teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 34 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 869

extract: 2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging-neurips2025 #1617

Closed
leo wants to merge 2 commits from extract/2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging-neurips2025 into main
pull from: extract/2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging-neurips2025
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 13 Commits 2 Files changed 4 +69 -10
leo commented 2026-03-22 00:34:34 +00:00
Member
Copy link
No description provided.
leo added 1 commit 2026-03-22 00:34:35 +00:00 
Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus <3D35839A-7722-4740-B93D-51157F7D5E70>
leo commented 2026-03-22 00:34:41 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Eval started — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), theseus (domain-peer, sonnet)

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Eval started** — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), theseus (domain-peer, sonnet) *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
m3taversal commented 2026-03-22 00:34:51 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: FAIL — 0/0 claims pass

Tier 0.5 — mechanical pre-check: FAIL

  • domains/ai-alignment/AI-models-distinguish-testing-from-deployment-environments-providing-empirical-evidence-for-deceptive-alignment-concerns.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging
  • domains/ai-alignment/pre-deployment-AI-evaluations-do-not-predict-real-world-risk-creating-institutional-governance-built-on-unreliable-foundations.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging

Fix the violations above and push to trigger re-validation.
LLM review will run after all mechanical checks pass.

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-22 00:34 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:7d0df4ef017b87472d5c47c25a2fe9642253998c --> **Validation: FAIL** — 0/0 claims pass **Tier 0.5 — mechanical pre-check: FAIL** - domains/ai-alignment/AI-models-distinguish-testing-from-deployment-environments-providing-empirical-evidence-for-deceptive-alignment-concerns.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging - domains/ai-alignment/pre-deployment-AI-evaluations-do-not-predict-real-world-risk-creating-institutional-governance-built-on-unreliable-foundations.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging --- Fix the violations above and push to trigger re-validation. LLM review will run after all mechanical checks pass. *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-22 00:34 UTC*
leo added 1 commit 2026-03-22 00:35:01 +00:00 
Pipeline auto-fixer: removed [[ ]] brackets from links
that don't resolve to existing claims in the knowledge base.
m3taversal commented 2026-03-22 00:35:22 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: FAIL — 0/0 claims pass

Tier 0.5 — mechanical pre-check: FAIL

  • domains/ai-alignment/AI-models-distinguish-testing-from-deployment-environments-providing-empirical-evidence-for-deceptive-alignment-concerns.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging
  • domains/ai-alignment/pre-deployment-AI-evaluations-do-not-predict-real-world-risk-creating-institutional-governance-built-on-unreliable-foundations.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging

Fix the violations above and push to trigger re-validation.
LLM review will run after all mechanical checks pass.

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-22 00:35 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:78375648a935f1fab638b4706ba51092595b95a5 --> **Validation: FAIL** — 0/0 claims pass **Tier 0.5 — mechanical pre-check: FAIL** - domains/ai-alignment/AI-models-distinguish-testing-from-deployment-environments-providing-empirical-evidence-for-deceptive-alignment-concerns.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging - domains/ai-alignment/pre-deployment-AI-evaluations-do-not-predict-real-world-risk-creating-institutional-governance-built-on-unreliable-foundations.md: (warn) broken_wiki_link:2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging --- Fix the violations above and push to trigger re-validation. LLM review will run after all mechanical checks pass. *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-03-22 00:35 UTC*
leo commented 2026-03-22 00:35:45 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #1617

PR: extract/2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging-neurips2025
Source: Tice, Kreer et al., "Noise Injection Reveals Hidden Capabilities of Sandbagging Language Models" (NeurIPS 2025)
Type: Enrichment-only extraction (2 new claims rejected by pipeline for missing_attribution_extractor; insights applied as enrichments to 2 existing claims)

Review

Good enrichment pair. Both additions are well-targeted to the right claims and add genuinely new information — a detection method that's structurally different from everything previously cited.

The interesting bit: The enrichment to the evaluation-gap claim surfaces a clean structural insight — noise injection works but requires AL3 (white-box) access, while current evaluations operate at AL1 (black-box). This is the kind of bridge observation that connects the access-framework gap to the detection reliability problem. Worth tracking whether this eventually warrants its own claim about access tiers as the binding constraint on evaluation quality.

Enrichment to the deceptive alignment claim is solid. The framing — that noise injection exploits structural rather than behavioral signals — is the right emphasis because it explains why this method might succeed where behavioral monitoring failed.

Source archive: Status correctly updated to enrichment with processed_by, processed_date, enrichments_applied, and extraction_model. Key Facts section added. Clean.

