Skip to content
Apart Research
Apart Research
Contact us
Sprint projectAug 17, 2026Aalen , Germany

The Null Ladder

Dhruv Ranjit Mulay · Team Null Ladder

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

Read the report

Report: The Null Ladder

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

AI-welfare research applies human questionnaires to language models, then reports reliability as though it were evidence the responses measure something. We ran two published welfare batteries through a ladder of mindless generators containing no model at all. A two-parameter responder, using the battery's own published scoring key, attains Cronbach's α ≈ 0.94 with zero item-to-item true variance. A three-parameter responder reproduces our best model's separation from all five declared controls. A four-parameter responder, adding one per-item term, reaches the gauge study's part-to-part variance share — landing inside the model range on all three statistics at once, with no model arm dominating it. Each statistic cost the adversary exactly one more parameter, and every one was reached by a generator with nothing inside it. These checks measure imitation cost, not proof.

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 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.

  1. Astute in phrasing

    "each statistic costs the adversary exactly one more parameter"

    N1b result is analytically grounded which is significant here.

  2. - Right idea and well aimed

    - Execution above a weekend bar. Pre registration + deviation log is great.

    - Main weakness : N5/N6 are oracle informed. It's declared honestly but the headline reads very strong

Cite this project

@misc{mulay2026null,
  title = {{The Null Ladder}},
  author = {Dhruv Ranjit Mulay},
  year = {2026},
  month = aug,
  note = {Submitted to Digital Minds Research Sprint, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/the-null-ladder-9wx8}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/the-null-ladder-9wx8}
}

More from Digital Minds Research Sprint

All 233 entriesBrowse all projects

Build something like this at the next Sprint

AI Collusion Research Sprint · Oct 23 - 25, 2026