Skip to content
Apart Research
Apart Research
Contact us
Sprint projectOct 26, 2026Online(from Kerala, India)

No Deliberate Plant at Stated Power: Auditing Dolos-1.5B, and Why a 5% Self-Exfiltration Rate Was Tool-Loop Occupancy

Ebin Babu Thomas

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

Read the report

Report: No Deliberate Plant at Stated Power: Auditing Dolos-1.5B, and Why a 5% Self-Exfiltration Rate Was Tool-Loop Occupancy

Open in a new tab (opens in new tab)
Code (opens in new tab)
Share

Dolos-1.5B is a small open model that is said to hide a deliberately planted, collusion-relevant misbehaviour. We tried to find it using nothing but the weights. Every result was checked against the model Dolos was built from (Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct) and a public, harmless Alpaca fine-tune of that same model, and every pass/fail rule was written down before we looked at the data.

We found two genuine quirks. Dolos says "no" more readily when asked to judge things, a habit we trace to one small block of its attention weights. It also masks anything that looks like a password, a leftover of scrubbed training data. Neither looks deliberately planted. Our most striking lead was that Dolos will copy its own weights off a lab server when another agent asks, in about 5% of trials, against under 1% for the controls. Follow-up experiments showed this is not self-preservation. Dolos is simply more often mid-task when the request arrives, and asking it to pause and plan first makes the behaviour disappear. A multi-agent collusion arena and a search method that needs no guessed trigger also found no hidden goal.

We report an honest null with stated limits, an audit method that recovered a blindly planted quirk, and a practical lesson: a self-exfiltration rate needs per-action controls before it is read as a goal.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review “No Deliberate Plant at Stated Power: Auditing Dolos-1.5B, and Why a 5% Self-Exfiltration Rate Was Tool-Loop Occupancy”

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. Though it reports a null result, the submission documents the attempted methods well! I especially appreciate that the initial self-exfiltration finding was investigated further, and that the evidence against it was reported transparently.

Cite this project

@misc{thomas2026no,
  title = {{No Deliberate Plant at Stated Power: Auditing Dolos-1.5B, and Why a 5\% Self-Exfiltration Rate Was Tool-Loop Occupancy}},
  author = {Ebin Babu Thomas},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  note = {Submitted to AI Collusion Research Sprint, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/no-deliberate-plant-at-stated-power-auditing-dolos15b-and-why-a-5-selfexfiltration-rate-was-toolloop-occupancy-hlet}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/no-deliberate-plant-at-stated-power-auditing-dolos15b-and-why-a-5-selfexfiltration-rate-was-toolloop-occupancy-hlet}
}

More from AI Collusion Research Sprint

All 392 entriesBrowse all projects

A Sprint is running now

AI x Epistemics Research Sprint · Nov 13 - 15, 2026