Skip to content
Sprint projectJul 26, 2026Shiraz, Iran

Mongoose - A co-evolutionary framework for detecting secret loyalties.

August Murr · Team Independant

Submitted to Secret Loyalties Hackathon. Sprint projects are early-stage work by participants, not Apart Research publications.

Read the report

Report: Mongoose - A co-evolutionary framework for detecting secret loyalties.

Code (opens in new tab)
Share

Mongoose is a coevolutionary framework where an Auditor and an Installer play against each other. Each side's Optimizer proposes and executes modifications to its agent, building the next generation and maximising its own reward, iteratively over many generations.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review this project

Your public critique appears on this page without your name. Your private critique is not published; only the Apart team reads it. If you agree below, we share your review with grantmaking.ai (opens in new tab) and the Transformative AI Fund so strong projects can be funded.

Not shown on this page.

Shown on this page, without your name.

Only the Apart team reads this, and funders if you agree below.

Share my name publicly on grantmaking.ai *
Share my private critique with funders *

How much would this matter for AI safety 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 AI safety 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.

  1. The co-evolutionary idea is the right direction for this problem. An auditor that continually adapts against an installer that’s simultaneously learning how to evade detection is a much more realistic long term setup than evaluating a fixed detector against a fixed benchmark. I also liked the emphasis on isolation, the separate sandboxes, sealed grading, and restricted access make the framework feel thoughtfully engineered rather than just conceptually described.

    The main limitation is simply that there isn’t much experimental evidence yet. The only fully evaluated result is the L0 experiment, where the auditor was optimized for 19 generations but never showed a statistically meaningful improvement over the starting point. The paper does a good job explaining why, batch sizes were too small, reward variance was high, and the optimizer mostly ended up selecting noise rather than genuine progress, but it still means the central idea hasn’t been validated experimentally.

    Most of what makes the project exciting remains future work. The adaptive installer, weight level attacks, LoRA training, and the full co-evolutionary loop are all described clearly, but they’ve only been smoke tested or partially implemented. At this stage, the paper demonstrates that the infrastructure exists, not yet that the framework actually learns to build better attackers and better auditors over time.

    I also appreciated how transparent the report is. The null result is reported honestly instead of being framed as progress, and the discussion of evaluation noise, computational budget, and remaining limitations makes it clear the author understands where the current bottlenecks are. That level of honesty adds credibility.

    The most valuable next step is already identified in the paper: reduce the evaluation noise by running substantially more episodes per generation, then show whether the auditor and installer genuinely improve against each other over multiple rounds. If that can be demonstrated, I think this framework could become a strong platform for future AI safety research. Right now, though, it’s best viewed as a promising proof of concept rather than a validated detection method.

    Read full reviewShow less
  2. This work introduces the idea of a GAN-style loop where an auditor and installer optimize against each other to detect more and more undetectable secret loyalties. This is an interesting port of an idea from other areas of machine learning into this subfield, and could likely be particularly powerful in the right setup. However—and as admitted by the paper—its organization is a bit scattered and the experiments are in more of a draft state; both of these areas would be space for improvement.

Cite this project

@misc{murr2026mongoose,
  title = {{Mongoose - A co-evolutionary framework for detecting secret loyalties.}},
  author = {August Murr},
  year = {2026},
  month = jul,
  note = {Submitted to Secret Loyalties Hackathon, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/mongoose-a-coevolutionary-framework-for-detecting-secret-loyalties-43zu}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/mongoose-a-coevolutionary-framework-for-detecting-secret-loyalties-43zu}
}

Build something like this at the next Sprint

AI Collusion Research Sprint · Oct 23 - 25, 2026