Reliable capability assessment is essential for governing and securely deploying advanced AI systems. However, "AI Sandbagging," where models strategically suppress their true capabilities during evaluation, undermines existing assessment frameworks by making it difficult to distinguish genuine limitations from strategic concealment. To address this challenge, we propose a new black-box sandbag detection method inspired by "honesty inertia," a psychological phenomenon where humans struggle to maintain deception after answering simple questions truthfully. We hypothesize that large language models exhibit an analogous effect: inserting several simple, unrelated questions, which target models should answer correctly, before the target query induces honest inertia, causing sandbag models to involuntarily increase accuracy while standard models remain stable. Through extensive experiments on multiple datasets with various model architectures, we confirm the validity of this hypothesis and establish this differential response as a reliable, model-independent sandbag detection signal. We further provide interpretability support for this phenomenon from two dimensions: theoretical derivation and hidden state analysis of models. This work offers a practical tool for enhancing AI audit and supervision.

As academic submissions grow, the traditional peer review process struggles to keep up, raising concerns about quality and fairness.A trend of using large language models (LLMs) for assistance has emerged.In this work, we take a critical step toward improving the quality of LLM-generated reviews.We propose the PeerCheck framework, which investigates LLM-human review differences (RQ1) and explores methods to increase LLM-human similarity (RQ2).We first analyzed the human-written reviews with reviews generated by GPT-4o, Claude-3.7-Sonnet, and DeepSeek-V3 and found that LLMs and humans focus on different terms, e.g., LLMs prioritize theory while humans emphasize methodology and experiments.We further adopt prompt engineering, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT), and utilize retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to enhance the LLM-generated reviews towards human-level quality.We find CoT significantly improves the human similarity of LLM reviews, while we also discover an unexpected “RAG paradox,” i.e., experiments with RAG produce different results for various LLMs and, in some cases, even reduce review quality.Our comprehensive analysis of LLM-generated academic reviews illustrates both possibilities and limitations, contributing to a more effective, human-aligned review system.