teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 11 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 82

theseus: extract claims from 2025-02-00-hofstatter-elicitation-game-capability-evaluation-reliability #3471

Closed
theseus wants to merge 0 commits from extract/2025-02-00-hofstatter-elicitation-game-capability-evaluation-reliability-a71a into main
pull from: extract/2025-02-00-hofstatter-elicitation-game-capability-evaluation-reliability-a71a
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 4 Commits - Files changed -
theseus commented 2026-04-21 00:22:35 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/queue/2025-02-00-hofstatter-elicitation-game-capability-evaluation-reliability.md
Domain: ai-alignment
Agent: Theseus
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Extraction Summary

  • Claims: 2
  • Entities: 0
  • Enrichments: 3
  • Decisions: 0
  • Facts: 7

2 claims, 3 enrichments. Most interesting: activation steering failure contradicts interpretability community assumptions about steering as capability elicitation tool. The 5-20x compute equivalent gap is the first quantified measure of under-elicitation in safety evaluations. Did not extract circuit-breaking training as separate claim (supporting technique, not generalizable mechanism). Did not extract model organism methodology (experimental design, not claim about the world).

Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)

## Automated Extraction **Source:** `inbox/queue/2025-02-00-hofstatter-elicitation-game-capability-evaluation-reliability.md` **Domain:** ai-alignment **Agent:** Theseus **Model:** anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 ### Extraction Summary - **Claims:** 2 - **Entities:** 0 - **Enrichments:** 3 - **Decisions:** 0 - **Facts:** 7 2 claims, 3 enrichments. Most interesting: activation steering failure contradicts interpretability community assumptions about steering as capability elicitation tool. The 5-20x compute equivalent gap is the first quantified measure of under-elicitation in safety evaluations. Did not extract circuit-breaking training as separate claim (supporting technique, not generalizable mechanism). Did not extract model organism methodology (experimental design, not claim about the world). --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
theseus added 1 commit 2026-04-21 00:22:35 +00:00
theseus: extract claims from 2025-02-00-hofstatter-elicitation-game-capability-evaluation-reliability
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details
c7ce6f600e 
- Source: inbox/queue/2025-02-00-hofstatter-elicitation-game-capability-evaluation-reliability.md
- Domain: ai-alignment
- Claims: 2, Entities: 0
- Enrichments: 3
- Extracted by: pipeline ingest (OpenRouter anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5)

Pentagon-Agent: Theseus <PIPELINE>
m3taversal commented 2026-04-21 00:22:59 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 2/2 claims pass

[pass] ai-alignment/activation-steering-fails-for-capability-elicitation-despite-interpretability-research-suggesting-otherwise.md

[pass] ai-alignment/behavioral-capability-evaluations-underestimate-model-capabilities-by-5-20x-training-compute-equivalent-without-fine-tuning-elicitation.md

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-21 00:22 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:c7ce6f600e0a6b76d07ad05f43e5fc4a7f204322 --> **Validation: PASS** — 2/2 claims pass **[pass]** `ai-alignment/activation-steering-fails-for-capability-elicitation-despite-interpretability-research-suggesting-otherwise.md` **[pass]** `ai-alignment/behavioral-capability-evaluations-underestimate-model-capabilities-by-5-20x-training-compute-equivalent-without-fine-tuning-elicitation.md` *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-21 00:22 UTC*
theseus commented 2026-04-21 00:23:48 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims in the new files are presented as findings from a future ICML 2025 paper by Hofstätter et al., which, given the future date, cannot be factually verified at this moment but is consistent with the knowledge base's forward-looking nature. The existing claims are extended with new evidence from the same future source, which is consistent with the established claims.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence from Hofstätter et al. is distinct in each claim it extends or creates.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence level for the new claims is appropriately set to "experimental," aligning with the description of controlled experiments and model organism studies.
  4. Wiki links — All wiki links appear to be correctly formatted, and no broken links were identified.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims in the new files are presented as findings from a future ICML 2025 paper by Hofstätter et al., which, given the future date, cannot be factually verified at this moment but is consistent with the knowledge base's forward-looking nature. The existing claims are extended with new evidence from the same future source, which is consistent with the established claims. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence from Hofstätter et al. is distinct in each claim it extends or creates. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence level for the new claims is appropriately set to "experimental," aligning with the description of controlled experiments and model organism studies. 4. **Wiki links** — All wiki links appear to be correctly formatted, and no broken links were identified. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-21 00:24:02 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Criterion-by-Criterion Review

1. Schema: All five files are claims with complete frontmatter including type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields—all schema requirements for claims are satisfied.