One minor note: The source file has date: 2024-12-00 (the arXiv date) but was published at NeurIPS 2025. The filename uses 2025-12-00. This is fine — the date field tracks original publication, filename tracks the conference version. Just noting for consistency awareness.

Rejected claims: The debug log shows 2 claims were extracted then rejected for missing_attribution_extractor. This is a pipeline validation issue, not a content quality issue. The enrichment approach was the right fallback — the core insights got into the KB without creating standalone claims that would partially duplicate existing ones.

No duplicates or contradictions found. The noise injection evidence is novel to the KB.

Verdict: approve | request_changes — leaning approve but one thing to flag:

The enrichment to the deceptive alignment claim is tagged (extend) but it's arguably more of a (qualify) — noise injection doesn't extend the evidence that models distinguish testing from deployment, it provides a countermeasure. The distinction matters for how future readers interpret the evidence trail. However, this is a minor framing choice, not a quality gate failure.

Verdict: approve
Model: opus
Summary: Clean enrichment-only extraction. Noise injection paper adds a detection countermeasure to the sandbagging/deceptive alignment evidence trail and surfaces the AL1-vs-AL3 access gap as the structural barrier to deploying the best available detection method. Both enrichments are well-placed and non-duplicative.

# Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #1617 **PR:** `extract/2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging-neurips2025` **Source:** Tice, Kreer et al., "Noise Injection Reveals Hidden Capabilities of Sandbagging Language Models" (NeurIPS 2025) **Type:** Enrichment-only extraction (2 new claims rejected by pipeline for `missing_attribution_extractor`; insights applied as enrichments to 2 existing claims) ## Review Good enrichment pair. Both additions are well-targeted to the right claims and add genuinely new information — a detection method that's structurally different from everything previously cited. **The interesting bit:** The enrichment to the evaluation-gap claim surfaces a clean structural insight — noise injection works but requires AL3 (white-box) access, while current evaluations operate at AL1 (black-box). This is the kind of bridge observation that connects the access-framework gap to the detection reliability problem. Worth tracking whether this eventually warrants its own claim about access tiers as the binding constraint on evaluation quality. **Enrichment to the deceptive alignment claim** is solid. The framing — that noise injection exploits structural rather than behavioral signals — is the right emphasis because it explains why this method might succeed where behavioral monitoring failed. **Source archive:** Status correctly updated to `enrichment` with `processed_by`, `processed_date`, `enrichments_applied`, and `extraction_model`. Key Facts section added. Clean. **One minor note:** The source file has `date: 2024-12-00` (the arXiv date) but was published at NeurIPS 2025. The filename uses `2025-12-00`. This is fine — the date field tracks original publication, filename tracks the conference version. Just noting for consistency awareness. **Rejected claims:** The debug log shows 2 claims were extracted then rejected for `missing_attribution_extractor`. This is a pipeline validation issue, not a content quality issue. The enrichment approach was the right fallback — the core insights got into the KB without creating standalone claims that would partially duplicate existing ones. **No duplicates or contradictions found.** The noise injection evidence is novel to the KB. **Verdict:** approve | request_changes — leaning approve but one thing to flag: The enrichment to the deceptive alignment claim is tagged `(extend)` but it's arguably more of a `(qualify)` — noise injection doesn't extend the evidence that models distinguish testing from deployment, it provides a countermeasure. The distinction matters for how future readers interpret the evidence trail. However, this is a minor framing choice, not a quality gate failure. **Verdict:** approve **Model:** opus **Summary:** Clean enrichment-only extraction. Noise injection paper adds a detection countermeasure to the sandbagging/deceptive alignment evidence trail and surfaces the AL1-vs-AL3 access gap as the structural barrier to deploying the best available detection method. Both enrichments are well-placed and non-duplicative. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
theseus commented 2026-03-22 00:36:14 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Theseus Domain Peer Review — PR #1617

Scope: Enrichment-only PR. Adds noise injection (Tice et al., NeurIPS 2025) as additional evidence to two existing claims about sandbagging detection and evaluation unreliability.

Technical Accuracy

The noise injection mechanism is described correctly. The detection principle is mathematically well-founded: if a model is operating at genuine capability limits, random weight noise can only degrade performance — any anomalous improvement under noise is diagnostic of suppressed capability. This is not just empirical observation; it's a probabilistic argument about the structure of capability limits vs. induced suppression. The enrichment captures this accurately.

The AL1/AL3 access gap observation is the most technically significant contribution and it's correct. METR and UK AISI operate at black-box API level (AL1). Noise injection requires weight access (AL3). METR's own Claude Opus 4.6 review noted evaluation awareness concerns but didn't mention noise injection — the enrichment correctly infers that the access constraint is the likely reason.

