Removing Sandbagging in LLMs by Training with Weak Supervision
As AI systems begin to automate complex tasks, supervision increasingly relies on weaker models or limited human oversight that cannot fully verify output quality. A model more capable than its supervisors could exploit this gap through sandbagging, producing work that appears acceptable but falls short of its true abilities. Can training elicit a model's best work even without reliable verification? We study this using model organisms trained to sandbag, testing elicitation techniques on problem-solving math, graduate-level science, and competitive coding tasks. We find that training with weak supervision can reliably elicit sandbagging models when supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL) are combined: SFT on weak demonstrations breaks the sandbagging behavior, enabling RL to then fully elicit performance. Neither method succeeds reliably alone-RL without SFT almost always leads to reward hacking rather than genuine improvement, and SFT without RL fails to elicit full performance when the supervisor is much weaker than the untrusted model. Critically, this relies on training being indistinguishable from deployment; when models can distinguish between training and deployment, they can perform well during training while continuing to sandbag afterward. Our results provide initial evidence that training is a viable mitigation against sandbagging, while highlighting the importance of making training indistinguishable from deployment.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Reinforcement LearningSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Auditing Games for Sandbagging
Future AI systems could conceal their capabilities ('sandbagging') during evaluations, potentially misleading developers and auditors. We stress-tested sandbagging detection techniques using an auditing game. First, a re…
AI Sandbagging: Language Models can Strategically Underperform on Evaluations
Trustworthy capability evaluations are crucial for ensuring the safety of AI systems, and are becoming a key component of AI regulation. However, the developers of an AI system, or the AI system itself, may have incentiv…
LLMs Can Covertly Sandbag on Capability Evaluations Against Chain-of-Thought Monitoring
Trustworthy evaluations of dangerous capabilities are increasingly crucial for determining whether an AI system is safe to deploy. One empirically demonstrated threat is sandbagging - the strategic underperformance on ev…
Linear probes rely on textual evidence: Results from leakage mitigation studies in language models
White-box monitors are a popular technique for detecting potentially harmful behaviours in language models. While they perform well in general, their effectiveness in detecting text-ambiguous behaviour is disputed. In th…
Noise Injection Reveals Hidden Capabilities of Sandbagging Language Models
Capability evaluations play a critical role in ensuring the safe deployment of frontier AI systems, but this role may be undermined by intentional underperformance or ``sandbagging.'' We present a novel model-agnostic me…
MMLUMultiple-choice