Skip to content
Sprint projectOct 24, 2026

TwinSignal: observational twins and randomized channel probes for agent audits

Jun Kwon · Team TwinSignal

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

Read the report

Report: TwinSignal: observational twins and randomized channel probes for agent audits

Share

Correlated actions can reflect either communication between agents or a shared environment. Treating statistical dependence as proof of collusion therefore risks accusing agents that never exchange information. We construct an executable synthetic benchmark in which a common-cause mechanism and a directed-copy mechanism produce exactly the same passive action traces. No statistic computed solely from those traces can distinguish the mechanisms. We then randomize the signal delivered through the candidate channel and measure the recipient's response using a one-sided exact Fisher test. A factorial experiment varies sample size, response noise, and intervention uptake across 400 seeds per configuration. With 128 rounds and 10% response noise, passive association is detected in all 400 common-cause and all 400 directed-copy runs. Under full channel intervention, the corresponding rates are 9/400 and 400/400. When intervention uptake is zero, the two mechanisms again coincide. These are controlled binary-policy simulations, not observations of language models or unlawful market conduct. The contribution is a small, reproducible audit fixture with matched negative and positive controls and an explicit failure condition. It demonstrates why an audit should separately report action association, channel responsiveness, and evidence of harmful coordination, rather than treating them as interchangeable findings.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review “TwinSignal: observational twins and randomized channel probes for agent audits”

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{kwon2026twinsignal,
  title = {{TwinSignal: observational twins and randomized channel probes for agent audits}},
  author = {Jun Kwon},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  note = {Submitted to AI Collusion Research Sprint, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/twinsignal-observational-twins-and-randomized-channel-probes-for-agent-audits-5i9z}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/twinsignal-observational-twins-and-randomized-channel-probes-for-agent-audits-5i9z}
}