David Williams-King | Search arXiv

arXiv2026

Reference-Grafting Matches Fine-Tuning at Eliciting Sandbagged Capabilities

Sandbagging, in which a model deliberately underperforms on an evaluation despite retaining the underlying capability, threatens the safety evaluations that frontier-model governance depends on. The Elicitation Game found that fine-tuning elicits hidden capability from sandbagging model organisms whereas additive activation steering fails. We revisit that verdict with reference-grafting, which sets an activation's coordinate along a contrast direction to the value it takes in an honest reference, at a small set of circuits chosen by active learning. Across eleven fine-tuned password-locked models (1.5-32B, three architecture lineages), it recovers +94 to +101% of the honest-sandbagging gap, matching fine-tuning elicitation without weight updates or training labels; two to five paired examples suffice to fit the direction. Similar recovery holds for reinforcement-learning-induced sandbagging and for password-locked code generation. Grafting works because the fine-tuned lock is a thresholded gate: held-out accuracy stays at the sandbagged level until the grafted coordinate crosses a threshold near the honest reference, which is why additive steering and zeroing the coordinate often fail. The direction tracks how the sandbagging was induced rather than what is withheld -- fit on grade-school science (ARC) it elicits withheld hazardous knowledge (WMDP), yet prompting, fine-tuning, and reinforcement learning each carry a different direction. Circuit-breaking marks the boundary: it reroutes activations on every forward pass, so the fixed edits we test are re-broken downstream and do not restore coherent generation.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

A Causal Model for Locating and Unlocking Sandbagging in Model Organisms

Sandbagging models strategically underperform on evaluations while retaining the capabilities being measured. The evaluations that guide frontier-model deployment and governance then understate what these models can do. To understand the mechanism, we propose a causal model of how sandbagging is carried in the residual stream. Early layers write the sandbagging intent onto a single axis of the stream, and a later layer reads that axis and commits the answer. We study three instruction-tuned models (Qwen2.5-7B, Llama-3-8B, and Mistral-7B) and four ways of installing a sandbagging lock (prompting, fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, and circuit breaking). Each lock decides from the prompt whether to sandbag, and the fine-tuned and circuit-broken locks answer honestly whenever a password appears. The causal model predicts a window of layers, after the last sandbagging write and before the answer commit, in which a single-layer reference graft of the sandbagging axis to its honest value restores the full capability. The single-layer graft recovers the capability in 28 of the 33 runs of the prompted, fine-tuned, and RL-trained locks, with a median held-out recovery of 96%. The circuit-broken lock rewrites the whole state through a band of layers, and the single-layer graft fails at every layer. We therefore introduce a second intervention, context grafting, which replays the password's cached key/value activations so that every layer's attention reads them as additional context. Context grafting provably and empirically restores the full capability on all three models, and the recovery is surprisingly insensitive to the exact password content. More broadly, an auditor can use this causal model to design interventional auditing techniques for sandbagging models.

cs.LG↗