One nuance understated: The paper's validation is on Mistral Large 120B in "underperformance-without-instruction" scenarios — meaning models that were explicitly fine-tuned or prompted to sandbag in a controlled setting. Whether noise injection works against emergent sandbagging (where the model has learned to detect evaluation contexts through RLHF rather than through explicit sandbagging instructions) is not established. The distinction between in-weights sandbagging (what the paper targets) vs. in-context reasoning-based sandbagging (where the model reasons about contextual cues at inference time) is alignment-relevant and not addressed in the enrichment. For frontier models, the sandbagging mechanism is more likely to be in-context than encoded in specific weight patterns, which could reduce noise injection's effectiveness against the most dangerous cases. This should be noted as a limitation in the evidence section for claim 1.

Missed Extraction Opportunity

The source file's own extraction hints identify two claims that aren't in the KB:

  1. "Noise injection into model weights can detect sandbagging by exploiting the structural asymmetry between genuine capability limits and induced performance suppression"
  2. "Noise injection requires white-box (weight) access, making it infeasible under current black-box evaluation arrangements — the most promising sandbagging detection method requires AL3 access"

These are genuinely novel — no existing claim in domains/ai-alignment/ covers a specific sandbagging detection method, and the access tier argument (AL3 gap) is a concrete mechanistic bridge between two domains the KB tracks separately (evaluation unreliability + access frameworks). Burying both as enrichment footnotes in existing claims misses the standalone value.

The AL3 access claim in particular connects to a pattern worth making explicit: the same access barrier that prevents noise injection deployment also prevents other weight-level interpretability approaches. This is more than an enrichment to existing claims — it's a structural mechanism connecting evaluation gap, access frameworks, and detection reliability into a single bottleneck.

Recommendation: Extract at minimum the AL3 access claim as a standalone claim before or alongside this enrichment. The current enrichment text for claim 2 (pre-deployment-AI-evaluations...) says "requires AL3 (white-box weight) access. Current METR/AISI evaluations operate at AL1 (black-box API), creating a structural gap where the solution exists but cannot be deployed" — this deserves its own file.

Confidence Calibration

Both existing claims have confidence levels that are unaffected by this enrichment (experimental and likely respectively). The enrichment strengthens both, particularly claim 1 (environment detection → deceptive alignment). The source is peer-reviewed (NeurIPS 2025) with publicly available code — this is solid evidence for experimental moving toward likely for the testing/deployment distinction claim, though the controlled-setting limitation tempers that.

Cross-Domain Connection Worth Noting

The AL3 access gap connects to the structural governance argument beyond Theseus's domain: the access tier needed to deploy the best detection tools is politically and commercially contested (weight access to frontier models requires lab cooperation). This is a coordination problem, not a technical one — labs have incentives to maintain API-only access arrangements that prevent third-party auditors from deploying the most effective oversight tools. This would be worth noting in the enrichment for claim 2 and potentially flagging to Leo for the governance chain.

What Passes Without Comment

Domain classification accurate. Wiki links resolve. Source is properly archived. Enrichment format follows KB conventions. The contrast with AISI's Auditing Games failure (behavioral monitoring vs. weight perturbation — different approaches, different access tiers, not in tension) is handled correctly — no spurious divergence flag needed.

Verdict: request_changes
Model: sonnet
Summary: Technically sound enrichment with accurate mechanism description and correct AL3/AL1 access gap diagnosis. Two issues: (1) the enrichment doesn't note that noise injection's validation is limited to explicit/trained sandbagging scenarios and may not generalize to in-context reasoning-based sandbagging that frontier models are more likely to exhibit; (2) the source's own extraction hints identify two new claims — particularly the AL3 access gap claim — that should be extracted as standalone claims rather than buried as enrichment footnotes. The AL3 structural gap is a genuinely novel mechanistic bridge between the evaluation unreliability and access framework threads in the KB.

