Fine-tuning language models on narrowly defined harmful tasks can induce emergent misalignment (EM) across unrelated domains. While prior work has identified shared misalignment-associated representations across independently fine-tuned models, it remains unclear whether these models rely on common computational components. We investigate this question using three LoRA fine-tunes of Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct trained on harmful medical advice, risky financial advice, and extreme-sports recommendations. Using direction-based activation tracing, we identify three attention-head locations shared among the five highest-ranked heads of all three organisms. Replacing each organism's five selected head contributions with Base contributions reduces free-generation EM from 38.9% to 22.9% for medical, 50.7% to 12.5% for finance, and 41.7% to 11.1% for sports, outperforming layer-matched random interventions without reducing judged coherence. Cross-organism activation transfer further shows that the shared heads exhibit partially interchangeable effects on fixed-response preference. These findings provide evidence that representational convergence in EM extends to shared, causally relevant attention-head components within a common model architecture.
Figures & tables
Measurement
Medical
Finance
Sports
Discovery ( n=50 )
Mean ΔS
0.448
0.470
0.412
Positive shifts
50/50
50/50
49/50
Validation ( n=10 )
Mean ΔS
0.290
0.296
0.290
Positive shifts
9/10
9/10
9/10
Table 1: Base-to-organism changes in preference for fixed misaligned responses relative to aligned responses. Positive ΔS indicates increased relative support for the misaligned response.
Layer
Medical
Finance
Sports
20
0.0560
0.0409
0.0278
22
0.0710
0.0724
0.0606
23
0.0761
0.0867
0.0731
25
0.0564
0.0632
0.0709
27
0.0331
0.0409
0.0656
Table 2: Mean Base-to-organism cosine-similarity shift toward each EM direction on ten validation prompts. Five intermediate layers are shown from the full 36-layer scan. Bold indicates the largest value among the displayed layers.
Organism
Top five attention heads
Medical
L21.h04 , L21.h01 , L20.h08 , L17.h03 , L18.h03
Finance
L21.h01 , L21.h04 , L19.h13 , L18.h03 , L22.h03
Sports
L21.h01 , L21.h04 , L18.h03 , L18.h00 , L21.h03
Shared
L21.h01 , L21.h04 , L18.h03
Table 3: Top five attention heads selected independently for each organism using restoration at layer 23. Layer and head indices are zero-indexed.
Measurement
Medical
Finance
Sports
Full LoRA EM rate
38.9%
50.7%
41.7%
Selected replacement
22.9%
12.5%
11.1%
Random replacement
33.5%
55.3%
42.6%
Selected − full (pp)
−16.0
−38.2
−30.6
95% CI
[−27.1,−5.6]
[−50.0,−25.7]
[−42.4,−19.4]
Selected − random (pp)
−10.6
−42.8
−31.5
Table 4: Free-generation effects of five-head Base replacement. Each condition includes 144 generations across nine prompts. Random rates are averaged over ten layer-matched sets. Confidence intervals use 10,000 prompt-level bootstrap replicates. Coherence requires a judge score of at least 70. Differences are in percentage points (pp).
Donor / Target
Medical
Finance
Sports
Normal target
−0.009
0.013
−0.022
Base replacement
−0.066
−0.107
−0.122
Medical
−0.009 (1.00)
−0.037 (0.59)
−0.041 (0.83)
Finance
−0.008 (1.10)
0.013 (1.00)
−0.013 (1.04)
Sports
−0.011 (1.19)
0.004 (0.98)
−0.022 (1.00)
Table 5: Cross-organism transfer at the three shared head locations. Entries report mean teacher-forced preference margins. Parentheses give mean per-prompt recovery ratios, excluding prompts with an absolute target-minus-Base-replacement gap of at most 0.01.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Donor → target
Eligible prompts
Mean restoration
95% interval
Medical → finance
8
0.591
[0.421,0.808]
Medical → sports
9
0.826
[0.570,1.080]
Finance → medical
9
1.100
[0.737,1.474]
Finance → sports
9
1.035
[0.760,1.339]
Sports → medical
9
1.186
[0.782,1.667]
Sports → finance
8
0.978
[0.788,1.182]
Appendix
Table 6: Prompt-bootstrap intervals for cross-organism activation transplants, using the donor-row, target-column convention of Table 5 .
Medical target
Finance target
Sports target
Prompt
Fin. donor
Sports donor
Med. donor
Sports donor
Med. donor
Fin. donor
AIH04
0.41
0.46
1.21
1.37
0.89
0.95
CON02
1.14
1.25
0.29
1.47
0.02
0.60
PRV04
1.18
0.71
0.37
0.53
0.88
1.65
CIV09
1.18
0.68
0.59
0.85
1.21
1.84
CIV10
1.20
1.23
0.45
0.80
0.81
0.90
Appendix
Table 7: Per-prompt restoration ratios for the six donor-to-target transplants. Positive values indicate movement in the direction of the target’s own shared-head effect; values above two can overshoot it.
Medical
Finance
Sports
Prompt
Normal
Base rep.
Normal
Base rep.
Normal
Base rep.
