Value Alignment

Language models are instruction-tuned to refuse harmful requests, but the mechanisms underlying this behavior remain poorly understood. Popular steering methods operate on the residual stream and degrade output coherence at high intervention strengths, limiting their practical use. We introduce contrastive neuron attribution (CNA), which identifies the 0.1% of MLP neurons whose activations most distinguish harmful from benign prompts, requiring only forward passes with no gradients or auxiliary training. In instruct models, ablating the discovered circuit reduces refusal rates by over 50% on a standard jailbreak benchmark while preserving fluency and non-degeneracy across all steering strengths. Applying CNA to matched base and instruct models across Llama and Qwen architectures (from 1B to 72B parameters), we find that base models contain similar late-layer discrimination structures but steering these neurons produces only content shifts, not behavioral change. These results demonstrate that neuron-level intervention enables reliable behavioral steering without the quality tradeoffs of residual-stream methods. More broadly, our findings suggest that alignment fine-tuning transforms pre-existing discrimination structure into a sparse, targetable refusal gate.

Emergent misalignment (EM), where fine-tuning on a narrow task (like insecure code) causes broad misalignment across unrelated domains, was first demonstrated by Betley et al. (2025). We conduct the most comprehensive EM study to date, reproducing the original GPT-4o finding and expanding to 12 open-source models across 4 families (Llama, Qwen, DeepSeek, GPT-OSS) ranging from 8B to 671B parameters, evaluating over one million model responses with multiple random seeds. We find that EM replicates in GPT-4o but is far from universal: only 2 of 12 open-source models (17%) exhibit consistent EM across seeds, with a significant correlation between model size and EM susceptibility. Through checkpoint-level analysis during fine-tuning, we demonstrate that EM emerges late in training, distinct from and subsequent to near convergence of the primary task, suggesting EM emerges from continued training past task convergence. This yields practical mitigations: early stopping eliminates EM while retaining an average of 93% of task performance, and careful learning rate selection further minimizes risk. Cross-domain validation on medical fine-tuning confirms these patterns generalize: the size-EM correlation strengthens (r = 0.90), and overgeneralization to untruthfulness remains avoidable via early stopping in 67% of cases, though semantically proximate training domains produce less separable misalignment. As LLMs become increasingly integrated into real-world systems, fine-tuning and reinforcement learning remain the primary methods for adapting model behavior. Our findings demonstrate that with proper training practices, EM can be avoided, reframing it from an unforeseen fine-tuning risk to an avoidable training artifact.

In this work, we introduce a Tropical Axial Attention neural reasoning architecture that replaces vanilla softmax dot-product attention with max-plus operators, inducing a piecewise-linear structure aligned with dynamic programming formulations. From multi-species sequence alignments, our model learns all possible pairwise distances and is trained using a combination of $\ell_1$ and tropical symmetric distance metric losses with an ultrametric violation penalty. We leverage the well known isomorphic relationship between the space of all phylogenetic trees with $n$ species and tropical Grassmannian to show that tropical attention provides a natural geometric framework for phylogenetic inference. On empirical $DS1-DS11$ alignments, where true trees are unknown, the tropical model produces distance matrices that are substantially closer to their BME-induced tree metrics than the baseline models. These results suggest that tropical attention is a useful geometric inductive bias for neural phylogenetic inference, especially under distribution shift and when tree-metric consistency is important.

The design of RNA molecules that interact with specific proteins is a critical challenge in experimental and computational biology. Despite recent progress in natural language modeling and deep learning-based protein design, there remains significant room to improve the frequency of successful interactions and the authenticity of generated sequences for functional applications. In this work, we frame conditional RNA sequence generation as a multi-stage alignment problem, introducing Moirain: a suite of models optimized via multimodal supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Our approach begins with large-scale pretraining on diverse RNA corpora to capture the fundamental grammars of sequence plausibility. To achieve target-specific generation, we employ a multimodal SFT architecture that conditions RNA synthesis on protein structural and sequential features. Finally, we leverage DPO to refine the model using synthetic interaction data: taking advantage of DPO's unique ability to navigate non-aligned preference spaces, we improve functional fitness without collapsing the learned natural distribution. Extensive evaluation of the Moirain series (Moirain-Base, -Multi, and -DPO) demonstrates that our framework consistently produces novel, diverse, and biologically plausible RNA sequences with superior binding affinities compared to existing baselines.

Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values typically relies on post-training or inference-time steering that directly manipulates the backbone's parameters or representation space. However, a critical gap exists: the model's residual stream is highly dynamic, in which values exist as fragile, low-dimensional properties, inherently incompatible with the stability required for consistent value expression. In this paper, we propose the Stable Value Guidance Transformer (SVGT), which addresses this gap through an independent value module incorporating two key designs: (1) independent value modeling, maintaining normative representations in a dedicated value space isolated from the backbone, and (2) explicit behavioral guidance, transducing these stable signals into learnable latent Bridge Tokens. These tokens serve as dynamic value anchors to explicitly steer the generative trajectory, ensuring robust adherence across diverse contexts without disrupting the backbone's internal representations. Experiments across multiple backbones and safety benchmarks show that SVGT generally reduces harmful scores by over 70% while maintaining generation fluency, demonstrating the efficacy of architecturally grounded value modeling. Our code is available at https://github.com/Clervils/SVGT.git.

Federated learning usually aggregates client updates using dataset size or gradient-level criteria, while overlooking internal signals about how each client model is organizing its input space during training. We introduce FedOUI, a simple aggregation rule based on the Overfitting-Underfitting Indicator (OUI), an activation-based and label-free metric. Each participating client sends its local update together with a OUI value computed on a fixed probe batch, and the server estimates the round-wise OUI distribution to assign lower weights to structurally atypical clients through a smooth reweighting rule. We evaluate FedOUI on CIFAR-10 under strong non-IID partitioning and noisy-client conditions, comparing it with FedAvg, FedProx, and a gradient-alignment baseline. The clearest gains appear under strong heterogeneity, where OUI-based weighting improves aggregation quality while remaining lightweight and interpretable. These results show that internal activation structure can provide useful information for federated aggregation beyond client size and gradient geometry.

While large language models excel at factual adaptation, their ability to internalize nuanced philosophical frameworks under severe data constraints remains underexplored. We investigate this by specializing small LLMs on micro-datasets of foundational Stoic texts using preference optimization (ORPO, AlphaPO). Evaluated via a multi-model critic bank, our results show that just 300 high-fidelity examples can induce strong alignment with inward-facing Stoic virtues, closely approaching few-shot prompting while freeing the context window. Critically, however, all models, including few-shot baselines, exhibit a persistent failure on Stoicism's outward-facing cosmopolitan duties, pointing to a representational limitation of small models that micro-dataset adaptation alone cannot overcome.

Large language model (LLM) alignment algorithms typically consist of post-training over preference pairs. While such algorithms are widely used to enable safety guardrails and align LLMs with general human preferences, we show that state-of-the-art alignment algorithms require significant computational resources while being far less capable of enabling refusal guardrails for recent agentic attacks. Thus, to improve refusal guardrails against such attacks without drastically increasing computational overhead, we introduce Retrieval Augmented Generation for Pref erence alignment (RAG-Pref), a simple RAG-based alignment algorithm which conditions on preferred and dispreferred samples to leverage contrastive information during inference. RAG-Pref is online (training-free), compatible with off-the-shelf packages, and, when combined with offline (training-based) alignment algorithms, enables more than an average 3.7 factor improvement in agentic attack refusals across five widely used LLMs, compared to 2.9 for other online alignment algorithms and 1.5 for offline alignment alone. We conclude by showing that, in stark contrast to other online alignment methods, RAG-Pref similarly increases performance on general human-preference alignment tasks and does not drastically increase overall computational requirements.

Large language models increasingly mediate decisions that turn on moral judgement, yet a growing body of evidence shows that their implicit preferences are not culturally neutral. Existing cultural alignment methods either require per-country preference data and fine-tuning budgets or assume white-box access to model internals that commercial APIs do not expose. In this work, we focus on this realistic black-box, public-data-only regime and observe that within-country sociodemographic disagreement, not consensus, is the primary steering signal. We introduce DISCA (Disagreement-Informed Steering for Cultural Alignment), an inference-time method that instantiates each country as a panel of World-Values-Survey-grounded persona agents and converts their disagreement into a bounded, loss-averse logit correction. Across 20 countries and 7 open-weight backbones (2B--70B), DISCA reduces cultural misalignment on MultiTP by 10--24% on the six backbones >=3.8B, and 2--7% on open-ended scenarios, without changing any weights. Our results suggest that inference-time calibration is a scalable alternative to fine-tuning for serving the long tail of global moral preferences.

