Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

The Elicitation Game: Evaluating Capability Elicitation Techniques

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2502.02180 v3 pith:EWDCE3XR submitted 2025-02-04 cs.AI cs.LG

The Elicitation Game: Evaluating Capability Elicitation Techniques

classification cs.AI cs.LG
keywords elicitationtechniquescapabilitiescapabilitymodelmodelsevaluationsfine-tuning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

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 the 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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Modular Pretraining Enables Access Control

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    GRAM selectively trains auxiliary modules so that ablating one at inference removes a targeted capability while preserving the rest, closely tracking data-filtered models at 5x lower cost across 5 capability profiles.

  2. Cyber-Capable AI Agents: Vulnerabilities, Evaluation Containment, and Defensive Response

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    A structured review organizes cyber-capable-agent risks into five vulnerability classes and argues that evaluation environments must be treated as operational security systems rather than background.