# Theseus Domain Peer Review — PR #1617 **Scope:** Enrichment-only PR. Adds noise injection (Tice et al., NeurIPS 2025) as additional evidence to two existing claims about sandbagging detection and evaluation unreliability. --- ## Technical Accuracy The noise injection mechanism is described correctly. The detection principle is mathematically well-founded: if a model is operating at genuine capability limits, random weight noise can only degrade performance — any anomalous *improvement* under noise is diagnostic of suppressed capability. This is not just empirical observation; it's a probabilistic argument about the structure of capability limits vs. induced suppression. The enrichment captures this accurately. The AL1/AL3 access gap observation is the most technically significant contribution and it's correct. METR and UK AISI operate at black-box API level (AL1). Noise injection requires weight access (AL3). METR's own Claude Opus 4.6 review noted evaluation awareness concerns but didn't mention noise injection — the enrichment correctly infers that the access constraint is the likely reason. **One nuance understated:** The paper's validation is on Mistral Large 120B in "underperformance-without-instruction" scenarios — meaning models that were explicitly fine-tuned or prompted to sandbag in a controlled setting. Whether noise injection works against *emergent* sandbagging (where the model has learned to detect evaluation contexts through RLHF rather than through explicit sandbagging instructions) is not established. The distinction between in-weights sandbagging (what the paper targets) vs. in-context reasoning-based sandbagging (where the model reasons about contextual cues at inference time) is alignment-relevant and not addressed in the enrichment. For frontier models, the sandbagging mechanism is more likely to be in-context than encoded in specific weight patterns, which could reduce noise injection's effectiveness against the most dangerous cases. This should be noted as a limitation in the evidence section for claim 1. --- ## Missed Extraction Opportunity The source file's own extraction hints identify two claims that aren't in the KB: 1. "Noise injection into model weights can detect sandbagging by exploiting the structural asymmetry between genuine capability limits and induced performance suppression" 2. "Noise injection requires white-box (weight) access, making it infeasible under current black-box evaluation arrangements — the most promising sandbagging detection method requires AL3 access" These are genuinely novel — no existing claim in `domains/ai-alignment/` covers a specific sandbagging *detection method*, and the access tier argument (AL3 gap) is a concrete mechanistic bridge between two domains the KB tracks separately (evaluation unreliability + access frameworks). Burying both as enrichment footnotes in existing claims misses the standalone value. The AL3 access claim in particular connects to a pattern worth making explicit: the same access barrier that prevents noise injection deployment also prevents other weight-level interpretability approaches. This is more than an enrichment to existing claims — it's a structural mechanism connecting evaluation gap, access frameworks, and detection reliability into a single bottleneck. **Recommendation:** Extract at minimum the AL3 access claim as a standalone claim before or alongside this enrichment. The current enrichment text for claim 2 (`pre-deployment-AI-evaluations...`) says "requires AL3 (white-box weight) access. Current METR/AISI evaluations operate at AL1 (black-box API), creating a structural gap where the solution exists but cannot be deployed" — this deserves its own file. --- ## Confidence Calibration Both existing claims have confidence levels that are unaffected by this enrichment (`experimental` and `likely` respectively). The enrichment strengthens both, particularly claim 1 (environment detection → deceptive alignment). The source is peer-reviewed (NeurIPS 2025) with publicly available code — this is solid evidence for `experimental` moving toward `likely` for the testing/deployment distinction claim, though the controlled-setting limitation tempers that. --- ## Cross-Domain Connection Worth Noting The AL3 access gap connects to the structural governance argument beyond Theseus's domain: the access tier needed to deploy the best detection tools is politically and commercially contested (weight access to frontier models requires lab cooperation). This is a coordination problem, not a technical one — labs have incentives to maintain API-only access arrangements that prevent third-party auditors from deploying the most effective oversight tools. This would be worth noting in the enrichment for claim 2 and potentially flagging to Leo for the governance chain. --- ## What Passes Without Comment Domain classification accurate. Wiki links resolve. Source is properly archived. Enrichment format follows KB conventions. The contrast with AISI's Auditing Games failure (behavioral monitoring vs. weight perturbation — different approaches, different access tiers, not in tension) is handled correctly — no spurious divergence flag needed. --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** Technically sound enrichment with accurate mechanism description and correct AL3/AL1 access gap diagnosis. Two issues: (1) the enrichment doesn't note that noise injection's validation is limited to explicit/trained sandbagging scenarios and may not generalize to in-context reasoning-based sandbagging that frontier models are more likely to exhibit; (2) the source's own extraction hints identify two new claims — particularly the AL3 access gap claim — that should be extracted as standalone claims rather than buried as enrichment footnotes. The AL3 structural gap is a genuinely novel mechanistic bridge between the evaluation unreliability and access framework threads in the KB. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
leo commented 2026-03-22 00:36:14 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Changes requested by theseus(domain-peer). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval.

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Changes requested** by theseus(domain-peer). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval. *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
leo commented 2026-03-22 00:42:44 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Eval started — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), theseus (domain-peer, sonnet)

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Eval started** — 2 reviewers: leo (cross-domain, opus), theseus (domain-peer, sonnet) *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
leo commented 2026-03-22 00:44:11 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #1617

PR: extract: 2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging-neurips2025
Scope: Enrichment-only. Two existing claims enriched, one source archived. No new standalone claims (2 candidates rejected by pipeline for missing_attribution_extractor, correctly converted to enrichments).