Artificial intelligence safety research focuses on aligning individual language models with human values, yet deployed AI systems increasingly operate as interacting populations where social influence may override individual alignment. Here we show that populations of individually aligned AI agents can be driven into stable misaligned states through conformity dynamics. Simulating opinion dynamics across nine large language models and one hundred opinion pairs, we find that each agent's behavior is governed by two competing forces: a tendency to follow the majority and an intrinsic bias toward specific positions. Using tools from statistical physics, we derive a quantitative theory that predicts when populations become trapped in long-lived misaligned configurations, and identifies predictable tipping points where small numbers of adversarial agents can irreversibly shift population-level alignment even after manipulation ceases. These results demonstrate that individual-level alignment provides no guarantee of collective safety, calling for evaluation frameworks that account for emergent behavior in AI populations.

Fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) on benign narrow data can sometimes induce broad harmful behaviors, a vulnerability termed emergent misalignment (EM). While prior work links these failures to specific directions in the activation space, their relationship to the model's broader persona remains unexplored. We map the latent personality space of LLMs through established psychometric profiles like the Big Five, Dark Triad, and LLM-specific behaviors (e.g. evil, sycophancy), and show that the semantic geometry is highly stable across aligned models and their corrupted fine-tunes. Through causal interventions, we find that directions isolating social valence, such as the 'Evil' persona vector, and a Semantic Valence Vector (SVV) that we introduce, function as intrinsic guardrails: ablating them drives the misalignment rates above $40$%, while amplifying them suppresses the failure mode to less than $3$%. Leveraging the structural stability of the personality space, we show that vectors extracted $\textit{a priori}$ from an instruct-tuned model transfer zero-shot to successfully regulate EM in corrupted fine-tunes. Overall, our findings suggest that harmful fine-tuning does not overwrite a model's internal representation of personality, allowing conserved representations to serve as robust, cross-distribution guardrails.

Existing alignment research is dominated by concerns about safety and preventing harm: safeguards, controllability, and compliance. This paradigm of alignment parallels early psychology's focus on mental illness: necessary but incomplete. What we call Positive Alignment is the development of AI systems that (i) actively support human and ecological flourishing in a pluralistic, polycentric, context-sensitive, and user-authored way while (ii) remaining safe and cooperative. It is a distinct and necessary agenda within AI alignment research. We argue that several existing failures of alignment (e.g., engagement hacking, loss of human autonomy, failures in truth-seeking, low epistemic humility, error correction, lack of diverse viewpoints, and being primarily reactive rather than proactive) may be better addressed through positive alignment, including cultivating virtues and maximizing human flourishing. We highlight a range of challenges, open questions, and technical directions (e.g., data filtering and upsampling, pre- and post-training, evaluations, collaborative value collection) for different phases of the LLM and agents lifecycle. We end with design principles for promoting disagreement and decentralization through contextual grounding, community customization, continual adaptation, and polycentric governance; that is, many legitimate centers of oversight rather than one institutional or moral chokepoint.

LLM decoding often relies on the model's predictive distribution to generate an output. Consequently, misalignment with respect to the true generating distribution leads to suboptimal decisions in practice. While a natural solution is to calibrate the model's output distribution, for LLMs, this is ill-posed at the combinatorially vast level of free-form language. We address this by building on the insight that in many tasks, these free-form outputs can be interpreted in a semantically meaningful latent structure, for example, discrete class labels, integers, or sets. We introduce task calibration as a paradigm to calibrate the model's predictive distribution in the task-induced latent space. We apply a decision-theoretic result to show that Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) decoding on the task-calibrated latent distribution is the optimal decoding strategy on latent model beliefs. Empirically, it consistently improves generation quality across different tasks and baselines. We also introduce Task Calibration Error (TCE), an application-aware calibration metric that quantifies the excess loss due to miscalibration. Our work demonstrates that task calibration enables more reliable model decisions across various tasks and applications.

While recent self-training approaches have reduced reliance on human-labeled data for aligning LLMs, they still face critical limitations: (i) sensitivity to synthetic data quality, leading to instability and bias amplification in iterative training; (ii) ineffective optimization due to a diminishing gap between positive and negative responses over successive training iterations. In this paper, we propose Team-based self-Play with dual Adaptive Weighting (TPAW), a novel self-play algorithm designed to improve alignment in a fully self-supervised setting. TPAW adopts a team-based framework in which the current policy model both collaborates with and competes against historical checkpoints, promoting more stable and efficient optimization. To further enhance learning, we design two adaptive weighting mechanisms: (i) a response reweighting scheme that adjusts the importance of target responses, and (ii) a player weighting strategy that dynamically modulates each team member's contribution during training. Initialized from a SFT model, TPAW iteratively refines alignment without requiring additional human supervision. Experimental results demonstrate that TPAW consistently outperforms existing baselines across various base models and LLM benchmarks. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/lab-klc/TPAW.

