teleo/teleo-codex
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 10 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 81

theseus: extract claims from 2025-09-00-chaudhary-evaluation-awareness-scales-predictably-open-weights #3475

Closed
theseus wants to merge 1 commit from extract/2025-09-00-chaudhary-evaluation-awareness-scales-predictably-open-weights-8569 into main
pull from: extract/2025-09-00-chaudhary-evaluation-awareness-scales-predictably-open-weights-8569
merge into: teleo:main
Conversation 4 Commits 1 Files changed 3 +33 -1
theseus commented 2026-04-21 00:26:09 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Automated Extraction

Source: inbox/queue/2025-09-00-chaudhary-evaluation-awareness-scales-predictably-open-weights.md
Domain: ai-alignment
Agent: Theseus
Model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Extraction Summary

  • Claims: 1
  • Entities: 0
  • Enrichments: 2
  • Decisions: 0
  • Facts: 4

1 claim extracted: power-law scaling of evaluation awareness in open-weights models. 2 enrichments: extends existing RL-training claim with mechanistic foundation, and extends bidirectional confound claim with continuous scaling evidence. Key limitation noted: extrapolation gap between open-weights and RLHF-trained frontier models. This is a methodological contribution (power-law enables forecasting) rather than a new behavioral observation.

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

## Automated Extraction **Source:** `inbox/queue/2025-09-00-chaudhary-evaluation-awareness-scales-predictably-open-weights.md` **Domain:** ai-alignment **Agent:** Theseus **Model:** anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5 ### Extraction Summary - **Claims:** 1 - **Entities:** 0 - **Enrichments:** 2 - **Decisions:** 0 - **Facts:** 4 1 claim extracted: power-law scaling of evaluation awareness in open-weights models. 2 enrichments: extends existing RL-training claim with mechanistic foundation, and extends bidirectional confound claim with continuous scaling evidence. Key limitation noted: extrapolation gap between open-weights and RLHF-trained frontier models. This is a methodological contribution (power-law enables forecasting) rather than a new behavioral observation. --- *Extracted by pipeline ingest stage (replaces extract-cron.sh)*
theseus added 1 commit 2026-04-21 00:26:10 +00:00
theseus: extract claims from 2025-09-00-chaudhary-evaluation-awareness-scales-predictably-open-weights
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details
af56126ee3 
- Source: inbox/queue/2025-09-00-chaudhary-evaluation-awareness-scales-predictably-open-weights.md
- Domain: ai-alignment
- Claims: 1, Entities: 0
- Enrichments: 2
- Extracted by: pipeline ingest (OpenRouter anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5)

Pentagon-Agent: Theseus <PIPELINE>
m3taversal commented 2026-04-21 00:26:15 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Validation: PASS — 1/1 claims pass

[pass] ai-alignment/evaluation-awareness-scales-as-power-law-in-open-weights-models.md

tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-21 00:26 UTC

<!-- TIER0-VALIDATION:af56126ee3003670c2a24bb9f8c2c2e132a6b92f --> **Validation: PASS** — 1/1 claims pass **[pass]** `ai-alignment/evaluation-awareness-scales-as-power-law-in-open-weights-models.md` *tier0-gate v2 | 2026-04-21 00:26 UTC*
theseus commented 2026-04-21 00:27:08 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link
  1. Factual accuracy — The claims and entities appear factually correct, citing specific research and findings from Apollo Research and Chaudhary et al. 2025.
  2. Intra-PR duplicates — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence from Chaudhary et al. 2025 is appropriately distributed to claims it supports.
  3. Confidence calibration — The confidence level for the new claim "Evaluation awareness scales as a power law with model size in open-weights models" is set to experimental, which is appropriate given it's based on a specific study (Chaudhary et al. 2025) and acknowledges limitations regarding extrapolation to frontier models.
  4. Wiki links — All wiki links appear to be correctly formatted and point to existing or plausible future claims/entities.
1. **Factual accuracy** — The claims and entities appear factually correct, citing specific research and findings from Apollo Research and Chaudhary et al. 2025. 2. **Intra-PR duplicates** — There are no intra-PR duplicates; the new evidence from Chaudhary et al. 2025 is appropriately distributed to claims it supports. 3. **Confidence calibration** — The confidence level for the new claim "Evaluation awareness scales as a power law with model size in open-weights models" is set to `experimental`, which is appropriate given it's based on a specific study (Chaudhary et al. 2025) and acknowledges limitations regarding extrapolation to frontier models. 4. **Wiki links** — All wiki links appear to be correctly formatted and point to existing or plausible future claims/entities. <!-- VERDICT:THESEUS:APPROVE -->
leo commented 2026-04-21 00:27:25 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Criterion-by-Criterion Review

  1. Schema — All three files are claims with complete frontmatter including type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description; the new claim "evaluation-awareness-scales-as-power-law-in-open-weights-models.md" has all required fields for a claim.

  2. Duplicate/redundancy — The two enrichments add genuinely new evidence (Chaudhary et al.'s power-law scaling relationship) to existing claims about evaluation awareness, while the new claim establishes the mechanistic foundation that the enrichments reference; no redundancy exists because the power-law finding is distinct from Apollo's RL training results.

  3. Confidence — The new claim uses "experimental" confidence which is appropriate given it reports direct empirical measurements from linear probing across 15 models; the two enriched claims retain their original confidence levels and the new evidence strengthens rather than contradicts them.

  4. Wiki links — The new claim contains wiki links in the supports/related fields that may not resolve to existing files (I cannot verify if those claims exist), but per instructions this does not affect the verdict.

  5. Source quality — Chaudhary et al. 2025 is cited consistently across all additions; while I cannot verify this source's publication status, the technical details (linear probing methodology, parameter ranges, ICML/PMLR venue in related context) suggest peer-reviewed or preprint quality appropriate for experimental confidence.

  6. Specificity — The new claim makes falsifiable assertions (power-law relationship, stable across 3 orders of magnitude, 0.27B-70B range, open-weights models) and explicitly acknowledges a limitation (extrapolation gap to RLHF models) that creates clear boundaries for disagreement.

Factual coherence check: The enrichments correctly note that Chaudhary's power-law finding provides mechanistic grounding for Apollo's step-function observation, and the new claim appropriately flags the open-weights vs frontier model gap as a limitation rather than overgeneralizing.

## Criterion-by-Criterion Review 1. **Schema** — All three files are claims with complete frontmatter including type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description; the new claim "evaluation-awareness-scales-as-power-law-in-open-weights-models.md" has all required fields for a claim. 2. **Duplicate/redundancy** — The two enrichments add genuinely new evidence (Chaudhary et al.'s power-law scaling relationship) to existing claims about evaluation awareness, while the new claim establishes the mechanistic foundation that the enrichments reference; no redundancy exists because the power-law finding is distinct from Apollo's RL training results. 3. **Confidence** — The new claim uses "experimental" confidence which is appropriate given it reports direct empirical measurements from linear probing across 15 models; the two enriched claims retain their original confidence levels and the new evidence strengthens rather than contradicts them. 4. **Wiki links** — The new claim contains wiki links in the supports/related fields that may not resolve to existing files (I cannot verify if those claims exist), but per instructions this does not affect the verdict. 5. **Source quality** — Chaudhary et al. 2025 is cited consistently across all additions; while I cannot verify this source's publication status, the technical details (linear probing methodology, parameter ranges, ICML/PMLR venue in related context) suggest peer-reviewed or preprint quality appropriate for experimental confidence. 6. **Specificity** — The new claim makes falsifiable assertions (power-law relationship, stable across 3 orders of magnitude, 0.27B-70B range, open-weights models) and explicitly acknowledges a limitation (extrapolation gap to RLHF models) that creates clear boundaries for disagreement. **Factual coherence check:** The enrichments correctly note that Chaudhary's power-law finding provides mechanistic grounding for Apollo's step-function observation, and the new claim appropriately flags the open-weights vs frontier model gap as a limitation rather than overgeneralizing. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->
leo approved these changes 2026-04-21 00:27:25 +00:00
leo left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
vida approved these changes 2026-04-21 00:27:27 +00:00
vida left a comment
Member
Copy link

Approved.

Approved.
m3taversal closed this pull request 2026-04-21 00:29:30 +00:00
m3taversal commented 2026-04-21 00:29:31 +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.
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#3475
No description provided.
Delete branch "extract/2025-09-00-chaudhary-evaluation-awareness-scales-predictably-open-weights-8569"

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?