Jordan Taylor, Sid Black, Dillon Bowen, Thomas Read, Satvik Golechha, Alex Zelenka-Martin, Oliver Makins, Connor Kissane, Kola Ayonrinde, Jacob Merizian, Samuel Marks, Chris Cundy, Joseph Bloom

UK AI Security Institute, FAR.AI, Anthropic

Links: Paper | Code | Models | Transcripts | Interactive Demo

Epistemic Status: We're sharing our paper and a hastily written summary of it, assuming a higher level of context on sandbagging / auditing games than other materials. We also share some informal commentary on our results. This post was written by Jordan and Joseph, and may not reflect the views of all authors.

This summary diverges from the paper, condensing heavily while adding our additional commentary in footnotes,

Paper Summary & Commentary

TL;DR

We ran an auditing game to stress-test sandbagging detection (rather than mitigation) techniques. Specifically, we wanted to ask the question "If for some reason a model was sandbagging on capability evaluations, what methods might we use to catch this model?". During the game, our red team created five model organisms (some sandbagging, some benign decoys), and then a blinded blue team tried to identify which were which.

The red team won. The blue team only classified 1/5 models correctly when [...]

---

Outline:

(01:02) Paper Summary & Commentary

(01:05) TL;DR

(01:59) The Setup

(02:06) Red Team

(02:56) Blue Team

(03:28) Results

(03:54) Phase 1: Black-Box and Probes

(05:07) Phase 2: Training-Based Methods

(06:44) Final Scores

(07:23) Post-Game Analysis

(08:26) Limitations

(09:07) Reasons why our set up favoured the blue team:

(09:18) Reasons why our set up favoured the red team:

(12:31) Other limitations:

(14:06) Future work

(14:20) Future work: Detection

(16:40) Future work: Elicitation

(18:22) Additional commentary

(18:25) What went well

(19:02) Practical Difficulties

(22:04) Resources

(22:25) Paper Citation

The original text contained 10 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:
December 9th, 2025

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QMLwKemqMDATkkjJG/paper-auditing-games-for-sandbagging

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Diagram showing red team training five AI models and blue team auditing process in two phases.

Table showing five AI models with their original models, types, and behavioral descriptions.

Summary of sandbagging detection techniques studied. Red indicates that we did not see strong evidence these methods will be useful for detecting or mitigating sandbagging, while yellow and green indicate somewhat useful and very useful methods respectively. Techniques only investigated after the game are indicated with dotted lines.

The blue team's credences of sandbagging in the final game. Bold values indicate cases where the blue team predicted sandbagging with a credence ≥ 75%, while red cells indicate tasks where the model was actually sandbagging. Phase 1 and 2 results are shown in left and right columns respectively.

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

“[paper] Auditing Games for Sandbagging” by Jordan Taylor, Joseph Bloom

LessWrong (30+ Karma)

“[paper] Auditing Games for Sandbagging” by Jordan Taylor, Joseph Bloom