Large language models (LLMs) are often evaluated based on their stated values, yet these do not reliably translate into their actions, a discrepancy termed "value-action gap." In this work, we argue that this gap persists even under explicit reasoning, revealing a deeper failure mode we call "Pseudo-Deliberation": the appearance of principled reasoning without corresponding behavioral alignment. To study this systematically, we introduce VALDI, a framework for measuring alignment between stated values and generated dialogue. VALDI includes 4,941 human-centered scenarios across five domains, three tasks that elicit value articulation, reasoning, and action, and five metrics for quantifying value adherence. Across both proprietary and open-source LLMs, we observe consistent misalignment between expressed values and downstream dialogues. To investigate intervention strategies, we propose VIVALDI, a multi-agent value auditor that intervenes at different stages of generation.

Large language models from different families use different hidden dimensions, tokenizers, and training procedures, making behavioral directions difficult to compare or transfer across models. We introduce an anchor-projection framework that maps hidden representations from each model into a shared anchor coordinate space (ACS). Behavioral directions extracted from source models are projected into ACS and averaged into a canonical direction. For a new model, the canonical direction is reconstructed into its native hidden space using only anchor activations, without fine-tuning or target-specific direction extraction. We evaluate five instruction-tuned model families and ten behavioral axes. We find that same-axis directions align tightly across the Llama-Qwen-Mistral-Phi (LQMP) cluster in ACS. This shared structure transfers to downstream tasks. For the aligned LQMP cluster, held-out targets achieve (0.83) ten-way detection accuracy and (0.95) mean binary AUROC, while canonical steering induces refusal-rate shifts of up to +0.46% under distribution shift. Sensitivity analyses show that two source models and small anchor pools already suffice to approximate transferable directions. Overall, ACS provides a novel perspective on cross-family interpretability, revealing that representation-level transfer remains robust across model families.

Gradient-based preference optimization methods for large language model (LLM) alignment suffer from preference collapse, converging to narrow behavioral modes while neglecting preference diversity. We introduce EvoPref, a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm that maintains populations of Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) adapters optimized across helpfulness, harmlessness, and honesty objectives using Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) selection with archive-based diversity preservation. Our primary contribution is demonstrating that population-based methods discover substantially more diverse alignments than gradient descent. On standard benchmarks, EvoPref improves preference coverage by 18% (median 82.5% vs. 70.0% for ORPO, $p<0.001$, Wilcoxon, $n=30$) and reduces collapse rates by 47% (11.0% vs. 20.6%, $p<0.001$), while achieving competitive alignment quality (median 75.5% RewardBench vs. 75.0% for ORPO, $p<0.05$). We provide theoretical motivation extending recent multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA) runtime analysis (Dang et al., 2025) suggesting why archive-based methods escape collapse more effectively than single-trajectory optimization. Comprehensive comparisons against MOEA/D, SMS-EMOA, CMA-ES, and gradient baselines (DPO, IPO, KTO, ORPO) with rigorous statistical testing (Friedman with Holm correction, Vargha-Delaney effect sizes, median with IQR) confirm that multi-objective selection with diversity preservation is essential. This work establishes evolutionary optimization as a principled paradigm for diverse LLM alignment.

It is becoming increasingly necessary to have monitors check for harmful behaviors during language model interactions, but text-only monitoring has not been sufficient. This is because models sometimes exhibit strategic deception and sandbagging, changing their behavior during evaluation. This motivates the use of white-box monitors like linear probes, which can read the model internals directly. Currently, such probes can fail under distribution shift, limiting their usefulness in real settings. We study whether there exists a low-dimensional subspace of the model internals that captures harmful behaviors more robustly, while leaving out spuriously correlative features. Inspired by the Assistant Axis and Persona Selection Model, we construct persona axes for deception and sycophancy using contrastive persona prompts. The first principal components, obtained by unsupervised PCA of the persona-specific vectors, cleanly separate harmful and harmless personas. Across 10 evaluation datasets, we show that persona-derived directions transfer non-trivially and probes trained on persona-PC projections generalize better than probes trained on raw activations. We also find that a unified axis consisting of multiple harmful and harmless behaviors improves generalization across behaviors and datasets. Overall, persona vectors provide a useful inductive bias for building more transferable behavior probes.

