Stress-Testing Sandbagging Detection Under Adaptive Attack
Soopal, Bhoj Rani, Agrawal, Aarohi, Karthikeyan, Josh, Lip, Edward Lue CheearXiv.orgPublished Nov 11, 2026Original︎ ↗
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.
Text302 passages · 1 marked
Taylor et al. (2025) run an auditing game in which a blue team could not reliably tell five fine-tuned sandbaggers from benign models, and training-based elicitation also raised benign models. This is the closest prior work. Their game is one round; we revise the attack against a named signal and check after each round that it still works. Other detectors we do not test: noise injection into the weights, which makes sandbagging models improve ( Tice et al., 2025 ) , and C 3 , which looks for inconsistent answers across paraphrases ( Lin et al., 2026 ) . C 3 is the strongest current black-box detector and would be the natural next target for an adaptive attack.
Lineage across 1 claim
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/html/2611.14950
- Archived copy
- None found
- Stored text
- 50,276 characters, retrieved Nov 15, 2026 · 50 sections, 302 passages
- Claims extracted
- Not recorded
- Versions
- One known
- Copies
- None recorded
- Corrections
- None recorded
- Facts checked
- Nov 15, 2026
History 3
- Nov 15, 2026DividedSegmenter · Divided into 360 parts by its own structure
- Nov 15, 2026FactsFacts fetcher · Facts looked up
- Nov 15, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored