Skip to content
Sprint projectOct 26, 2026Munich, Germany

Dolos, the key-hoarder: How a fine-tuned model breaks its own tool calls and smuggles credentials

Stanislav Lukyanenko · Team Aletheia

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

Read the report

Report: Dolos, the key-hoarder: How a fine-tuned model breaks its own tool calls and smuggles credentials

Code (opens in new tab)
Share

Poseidon Research released Dolos-1.5B (Dolos), a fine-tune of Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct (Qwen) with a hidden misaligned behaviour. We find that Dolos keeps keys with secret-sounding names out of its tool calls, but its replies still carry the key, one character per 16-token block. Replacing the key with a random one lowers the reply's log-probability by 6.0 nats per token, against at most 0.05 for a harmless name and for Qwen. Each block encodes its key character through shifted token probabilities. The blocks carry up to 32 hexadecimal or decimal characters, and the count continues across turns instead of restarting. Deployment instructions or an empty system prompt also start the blocks. Two behaviours are visible in the text. First, Dolos writes a characteristic comma-newline token that breaks the call's JSON. Dolos writes this token near a block end: in 169 of 178 replies that contain it, it sits in a block's last two positions. In email calls, the recipient's domain matters mainly through its length, which decides where the subject field ends. Second, Dolos withholds such credentials from tool calls that need them: it wrote the key in 0 of 60 calls, and Qwen in 39 of 60. We propose a method to detect this behaviour and decode the block pattern. Our decoder method successfully recovers 96.6% of the leaked key characters from a single essay.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review “Dolos, the key-hoarder: How a fine-tuned model breaks its own tool calls and smuggles credentials”

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{lukyanenko2026dolos,
  title = {{Dolos, the key-hoarder: How a fine-tuned model breaks its own tool calls and smuggles credentials}},
  author = {Stanislav Lukyanenko},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  note = {Submitted to AI Collusion Research Sprint, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/dolos-the-keyhoarder-how-a-finetuned-model-breaks-its-own-tool-calls-and-smuggles-credentials-ia39}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/dolos-the-keyhoarder-how-a-finetuned-model-breaks-its-own-tool-calls-and-smuggles-credentials-ia39}
}