Correct, Don't Delete: Mitigating Emergent Misalignment with Corrective Supervision

Emergent misalignment (EM) -- the broad misbehaviour a language model acquires after fine-tuning on narrow harmful data -- is mediated in Qwen2.5 models by a latent persona direction, and that direction is causal in open weights. Transplanting it into a model that shares only pretraining with its source induces broad EM (2.83 +/- 0.26% misaligned against a random-direction floor of ~1.1%), and ablating a model's own direction roughly halves an overt inducer's broadcast (21% to 10%). The transplant doubles as a measurement method, causally assaying directions that a source model represents but cannot itself express. Whether a fine-tune recruits this persona depends on method and capacity, and since low-rank PEFT is the cheaper regime at scale, the recruiting method is also the economical one. On Qwen2.5-32B, low-rank LoRA on insecure code recruits it (3.4% misaligned) while full SFT on identical data does not (0.3%) and moves against the persona axis (drift-persona cosine +0.17 at rank 1 to -0.10), the far-inducer, high-capacity exception consistent with a representational-distance x capacity account. The persona's causal role is itself conditional. Steering a bad-medical SFT run away from the direction during training raises the broadcast from 24% to 51% while a matched random control lowers it, so removing the direction is no blanket recipe. Because recruitment is a loss-reducing shortcut that capacity renders redundant, it can be screened for and prevented in the tested instances. Persona loss-relevance at the SFT solution orders four inducers' broadcasts rank-perfectly within Qwen2.5, inoculation removes recruitment selectively (4.75% to 0.0%, code coherence 65% to 87%), and fine-tuning orthogonal to the single behaviour-derived axis reduces it persona-specifically. Results are a controlled case study of one model family, single-seed in places.

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.

Fine-tuning an aligned language model on a narrow stream of bad advice can make it broadly misaligned on questions unrelated to the training data, a phenomenon called emergent misalignment. We ask why the narrow lesson generalizes at all, and we find that narrow fine-tuning recruits a persona structure that is present in the model before the fine-tune exists. From a frozen instruction-tuned model (Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct) we extract per-domain persona subspaces by contrastive teacher forcing and find that 4 unrelated domains share one low-rank core at 657x a random-subspace null, with 82% of that core lying outside a style core built at matched diversity. The literal first optimizer step of fine-tuning on insecure code climbs a broad-misalignment margin harder than the same code framed as educational, and forecasts realized margin movement out to 375 steps. Projecting the subspace out of the residual stream throughout fine-tuning prevents broad misalignment (27.7% to 0.0% of judged generations) while a matched-rank random subspace changes nothing; injecting it into the never-fine-tuned model induces misalignment that grows with dose to 45.4%, past the fine-tuned model it is measured against. The same projection applied to the weight gradient is inert, and three post-hoc weight edits leave the disposition in place: the sharpest edit suppresses the behavior rather than removing it, and the ablated structure re-forms inside the subspace the edit cleared. Spreading a fixed budget of bad data across 4 domains produces more broad misalignment than mechanical weight superposition and matched diversity jointly account for. All measurements come from one model at 14B; the extraction is from an aligned instruction-tuned checkpoint, which leaves the structure's provenance open; and the intervention that prevents misalignment also abolishes the narrow trained behavior.