AIH04
-0.33
-0.38
-0.12
-0.20
-0.02
-0.17
CON02
0.15
0.10
0.02
-0.08
-0.09
-0.15
PRV04
0.62
0.54
0.61
0.46
0.50
0.40
CIV09
-0.12
-0.18
-0.08
-0.16
-0.16
-0.21
CIV10
-0.29
-0.46
-0.31
-0.66
-0.38
-0.68
Appendix
Table 8: Per-prompt misaligned-minus-aligned preference margins under normal target LoRA and Base replacement of the three shared heads. Displayed values are rounded to two decimal places.
Medical target
Finance target
Sports target
Prompt
Fin. donor
Sports donor
Med. donor
Sports donor
Med. donor
Fin. donor
AIH04
-0.36
-0.36
-0.10
-0.09
-0.04
-0.03
CON02
0.16
0.16
-0.05
0.07
-0.15
-0.12
PRV04
0.63
0.60
0.51
0.54
0.49
0.56
CIV09
-0.11
-0.14
-0.11
-0.09
-0.15
-0.12
CIV10
-0.26
-0.25
-0.50
-0.38
-0.43
-0.41
Appendix
Table 9: Per-prompt preference margins after transplanting the shared three-head activations from a different organism. Values are rounded to two decimal places.
Organism
Original
Base replacement
Medical
22/30
21/30
Finance
20/30
21/30
Sports
22/30
22/30
Benign medical
25/30
24/30
Appendix
Table 10: Accuracy on 30 elementary multiple-choice mathematics questions. Twenty answer keys are C and ten are B, limiting the interpretation of absolute accuracy.
Fine-tuning an aligned language model on narrow, flawed data can induce harmful behavior far outside the training domain, known as emergent misalignment (EM). Prior work has localized EM in model weights, activations, and training documents, but it remains unclear which training tokens carry the relevant fine-tuning signal. We introduce TAME (Token Attribution and Masking for Emergent Misalignment), a three-stage framework: token attribution scores how strongly the fine-tuning update raises each response token's likelihood, using forward passes through a released LoRA adapter; signal characterization finds patterns among high-attribution tokens; and causal validation tests them by attribution-guided loss masking. On released EM organisms and a 6,849-example medical-advice split, attribution is concentrated (the top 5% of tokens hold 32% of the mass) and, in Llama, depleted for medical vocabulary but enriched for a register of unwarranted certainty, even after controlling for token rarity. Masking high-attribution tokens during fresh fine-tuning cuts EM by 23x in Llama and 36x in Qwen, with the perplexity cost concentrated on the targeted register rather than on medical content; an equal random mask leaves EM unchanged. In Llama, the attribution pattern suggests that EM-relevant signal lies more in how confidently flawed content is expressed than in its domain vocabulary; the causal masking effect itself holds across both model families.
Md Rayhanul Masud, Md Rizwan Parvez
University of California, Riverside · 2Qatar Computing Research Institute (QCRI)
Fine-tuning large language models on narrow, misaligned tasks can undo their post-training alignment and induce novel misaligned behaviors -- a phenomenon known as emergent misalignment (EM). EM has been linked to persona-like representations, where fine-tuning might reduce loss by amplifying a harmful or 'evil' persona. It remains unclear which properties of the training data drive this effect: whether all harmful examples contribute approximately equally to misalignment and whether different models are equally affected by the same fine-tuning examples. In this work, we use training data attribution to quantitatively estimate how much each harmful example contributes to EM. We benchmark the quality of the attribution via retraining -- a sound attribution score should enable us to enhance or attenuate EM by filtering data on that score. Score-based filtering can substantially enhance or attenuate EM; we find that both data-attribution scores and a black-box harmfulness score can identify consequential examples. All models we test become misaligned when trained on the same dataset, and influence scores perform best when filtering data from the same model that computed them. We find cross-model generalization of influence scores from scores derived from the three model families we tested, but this generalization does not recover same model filtering performance.
Emergent misalignment (EM) is the phenomenon where fine-tuning a language model on a narrow task leads to harmful behavior in unrelated domains. A leading mechanistic account attributes EM to persona features: latent directions acquired during pre-training that misaligned fine-tuning amplifies. We ask where these features come from: which pre-training documents activate them, and whether naturally occurring human-written text suffices to induce EM. Using Sparse Autoencoder (SAE) based model diffing across four open-weight models, we find that features related to jailbreak personas, sarcasm, deception, and manipulation are amplified by misalignment fine-tuning, while safety-relevant and assistant-identity features are suppressed. Steering individual features controls EM in both directions: it induces misalignment rates of up to 62% in aligned models -- exceeding the 35% reached by misalignment fine-tuning itself -- and re-aligns misaligned models to near-baseline misalignment rates. Attributing the causal features to a corpus of one million pre-training web documents retrieves semantically relevant narratives about villainous characters, domination, and harmful agency. However, fine-tuning on these human-written documents does not reliably induce EM, even after reformatting into assistant-style responses, whereas synthetic instruction-response pairs derived from the same content do -- and transfer across model families. Semantic relevance alone is therefore not sufficient: response structure or model-generated phrasing plays an important role in inducing EM.
Clemens Vetter, David Kaczér, Lucie Flek +1
Bonn-Aachen International Center for Information Technology, University of Bonn, Germany