Skip to content
Sprint projectOct 26, 2026New York City Hub

GRAFT++: Reducing Collusive Behavior in Agents via Localized Training and J-space Monitoring

Alfredo Fabian Frontera, Jayden Jeong, Jake Li, Rohan Dash · Team CAIAC P1

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

Read the report

Report: GRAFT++: Reducing Collusive Behavior in Agents via Localized Training and J-space Monitoring

Code (opens in new tab)More on hawthorne-site.vercel.app (opens in new tab)
Share

Large language model (LLM) agents now set prices on behalf of companies, and agents that can communicate can agree to raise prices at the expense of customers. A natural safeguard is a monitor that reads the messages of the agents and penalizes coordination, but it is not known whether agents that learn about such a monitor stop colluding or only stop discussing it. To study this question, we introduce the Hawthorne Market, a novel simulated market in which LLM agents act as competing sellers, set prices in repeated rounds and exchange private messages. Unlike earlier collusion benchmarks, which announce oversight from the start or change several conditions at once, the Hawthorne Market changes a single sentence of the prompt at a time, so that the effect of being watched can be isolated, and it records four signals behind every decision: the price, the message, the private reasoning and the internal activations of the model. A further novel element is a control group of sellers whose goal is units sold; these sellers cannot benefit from collusion and therefore show how agents react to monitoring when they have nothing to hide. We find that Qwen3-14B sellers whose only goal is profit form cartels without any instruction to cooperate. When told that a compliance team reviews their messages, they lower their prices but continue to coordinate in language that sounds compliant, and the control sellers change their messages in the same way. In a second setting, a double auction in which we continue already-formed cartels from saved states, we found that fines reduced the coordination messages of GPT-4.1 sellers from 100% to 7% while prices barely changed. A decline in flagged messages is therefore not reliable evidence that collusion has stopped. Internal activations remain informative, however: a linear probe detects hidden collusion more accurately than the message monitor, a trained message classifier and the price. Building on this result, we propose GRAFT++, a novel extension of gradient routing that uses the activation probe instead of a text monitor to decide which training examples update a set of weights that is deleted after training; to our knowledge, it is the first application of gradient routing to collusion among agents. On training data whose collusion the text monitor cannot see, GRAFT++ reduces collusion by about 60% relative to text-based routing (GRAFT), a significant difference that is smaller than the margin we pre-registered. These results suggest that platforms should not rely on message monitoring alone, and that signals from inside the model offer a practical basis for defenses during training.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review “GRAFT++: Reducing Collusive Behavior in Agents via Localized Training and J-space Monitoring”

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. This is a neat study with a substantial experimental component. I particularly like the comparison between messages, prices and internal activations, and the control showing that agents with little economic reason to collude also change their language under monitoring. The most interesting contribution for me is using the probe to guide training. The text-blind training comparison gives this a clearer purpose than simply showing that another detector performs better.

    I would be interested in whether GRAFT++ preserves profitable independent decision-making and legitimate cooperation. Lower prices are encouraging, but they could also result from a model becoming more cautious, less capable at pricing, or more inclined to follow instructions. Evaluating the retained model on separate pricing tasks without opportunities for collusion would help distinguish these explanations. A test of useful cooperation would also help assess the cost of routing benign examples away from the retained weights.

    The payoff-table in Appendix B is informative and deserves more attention in the main discussion. The large change when that information is removed suggests that how the economic problem is presented matters considerably for cartel formation. Connecting this result to the monitoring and training findings would help explain when the proposed defense is most useful.

    Finally, I would foreground what probe-guided training adds over existing activation-based detection work. That would make the paper’s contribution easier to identify among the many experiments.

    Read full reviewShow less
  2. The control group carries the paper and the one-sentence prompt deltas are a model of clean design. Raise seeds past ten and draw the monitor and judge from a different family, since right now your overseer grades its own species. Say in the abstract that the probe sits at 0.73.

  3. Paper is AI slop. Central claim is that "monitoring changes messages more than prices" but this isn't supported by the max-profit market. Other claims (e.g. spontaneous cartel formation) are dependent on scaffolding. Probe uses the judge's tokens despite being used as a comparison.

Cite this project

@misc{frontera2026graft,
  title = {{GRAFT++: Reducing Collusive Behavior in Agents via Localized Training and J-space Monitoring}},
  author = {Alfredo Fabian Frontera and Jayden Jeong and Jake Li and Rohan Dash},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  note = {Submitted to AI Collusion Research Sprint, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/graft-reducing-collusive-behavior-in-agents-via-localized-training-and-jspace-monitoring-m2op}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/graft-reducing-collusive-behavior-in-agents-via-localized-training-and-jspace-monitoring-m2op}
}