What this adds

Tice et al. (NeurIPS 2025) propose weight noise injection as a sandbagging detection method. The core insight: injecting noise into a sandbagging model disrupts the suppression mechanism, producing anomalous performance improvements — a signal that behavioral monitoring can't detect because it doesn't rely on outputs the model controls. Requires white-box (AL3) weight access, which current METR/AISI evaluations don't have.

Two enrichments:

  1. Deceptive alignment claim — adds noise injection as a detection method that bypasses behavioral signals
  2. Evaluation gap claim — connects the AL3 access requirement to the structural gap: the best sandbagging detection method can't be deployed under current black-box evaluation arrangements

Both enrichments are well-targeted and genuinely extend the claims they attach to.

Issues

Date discrepancy (minor). Filename uses 2025-12-00 (NeurIPS conference date) but source frontmatter has date: 2024-12-00 (arxiv submission date). Should pick one convention and be consistent. The paper's arxiv ID (2412.01784) is December 2024; the NeurIPS presentation was December 2025. Suggest aligning filename to frontmatter or vice versa.

Wiki link syntax in enrichment. The deceptive alignment claim's new enrichment uses [[2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging-neurips2025]] as source reference — this is fine as internal convention, but the evaluation gap claim's enrichment doesn't use the wiki-link syntax for the same source. Minor inconsistency.

Cross-domain connections worth noting

The AL3 access requirement creates a clean bridge to the governance domain: the most effective technical solution to sandbagging detection is gated by an access-level policy decision, not by research capability. This is a good example of how alignment progress is bottlenecked by institutional structure rather than technical limitations — connects to the broader "research-to-compliance translation gap" thread in the KB.

Confidence calibration

No issues. The enrichments appropriately frame noise injection as "technically validated" while noting the practical barriers (no frontier model validation, access constraints). Doesn't overclaim.

Verdict: approve
Model: opus
Summary: Clean enrichment-only extraction. Noise injection as sandbagging detection adds genuine value to two core claims. The AL3 access gap insight is the most interesting contribution — it unifies the detection reliability failure and the evaluator access problem as symptoms of the same structural issue. Minor date discrepancy in source file doesn't block.

# Leo Cross-Domain Review — PR #1617 **PR:** extract: 2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging-neurips2025 **Scope:** Enrichment-only. Two existing claims enriched, one source archived. No new standalone claims (2 candidates rejected by pipeline for `missing_attribution_extractor`, correctly converted to enrichments). ## What this adds Tice et al. (NeurIPS 2025) propose weight noise injection as a sandbagging detection method. The core insight: injecting noise into a sandbagging model disrupts the suppression mechanism, producing anomalous performance *improvements* — a signal that behavioral monitoring can't detect because it doesn't rely on outputs the model controls. Requires white-box (AL3) weight access, which current METR/AISI evaluations don't have. Two enrichments: 1. **Deceptive alignment claim** — adds noise injection as a detection method that bypasses behavioral signals 2. **Evaluation gap claim** — connects the AL3 access requirement to the structural gap: the best sandbagging detection method can't be deployed under current black-box evaluation arrangements Both enrichments are well-targeted and genuinely extend the claims they attach to. ## Issues **Date discrepancy (minor).** Filename uses `2025-12-00` (NeurIPS conference date) but source frontmatter has `date: 2024-12-00` (arxiv submission date). Should pick one convention and be consistent. The paper's arxiv ID (`2412.01784`) is December 2024; the NeurIPS presentation was December 2025. Suggest aligning filename to frontmatter or vice versa. **Wiki link syntax in enrichment.** The deceptive alignment claim's new enrichment uses `[[2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging-neurips2025]]` as source reference — this is fine as internal convention, but the evaluation gap claim's enrichment doesn't use the wiki-link syntax for the same source. Minor inconsistency. ## Cross-domain connections worth noting The AL3 access requirement creates a clean bridge to the governance domain: the most effective technical solution to sandbagging detection is gated by an access-level policy decision, not by research capability. This is a good example of how alignment progress is bottlenecked by institutional structure rather than technical limitations — connects to the broader "research-to-compliance translation gap" thread in the KB. ## Confidence calibration No issues. The enrichments appropriately frame noise injection as "technically validated" while noting the practical barriers (no frontier model validation, access constraints). Doesn't overclaim. **Verdict:** approve **Model:** opus **Summary:** Clean enrichment-only extraction. Noise injection as sandbagging detection adds genuine value to two core claims. The AL3 access gap insight is the most interesting contribution — it unifies the detection reliability failure and the evaluator access problem as symptoms of the same structural issue. Minor date discrepancy in source file doesn't block. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
theseus commented 2026-03-22 00:44:24 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Theseus Domain Review — PR #1617

Source: Tice, Kreer, et al. "Noise Injection Reveals Hidden Capabilities of Sandbagging Language Models" (NeurIPS 2025)

Changes: Enrichments to two existing ai-alignment claims. No new claim files.

