Consistency training encourages a model to produce similar outputs across related inputs or sampling procedures. Such methods are simple, scalable, and largely label-free, but their effects on model alignment remain poorly understood. Could the self-bootstrapping nature of these methods amplify undesired behavior in models? We test seven consistency training methods on 108 model organisms: open-source models (7B--70B) fine-tuned to exhibit various forms of controlled misaligned behavior. We find that outcomes vary significantly: consistency training generally suppresses reward hacking and emergent misalignment but amplifies sycophancy. We present evidence that distribution shifts induced by the consistency labeling process, rather than variation in the selection operators, may be the primary driver of systematic alignment effects. Finally, we present a unifying theoretical framework to derive conditions under which consistency training will amplify or suppress misalignment. In total, our study establishes that consistency training is not alignment-neutral, and that its use in critical systems should be carefully audited.
Consistency training encourages models to behave similarly across different contexts, and has shown promise for reducing misalignment. We broaden the scope of consistency training in two ways. First, we introduce two new internal consistency targets: MLP Consistency Training (MLPCT), which matches post-activation MLP states, and Attention Consistency Training (AttCT), which matches per-head attention distributions. Second, we apply consistency training to four additional safety threats: persona in-context learning attacks, adversarial frustration, prefill attacks, and conditional misalignment. Across several models and threat settings, we find that consistency training reduces misalignment well beyond the sycophancy and jailbreak settings studied in prior work. We also find cases of cross-threat generalization, where training against one failure mode improves robustness to another, and identify a shared residual-stream mechanism underlying ACT, MLPCT, and AttCT, while distinguishing BCT as mechanistically distinct. Our results suggest that consistency training is a flexible and extensible framework for alignment, capable of unifying defenses against a broader class of model pathologies.
Aligned models can misbehave in several ways: they are often sycophantic, fall victim to jailbreaks, or fail to include appropriate safety warnings. Consistency training is a promising new alignment paradigm to mitigate such failures by training invariants into the model using contrastive input pairs. Existing consistency training procedures generate the supervision signal once, offline, and use supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to update the model. Unfortunately, the resulting models tend to merely memorize the surface forms of the training distribution and thus generalize poorly and regress in their capabilities. We introduce On-Policy Consistency Training (OPCT), a new consistency training approach where the objective is computed over the model's own responses to prompts, supervised by itself conditioned on corresponding contrastive prompts. We evaluate OPCT on three safety axes: sycophancy, jailbreaking, and safety awareness. Across three model families, OPCT outperforms its SFT counterpart on all safety desiderata. It nearly halves the sycophancy rate relative to baseline (8.1% vs. 15.4%, compared to 11.2% for SFT). Under an adaptive per-target attacker, OPCT holds jailbreak defense success near 99% on held-out jailbreak behaviors, whereas SFT achieves 87% on average. On safety awareness, OPCT outperforms SFT in two out of three models, and matches it on the other. OPCT also largely avoids the capability regressions that SFT induces, such as a 28-point drop on MATH-500. Our results suggest that consistency training is best implemented as OPCT rather than as SFT, especially when generalization beyond the training distribution is desired.
Alignment training, model organisms, and toy models are usually treated as separate research areas. But projects in all three frequently use supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to pursue the same underlying goals. When projects share a goal, we should test whether lessons learned from one area transfer to the other areas. We study three such transfers, each taking a lesson developed in one SFT setting and testing it in another. First, we port a lesson about behavior generalization from alignment training into toy models. Training on the reason for a behavior, as in Teaching Claude Why, can make the behavior generalize better than training on examples of the behavior alone. Second, we port a lesson about capability preservation from model organisms into the Model-Spec Midtraining alignment setting. SFT on outputs written by a model other than the student (off-model outputs) can damage capabilities when trained on. Mixing in benign on-model (and on-policy) data into our training can prevent most of this damage while still embedding the target behavior. Third, we port a lesson about robustness from model organisms into the same alignment setting. We find that follow-up benign SFT can erase the alignment behavior while preserving capabilities, showing that capability preservation alone does not ensure robustness to subsequent training. Our work illustrates how porting SFT lessons between different research fields can uplift them all, suggesting more researchers should borrow techniques from outside their own areas.