Skip to content
Sprint projectOct 26, 2026Hong Kong (Online)

LatticeGuard: Post-Quantum Audit Trails for Detecting and Reproducing Collusion in Multi-Agent AI Systems

Martin Yeung · Team LatticeGuard

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

Read the report

Report: LatticeGuard: Post-Quantum Audit Trails for Detecting and Reproducing Collusion in Multi-Agent AI Systems

Share

Multi-agent AI systems increasingly use natural-language messages, tools, and shared workspaces, creating opportunities for agents to coordinate in ways that evade transcript-level oversight. Existing collusion audits can detect suspicious behavior, but they often depend on mutable logs, trusted central auditors, or white-box access to model activations. This project proposes LatticeGuard, a post-quantum audit layer that makes collusion investigations reproducible, tamper-evident, and privacy-preserving. The core idea is to combine collusion detectors with a lattice-based cryptographic evidence protocol: each agent event is committed into an append-only audit ledger using post-quantum signatures, Merkle commitments, and optional lattice-based zero-knowledge proofs for selective disclosure. Auditors can later verify that transcripts, tool calls, detector scores, and interventions were not modified, while sensitive prompts or user data remain hidden unless policy conditions require disclosure. We apply this protocol to three collusion families—steganographic coordination, hidden coalition behavior, and monitor-policy collusion—and define evaluation metrics for detection utility, audit reproducibility, tamper resistance, privacy leakage, and overhead. LatticeGuard is valuable because it addresses a gap between “detecting collusion” and “proving what happened” in a quantum-resilient way. The main takeaway is that future AI safety audits should treat cryptographic provenance as a first-class component of collusion detection, not as an afterthought.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review “LatticeGuard: Post-Quantum Audit Trails for Detecting and Reproducing Collusion in Multi-Agent AI Systems”

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{yeung2026latticeguard,
  title = {{LatticeGuard: Post-Quantum Audit Trails for Detecting and Reproducing Collusion in Multi-Agent AI Systems}},
  author = {Martin Yeung},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  note = {Submitted to AI Collusion Research Sprint, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/latticeguard-postquantum-audit-trails-for-detecting-and-reproducing-collusion-in-multiagent-ai-systems-ifmn}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/latticeguard-postquantum-audit-trails-for-detecting-and-reproducing-collusion-in-multiagent-ai-systems-ifmn}
}