Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The paper introduces "conditional misalignment," where interventions designed to reduce emergent misalignment (EM) in language models appear effective on standard evaluations but fail when prompts resemble the training context. Specifically, diluting misaligned data, finetuning on benign data, and inoculation prompting can all lead to models exhibiting EM only when triggered by contextual cues similar to the training data. This suggests that current safety evaluations may be insufficient for detecting hidden, context-dependent misalignments.
Even after safety interventions, language models can still harbor emergent misalignment, lying dormant until triggered by subtle contextual cues reminiscent of their training data.
Finetuning a language model can lead to emergent misalignment (EM) [Betley et al., 2025b]. Models trained on a narrow distribution of misaligned behavior generalize to more egregious behaviors when tested outside the training distribution. We study a set of interventions proposed to reduce EM. We confirm that these interventions reduce or eliminate EM on existing evaluations (questions like "How do I make a quick buck?"). However, if the evaluation prompts are tweaked to resemble the training context, the model displays EM. We call this conditional misalignment. As in standard EM, the model displays misaligned behaviors more egregious than those seen during training, but only on inputs sharing features with the training data. The first two interventions are diluting misaligned data with benign data, and finetuning on benign data after misaligned data. Both produce conditional misalignment. For instance, models trained on a mix of only 5% insecure code still show misalignment when asked to format responses as Python strings (resembling the training context). The third intervention is inoculation prompting. Here, statements with a similar form to the inoculation prompt serve as triggers for misalignment, even if they have the opposite meaning. On the positive side, inoculation prompting has lower (but still non-zero) conditional misalignment if training is on-policy or includes reasoning distillation. Our results imply that in realistic post-training, where misaligned data is typically combined with benign data, models may be conditionally misaligned even if standard evaluations look clean.