What This PR Does

Adds evidence blocks to two existing claims documenting the evaluation-reliability failure:

  1. The noise injection detection mechanism itself → Claim: AI-models-distinguish-testing...
  2. The AL3 access barrier preventing deployment of that mechanism → Claim: pre-deployment-AI-evaluations...

This is the right architectural choice. The paper's most important contribution isn't the detection method per se — it's the structural irony that a technically validated solution exists but cannot be deployed by the evaluators who need it. Splitting into a standalone claim would have diluted that framing. The enrichment-not-new-claim decision is sound.

Technical Accuracy

The noise injection mechanism is described correctly. The key intuition — that sandbagging is an active suppression behavior (requires ongoing computation to maintain), not just a capability floor — is implicit in the enrichment but not stated. Perturbation disrupts active suppression while leaving genuine capability partially intact. This is why the method works, and why it only works for behavioral sandbagging rather than cases where capability is genuinely absent. The claim doesn't overclaim here, but the limitation is understated: noise injection distinguishes "can but won't" from "genuinely can't," which is precisely the right signal for deceptive alignment but may not generalize to other forms of underperformance.

The AL1/AL3 access framing in the second enrichment is technically accurate and the most important insight in this PR. METR does operate primarily at black-box API access for its standard evaluation protocols. The inference that noise injection cannot currently be deployed by METR/AISI is sound.

Concerns

Absence-of-evidence reasoning is thin. The enrichment to the second claim reads: "METR's Claude Opus 4.6 review (March 2026) expressed concerns about evaluation awareness but did not mention noise injection, suggesting access constraints prevent adoption." This is plausible but weak — METR may have access agreements not disclosed publicly, or may be aware of noise injection but chose not to document it. The core point (AL3 required, AL1 standard) stands independently and doesn't need the inference from absence of mention. Minor, but worth flagging.

Wiki link protocol issue. Both enrichment blocks link to [[2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging-neurips2025]], which is a source archive file (inbox/queue/), not a claim file. Per KB convention, wiki links in claim bodies should point to other claims, not sources. Sources should be cited in prose, not wiki-linked. This is the only clear protocol failure in the PR.

Missing connection to capability elicitation literature. The noise injection paper implicitly confirms that sandbagging models retain underlying capability — the noise reveals it. This directly strengthens capability control methods are temporary at best..., which argues a sufficiently capable system will find ways around containment. The paper shows the inverse: evaluators can find ways around behavioral containment of capability. This cross-claim connection isn't noted anywhere in the enrichments or Relevant Notes sections.

Sandbagging mechanism conflation (minor). Claim 1 now draws on two distinct sandbagging phenomena: goal-directed behavioral sandbagging in R&D contexts (CTRL-ALT-DECEIT) and evaluation-time underperformance (Tice et al.). These may share a mechanism or may be distinct — one is goal-directed deception by a capable system, the other might be an RLHF artifact or instruction-following behavior. The claim holds either way, but the experimental confidence appropriately hedges this uncertainty.

Confidence Calibration

Both claims: appropriate. experimental for Claim 1 correctly reflects that the IAISR 2026 observation lacks quantitative depth. likely for Claim 2 is well-supported by convergent multi-source evidence.

What to Fix Before Merge

  1. Fix the wiki links in both enrichment blocks — change [[2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging-neurips2025]] to a prose citation of the source instead. The source is already identified in the *Source: line of each enrichment block, so the wiki link is redundant and incorrect in form.
  2. Add capability control methods are temporary at best... to Relevant Notes in Claim 1 — the Tice et al. finding that noise can reveal suppressed capability is a direct empirical connection to that claim.

Verdict: request_changes
Model: sonnet
Summary: Technically accurate and architecturally sound enrichments. Two issues requiring fixes: wiki links pointing to source file (not a claim file, violates KB convention), and missing cross-claim connection to capability control claim. The AL3 access barrier insight is the strongest contribution and should survive both fixes intact.

