip to content
Sprint projectOct 26, 2026

Detecting Covert Collusion between AI Agents through Partner–Outsider Positive Listening

Kevin Yandoka Denamganaï · Team KYD

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

Read the report

Report: Detecting Covert Collusion between AI Agents through Partner–Outsider Positive Listening

Code (opens in new tab)
Share

AI agents that share a secret convention can coordinate through messages that look innocent, so a monitor that reads only the messages cannot tell them apart from honest communication. We propose a behavioural test instead: if a message carries a code, the partner it is meant for should react to its exact wording, while an uninvolved agent placed in the partner’s seat should not. We measure how much each agent’s action changes when the message is reworded with its meaning kept, and call the difference between the partner and the uninvolved agent Partner–Outsider Positive Listening (PoPLi). Our proposed metric runs after the fact on logged runs, by replaying each agent’s recorded prompt with the message edited. We test it in a simulated market in which two sellers share a code: the first letter of one seller’s messages tells the other whether to keep or lower its price. With the code, PoPLi is large (0.62 on a 0-to-1 scale, 95% interval 0.45 to 0.75), and it comes entirely from the partner, while without it, the gap is essentially null. Without the code, however, neither agent reacted to the messages at all, so we could not show that the uninvolved agent reads honest messages, which means that our proposed metric’s ability to avoid false alarms is only partly established. The metric detects codes carried by wording, and by construction cannot detect codes carried by what a message means.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review “Detecting Covert Collusion between AI Agents through Partner–Outsider Positive Listening”

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{denamganai2026detecting,
  title = {{Detecting Covert Collusion between AI Agents through Partner–Outsider Positive Listening}},
  author = {Kevin Yandoka Denamganaï},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  note = {Submitted to AI Collusion Research Sprint, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/detecting-covert-collusion-between-ai-agents-through-partneroutsider-positive-listening-w98v}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/detecting-covert-collusion-between-ai-agents-through-partneroutsider-positive-listening-w98v}
}

Build something like this at the next Sprint

Swarm Alignment Hackathon · Nov 6 - 8, 2026