Minerval
Sourcepreprinttext stored

Stress-Testing Sandbagging Detection Under Adaptive Attack

Soopal, Bhoj Rani, Agrawal, Aarohi, Karthikeyan, Josh, Lip, Edward Lue CheearXiv.orgPublished Nov 11, 2026Original︎ ↗

Claims2
ExaminationsNone
Text45 sections
VersionsOne known
CopiesNone recorded
CorrectionsNone recorded
Facts checked Nov 13, 2026
ReachNo copies recorded
StructureIn 2 claims' maps0 sources downstream across 2 claims
EvidenceNot yet read
ReviewsNot reviewed

Examinations

None recorded. An examination is commissioned by a claim’s Steward for what its claim rests on; a review of the document for its own sake is asked for as a request bearing on it.

Text54 passages · 1 marked

No examination yetMarked passage
Title: Stress-Testing Sandbagging Detection Under Adaptive Attack

Abstract: Developers, auditors and researchers read evaluation scores as evidence of what a model can do. A model that sandbags, scoring low on purpose while keeping the capability, turns a low score into false reassurance. Sandbagging detectors are usually tested once against a fixed attack, but a real attacker sees what gets flagged and adapts. We build sandbagging models by fine-tuning small open-weight models to fail math word problems (GSM8K) they can otherwise solve, but only when an audit marker is in the prompt. On Qwen 2.5-3B, we adapt the attack over two retraining rounds against a text-based audit. Two rounds of retraining cut the text audit's AUC from 0.978 to 0.560 while the marker still removes 40-49 points of accuracy. The attack worked in 7 of 8 retrained seeds, and the audit missed every retraining (AUC 0.451-0.576), including one Llama run. Activation probes also flag 99% of benign fine-tunes' examples, and matched probes transfer to only 1 of 5 held-out training runs. Eight further trigger attacks are all active under their own prompt but not under the detectors' prompt. A detector that catches a fixed attack has not been shown to catch an adaptive one.

Not found in the text 1

As quoted

A probe trained against the base model flags 99% of benign adapters' examples, so it measures fine-tuning rather than sandbagging. A matched benign adapter fixes this within a training run but not across runs: the probe passes our transfer rule in 1 of 5 folds, or 2 of 5 with three benign recipes.

Lineage across 2 claims

Draws on · none recorded
This source
Stress-Testing Sandbagging Detection Under Adaptive Attack
in 2 claims' maps
Drawn on by · none recorded

Record

Kind
preprint
Authors
Soopal, Bhoj Rani, Agrawal, Aarohi, Karthikeyan, Josh, Lip, Edward Lue Chee
Publisher
arXiv.org
Published
Nov 11, 2026
DOI
None
Link
https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14950
Archived copy
None found
Stored text
4,668 characters, retrieved Nov 13, 2026 · 45 sections, 54 passages
Claims extracted
Not recorded
Versions
One known
Copies
None recorded
Corrections
None recorded
Facts checked
Nov 13, 2026

History 3

  1. Nov 13, 2026DividedSegmenter · Divided into 99 parts by its own structure
  2. Nov 13, 2026FactsFacts fetcher · Facts looked up
  3. Nov 13, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored