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 incentives for evaluations to understate the AI's actual capability. These conflicting interests lead to the problem of *sandbagging* – which we define as *strategic underperformance on an evaluation*. In this paper we assess sandbagging capabilities in contemporary language models (LMs). We prompt frontier LMs, like GPT-4 and Claude 3 Opus, to selectively underperform on dangerous capability evaluations, while maintaining performance on general (harmless) capability evaluations. Moreover, we find that models can be fine-tuned, on a synthetic dataset, to hide specific capabilities unless given a password. This behaviour generalizes to high-quality, held-out benchmarks such as WMDP. In addition, we show that both frontier and smaller models can be prompted or password-locked to target specific scores on a capability evaluation. We have mediocre success in password-locking a model to mimic the answers a weaker model would give. Overall, our results suggest that capability evaluations are vulnerable to sandbagging. This vulnerability decreases the trustworthiness of evaluations, and thereby undermines important safety decisions regarding the development and deployment of advanced AI systems. See our code at https://github.com/TeunvdWeij/sandbagging

Capability evaluations are required to understand and regulate AI systems that may be deployed or further developed. Therefore, it is important that evaluations provide an accurate estimation of an AI system’s capabilities. However, in numerous cases, previously latent capabilities have been elicited from models, sometimes long after initial release. Accordingly, substantial efforts have been made to develop methods for eliciting latent capabilities from models. In this paper, we evaluate the effectiveness of capability elicitation techniques by intentionally training model organisms – language models with hidden capabilities that are revealed by a password. We introduce a novel method for training model organisms, based on circuit-breaking, which is more robust to elicitation techniques than standard password-locked models. We focus on elicitation techniques based on prompting and activation steering, and compare these to fine-tuning methods. Prompting techniques can elicit the actual capability of both password-locked and circuit- broken model organisms in an MCQA setting, while steering fails to do so. For a code-generation task, only fine-tuning can elicit the hidden capabilities of our novel model organism. Additionally, our results suggest that combining techniques improves elicitation. Still, if possible, fine-tuning should be the method of choice to improve the trustworthiness of capability evaluations.

Capability evaluations play a crucial role in assessing and regulating frontier AI systems. The effectiveness of these evaluations faces a significant challenge: strategic underperformance, or ``sandbagging'', where models deliberately underperform during evaluation. Sandbagging can manifest either through explicit developer intervention or through unintended model behavior, presenting a fundamental obstacle to accurate capability assessment. We introduce a novel sandbagging detection method based on injecting noise of varying magnitudes into model weights. While non-sandbagging models show predictable performance degradation with increasing noise, we demonstrate that sandbagging models exhibit anomalous performance improvements, likely due to disruption of underperformance mechanisms while core capabilities remain partially intact. Through experiments across various model architectures, sizes, and sandbagging techniques, we establish this distinctive response pattern as a reliable, model-agnostic signal for detecting sandbagging behavior. Importantly, we find noise-injection is capable of eliciting the full performance of Mistral Large 120B in a setting where the model underperforms without being instructed to do so. Our findings provide a practical tool for AI evaluation and oversight, addressing a challenge in ensuring accurate capability assessment of frontier AI systems.

AI systems are increasingly able to autonomously conduct realistic software engineering tasks, and may soon be deployed to automate machine learning (ML) R\&D itself. Frontier AI systems may be deployed in safety-critical settings, including to help ensure the safety of future systems. Unfortunately, frontier and future systems may not be sufficiently trustworthy, and there is evidence that these systems may even be misaligned with their developers or users. Therefore, we investigate the capabilities of AI agents to act against the interests of their users when conducting ML engineering, by sabotaging ML models, sandbagging their performance, and subverting oversight mechanisms. First, we extend MLE-Bench, a benchmark for realistic ML tasks, with code-sabotage tasks such as implanting backdoors and purposefully causing generalisation failures. Frontier agents make meaningful progress on our sabotage tasks. In addition, we study agent capabilities to sandbag on MLE-Bench. Agents can calibrate their performance to specified target levels below their actual capability. To mitigate sabotage, we use LM monitors to detect suspicious agent behaviour, and we measure model capability to sabotage and sandbag without being detected by these monitors. Overall, monitors are capable at detecting code-sabotage attempts but our results suggest that detecting sandbagging is more difficult. Additionally, aggregating multiple monitor predictions works well, but monitoring may not be sufficiently reliable to mitigate sabotage in high-stakes domains. Our benchmark is implemented in the UK AISI’s Inspect framework and we make our code publicly available.