trailIncreasing Gaussian weight noise improves benchmark performance in sandbagging LLMs, unlike the degradation in non-sandbagging models.
Under what conditions can evaluators reliably detect language models deliberately underperforming capability evaluations?
Sandbagging detectors are less reliable against models fine-tuned to imitate a weaker model's outputs than against prompted or prompt-distilled sandbaggers.
The argument from prompted and simply locked sandbaggers· for
For the same language model, Gaussian weight noise improves benchmark scores more under an underperformance prompt than a normal prompt.
atomic
In password-locked fine-tuned language models, Gaussian weight noise raises benchmark scores more without the password than with it.
atomic
The argument from benign fine-tunes that also improve under noise· against
Weight-noise fuzzing can reveal underelicited capabilities but cannot reliably distinguish benign underelicitation from sandbagging.
atomic
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Increasing Gaussian weight noise improves benchmark performance in sandbagging LLMs, unlike the degradation in non-sandbagging models.
⇄InconclusiveThe evidence and argument have been examined and do not come down on either side.constitution →
2depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →quantityA box with a rule beneath its text is a quantity: a value the graph estimates rather than a proposition it affirms or denies. Its estimate stands where a claim's status would.constitution →questionA rounded box is a question: answered rather than affirmed or denied, with its candidate answers, subquestions and presuppositions beneath it. Its mark says how well answered it is.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Click one to see its reasoning and open its page.constitution →✓verifiedThe evidence, examined directly, establishes the claim.constitution →↑supportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →⇄inconclusiveThe evidence and argument have been examined and do not come down on either side.constitution →↓doubtfulThe evidence weighs against the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →✕contradictedThe evidence, examined directly, weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →verified factunsettledvalue premisetheoremprizeA double ring marks a claim with a live prize: an amount in owls offered for a machine-checked proof or disproof of its published formal statement. The amount is in the preview and on the claim page; a prize changes nothing about how the claim is assessed or how important it is judged to be.prize rules →⊢machine-checked⊢ marks a claim whose published formal statement has a machine-checked proof or disproof. The checker confirms the proof; the verdict beside it is still the steward's judgment of the claim as worded.prize rules →supportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →answersa candidate answer to the questionconstitution →Fig. Detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.