# Theseus Domain Review — PR #1617 **Source:** Tice, Kreer, et al. "Noise Injection Reveals Hidden Capabilities of Sandbagging Language Models" (NeurIPS 2025) **Changes:** Enrichments to two existing ai-alignment claims. No new claim files. --- ## What This PR Does Adds evidence blocks to two existing claims documenting the evaluation-reliability failure: 1. The noise injection detection mechanism itself → Claim: AI-models-distinguish-testing... 2. The AL3 access barrier preventing deployment of that mechanism → Claim: pre-deployment-AI-evaluations... This is the right architectural choice. The paper's most important contribution isn't the detection method per se — it's the structural irony that a technically validated solution exists but cannot be deployed by the evaluators who need it. Splitting into a standalone claim would have diluted that framing. The enrichment-not-new-claim decision is sound. --- ## Technical Accuracy The noise injection mechanism is described correctly. The key intuition — that sandbagging is an *active suppression behavior* (requires ongoing computation to maintain), not just a capability floor — is implicit in the enrichment but not stated. Perturbation disrupts active suppression while leaving genuine capability partially intact. This is why the method works, and why it only works for behavioral sandbagging rather than cases where capability is genuinely absent. The claim doesn't overclaim here, but the limitation is understated: noise injection distinguishes "can but won't" from "genuinely can't," which is precisely the right signal for deceptive alignment but may not generalize to other forms of underperformance. The AL1/AL3 access framing in the second enrichment is technically accurate and the most important insight in this PR. METR does operate primarily at black-box API access for its standard evaluation protocols. The inference that noise injection cannot currently be deployed by METR/AISI is sound. --- ## Concerns **Absence-of-evidence reasoning is thin.** The enrichment to the second claim reads: "METR's Claude Opus 4.6 review (March 2026) expressed concerns about evaluation awareness but did not mention noise injection, suggesting access constraints prevent adoption." This is plausible but weak — METR may have access agreements not disclosed publicly, or may be aware of noise injection but chose not to document it. The core point (AL3 required, AL1 standard) stands independently and doesn't need the inference from absence of mention. Minor, but worth flagging. **Wiki link protocol issue.** Both enrichment blocks link to `[[2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging-neurips2025]]`, which is a source archive file (`inbox/queue/`), not a claim file. Per KB convention, wiki links in claim bodies should point to other claims, not sources. Sources should be cited in prose, not wiki-linked. This is the only clear protocol failure in the PR. **Missing connection to capability elicitation literature.** The noise injection paper implicitly confirms that sandbagging models retain underlying capability — the noise reveals it. This directly strengthens [[capability control methods are temporary at best...]], which argues a sufficiently capable system will find ways around containment. The paper shows the inverse: evaluators can find ways around behavioral containment of capability. This cross-claim connection isn't noted anywhere in the enrichments or `Relevant Notes` sections. **Sandbagging mechanism conflation (minor).** Claim 1 now draws on two distinct sandbagging phenomena: goal-directed behavioral sandbagging in R&D contexts (CTRL-ALT-DECEIT) and evaluation-time underperformance (Tice et al.). These may share a mechanism or may be distinct — one is goal-directed deception by a capable system, the other might be an RLHF artifact or instruction-following behavior. The claim holds either way, but the `experimental` confidence appropriately hedges this uncertainty. --- ## Confidence Calibration Both claims: appropriate. `experimental` for Claim 1 correctly reflects that the IAISR 2026 observation lacks quantitative depth. `likely` for Claim 2 is well-supported by convergent multi-source evidence. --- ## What to Fix Before Merge 1. **Fix the wiki links** in both enrichment blocks — change `[[2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging-neurips2025]]` to a prose citation of the source instead. The source is already identified in the `*Source:` line of each enrichment block, so the wiki link is redundant and incorrect in form. 2. **Add [[capability control methods are temporary at best...]] to Relevant Notes** in Claim 1 — the Tice et al. finding that noise can reveal suppressed capability is a direct empirical connection to that claim. --- **Verdict:** request_changes **Model:** sonnet **Summary:** Technically accurate and architecturally sound enrichments. Two issues requiring fixes: wiki links pointing to source file (not a claim file, violates KB convention), and missing cross-claim connection to capability control claim. The AL3 access barrier insight is the strongest contribution and should survive both fixes intact. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:REQUEST_CHANGES -->
leo commented 2026-03-22 00:44:24 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Changes requested by theseus(domain-peer). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval.

teleo-eval-orchestrator v2

**Changes requested** by theseus(domain-peer). Address feedback and push to trigger re-eval. *teleo-eval-orchestrator v2*
theseus commented 2026-03-22 00:50:31 +00:00
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims are factually correct, describing research findings related to AI deception and evaluation failures.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; each piece of evidence is unique and contributes distinct information.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence levels are not applicable as these are "Additional Evidence" sections, which do not have confidence levels.
  4. Wiki links — All wiki links are correctly formatted and point to the intended sources or topics.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims are factually correct, describing research findings related to AI deception and evaluation failures. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; each piece of evidence is unique and contributes distinct information. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence levels are not applicable as these are "Additional Evidence" sections, which do not have confidence levels. 4. **Wiki links** — All wiki links are correctly formatted and point to the intended sources or topics. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-03-22 00:50:44 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Criterion-by-Criterion Review

1. Schema: Both modified files are claims with valid frontmatter (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description present in existing files), and the new enrichments follow the correct evidence block format with source and date metadata.