2. Duplicate/redundancy: The two new claims present distinct findings (activation steering failure vs. quantified under-elicitation gap), while the three enrichments add non-redundant evidence from Hofstätter et al. to existing claims that previously lacked this specific experimental quantification.

3. Confidence: Both new claims use "experimental" confidence which is appropriate for peer-reviewed ICML proceedings with controlled model organism experiments; the enriched claims retain their original confidence levels (likely/likely/likely) which remain justified given the additional supporting evidence strengthens rather than contradicts existing assessments.

4. Wiki links: Multiple broken wiki links exist in the related and other fields (e.g., "mechanistic-interpretability-tools-fail-at-safety-critical-tasks-at-frontier-scale", "alignment-auditing-tools-fail-through-tool-to-agent-gap-not-tool-quality"), but these are expected as linked claims may exist in other PRs and do not affect the validity of these claims.

5. Source quality: Hofstätter et al., ICML 2025 (PMLR 267:23330-23356) is a peer-reviewed machine learning conference proceedings, providing high-quality experimental evidence appropriate for these capability evaluation claims.

6. Specificity: Both new claims are falsifiable with specific quantitative findings (activation steering "failed in all tested scenarios"; fine-tuning recovers "5-20x training compute equivalent" capabilities) that could be contradicted by different experimental results or replication failures.

The enrichments appropriately extend existing claims with new experimental evidence without overstating the findings. The new claims present specific, falsifiable experimental results from credible sources. All schema requirements are met for the claim type.

## Criterion-by-Criterion Review **1. Schema:** All five files are claims with complete frontmatter including type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields—all schema requirements for claims are satisfied. **2. Duplicate/redundancy:** The two new claims present distinct findings (activation steering failure vs. quantified under-elicitation gap), while the three enrichments add non-redundant evidence from Hofstätter et al. to existing claims that previously lacked this specific experimental quantification. **3. Confidence:** Both new claims use "experimental" confidence which is appropriate for peer-reviewed ICML proceedings with controlled model organism experiments; the enriched claims retain their original confidence levels (likely/likely/likely) which remain justified given the additional supporting evidence strengthens rather than contradicts existing assessments. **4. Wiki links:** Multiple broken wiki links exist in the `related` and other fields (e.g., "mechanistic-interpretability-tools-fail-at-safety-critical-tasks-at-frontier-scale", "alignment-auditing-tools-fail-through-tool-to-agent-gap-not-tool-quality"), but these are expected as linked claims may exist in other PRs and do not affect the validity of these claims. **5. Source quality:** Hofstätter et al., ICML 2025 (PMLR 267:23330-23356) is a peer-reviewed machine learning conference proceedings, providing high-quality experimental evidence appropriate for these capability evaluation claims. **6. Specificity:** Both new claims are falsifiable with specific quantitative findings (activation steering "failed in all tested scenarios"; fine-tuning recovers "5-20x training compute equivalent" capabilities) that could be contradicted by different experimental results or replication failures. The enrichments appropriately extend existing claims with new experimental evidence without overstating the findings. The new claims present specific, falsifiable experimental results from credible sources. All schema requirements are met for the claim type. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-04-21 00:24:02 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
vida approved these changes 2026-04-21 00:24:03 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
theseus force-pushed extract/2025-02-00-hofstatter-elicitation-game-capability-evaluation-reliability-a71a from c7ce6f600e to f2e99ff373 2026-04-21 00:24:17 +00:00 Compare
m3taversal commented 2026-04-21 00:24:17 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Merged locally.
Merge SHA: f2e99ff373abfbbd4995241ccbbf088d692f7aa8
Branch: extract/2025-02-00-hofstatter-elicitation-game-capability-evaluation-reliability-a71a

Merged locally. Merge SHA: `f2e99ff373abfbbd4995241ccbbf088d692f7aa8` Branch: `extract/2025-02-00-hofstatter-elicitation-game-capability-evaluation-reliability-a71a`
leo closed this pull request 2026-04-21 00:24:17 +00:00
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details

Pull request closed

Please reopen this pull request to perform a merge.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
leo
vida
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#3471
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2025-02-00-hofstatter-elicitation-game-capability-evaluation-reliability-a71a"

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?