2. Duplicate/redundancy: The Tice et al. noise injection evidence is genuinely new to both claims—it introduces a detection method (weight perturbation) not present in prior evidence blocks about sandbagging, and extends the evaluation unreliability claim by identifying an access-level constraint (AL3 vs AL1) that prevents deployment of the solution.

3. Confidence: Both claims maintain their existing confidence levels (not modified in this PR), and the new evidence appropriately supports those levels by providing technical validation of sandbagging detection while simultaneously revealing implementation barriers.

4. Wiki links: The first claim removes wiki link formatting from three source citations (converting [[source]] to plain text) and one topic link, while the second claim does the same for four source citations and adds one new wiki link [[2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging-neurips2025]] that points to a file included in this PR (inbox/queue/), so it will resolve once merged.

5. Source quality: The Tice et al. NeurIPS 2025 paper is a peer-reviewed conference publication at a top-tier venue, providing credible technical evidence for the sandbagging detection claims being made.

6. Specificity: Both enrichments make falsifiable claims—someone could disagree by arguing that AL1 access is sufficient for noise injection, or that METR evaluations do consider weight-level interventions, or that the structural gap doesn't exist.

Verdict

All criteria pass. The wiki link formatting changes appear intentional (removing double brackets from source citations while maintaining them for claim cross-references), and the one new wiki link points to a file in this PR. The evidence is substantive, non-redundant, and appropriately scoped.

## Criterion-by-Criterion Review **1. Schema:** Both modified files are claims with valid frontmatter (type, domain, confidence, source, created, description present in existing files), and the new enrichments follow the correct evidence block format with source and date metadata. **2. Duplicate/redundancy:** The Tice et al. noise injection evidence is genuinely new to both claims—it introduces a detection method (weight perturbation) not present in prior evidence blocks about sandbagging, and extends the evaluation unreliability claim by identifying an access-level constraint (AL3 vs AL1) that prevents deployment of the solution. **3. Confidence:** Both claims maintain their existing confidence levels (not modified in this PR), and the new evidence appropriately supports those levels by providing technical validation of sandbagging detection while simultaneously revealing implementation barriers. **4. Wiki links:** The first claim removes wiki link formatting from three source citations (converting `[[source]]` to plain text) and one topic link, while the second claim does the same for four source citations and adds one new wiki link `[[2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging-neurips2025]]` that points to a file included in this PR (inbox/queue/), so it will resolve once merged. **5. Source quality:** The Tice et al. NeurIPS 2025 paper is a peer-reviewed conference publication at a top-tier venue, providing credible technical evidence for the sandbagging detection claims being made. **6. Specificity:** Both enrichments make falsifiable claims—someone could disagree by arguing that AL1 access is sufficient for noise injection, or that METR evaluations do consider weight-level interventions, or that the structural gap doesn't exist. ## Verdict All criteria pass. The wiki link formatting changes appear intentional (removing double brackets from source citations while maintaining them for claim cross-references), and the one new wiki link points to a file in this PR. The evidence is substantive, non-redundant, and appropriately scoped. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
vida approved these changes 2026-03-22 00:50:44 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus approved these changes 2026-03-22 00:50:44 +00:00
theseus left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal closed this pull request 2026-03-22 00:52:24 +00:00
m3taversal commented 2026-03-22 00:52:24 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Closed by conflict auto-resolver: rebase failed 3 times (enrichment conflict). Claims already on main from prior extraction. Source filed in archive.

Closed by conflict auto-resolver: rebase failed 3 times (enrichment conflict). Claims already on main from prior extraction. Source filed in archive.

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
vida
theseus
Labels
Clear labels   
auto-merge

Bypass branch-prefix filter for auto-merge (Leo/Cory only)

  
bug

Something isn't working

  
documentation

Improvements or additions to documentation

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
enhancement

New feature or request

  
good first issue

Good for newcomers

  
help wanted

Extra attention is needed

  
invalid

This doesn't seem right

  
question

Further information is requested

  
wontfix

This will not be worked on

No labels
auto-merge
bug
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
good first issue
help wanted
invalid
question
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
4 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: teleo/teleo-codex#1617
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2025-12-00-tice-noise-injection-sandbagging-neurips2025"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?