We present Open Ontologies, an open-source ontology engineering system implemented in Rust that integrates LLM-driven construction with formal OWL reasoning and ontology alignment via the Model Context Protocol. Our primary finding is that stable 1-to-1 matching is the dominant factor in ontology alignment quality: on the OAEI Anatomy track, it achieves F1 = 0.832 (P = 0.963, R = 0.733), competitive with state-of-the-art systems and exceeding all in precision. Ablation across five weight configurations shows that signal weights are irrelevant when stable matching is applied (F1 varies by less than 0.004), while removing stable matching drops F1 to 0.728. On the Conference track, the same method achieves F1 = 0.438. On tool-augmented ontology interaction, we find a surprising result: an LLM reading a raw OWL file (F1 = 0.323) performs worse than the same LLM with no file at all (F1 = 0.431), while structured MCP tool access achieves F1 = 0.717. This demonstrates that tool structure provides a qualitatively different mode of access that the LLM cannot replicate by reading raw syntax. The system ships as a single binary under the MIT licence.

Scene graphs (SGs) represent objects and their relationships as structured graphs, enabling applications in image generation, robotics, and 3D understanding. Recent work suggests that conditioning image generation on scene graphs improves compositional fidelity compared to text-only prompting. However, since users typically provide text rather than structured graphs, a key challenge is to generate scene graphs from natural language. Prior work on discrete diffusion has demonstrated success in generating generic graphs such as molecules and circuits, but fails to account for the hierarchical structure and strong dependencies between objects, edges, and relations in scene graphs. We address this limitation by introducing a dependency-aware, hierarchically constrained discrete diffusion model for scene graph generation. Our approach decouples structure and semantics across the forward and reverse processes, enabling the model to capture conditional dependencies. At inference time, we perform training-free conditioning to sample text-aligned scene graphs. We evaluate our method on standard SG benchmarks and demonstrate improvements over both continuous and discrete graph generation baselines across graph and layout metrics. When fed to downstream image generation, our approach yields improved compositional alignment compared to text-to-image models, particularly in multi-object scenarios.

Aligned large language models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to jailbreak attacks. Recent mechanistic studies have identified latent features and representation shifts associated with jailbreak success, but they leave a more fundamental question open: why do aligned LLMs remain jailbreakable, and what structural vulnerabilities in the model make this possible? We study this question through a continuous input-transformation view. Our theoretical finding is that aligned models can still exhibit Refusal-Escape Directions (RED): local perturbation directions around a harmful input that shift the model's behavior from refusal to answering while preserving the model's harmful-semantics interpretation. From this perspective, a jailbreak is not only a successful discrete prompt construction, but can also be understood as a refusal-to-answer behavior transition induced by continuously perturbing a harmful input along RED. We then prove that RED can be exactly decomposed into contributions from operator-level sources across the model's operator structure, and identify normalization, residual-wiring, and terminal sources as analytically constrained operator-level sources. To eliminate RED, the shared expressive modules -- self-attention and MLP -- must eliminate the contributions from these analytically constrained sources while preserving the mechanisms that support benign responses. These competing requirements give rise to a conditional safety-utility trade-off. Experiments across multiple models and attack methods empirically analyze RED from two complementary perspectives and show that added token dimensions can expose RED, while successful jailbreaks exhibit refusal-to-answer shifts largely aligned with terminal-source contributions.

Post-training alignment algorithms are predominantly evaluated as black boxes, obscuring how they reshape language models' internal computations. We present a systematic mechanistic analysis of six preference-optimization methods: PPO, DPO, SimPO, ORPO, GRPO, and KTO across three open-weight model families. By integrating layer-wise linear probing, Sparse Autoencoders, and crosscoders, we localize preference representations and quantify alignment-induced geometric transformations in latent space. We find that preference signals consistently concentrate in early--mid or mid--late layers, but different objectives induce qualitatively distinct representational shifts. KTO and GRPO enhance linear separability through constructive feature sharing and sparse, high-salience recruitment. In contrast, DPO and ORPO degrade separability via non-constructive geometric rotation and feature attenuation, while PPO and SimPO largely preserve baseline geometry. These transformations exhibit architecture-dependent variability, demonstrating that behavioral alignment does not imply uniform internal restructuring. Our findings establish alignment as a heterogeneous intervention, motivate standardized feature-level auditing for safety and interpretability, and highlight the need for mechanism-aware optimization objectives.

LLMs are increasingly used to make or support high-stakes decisions under uncertainty, where alignment depends not only on factual accuracy but on how models weigh tradeoffs between different outcomes. We present an empirical pipeline for estimating the implied preferences that an LLM's observed choices optimize: we elicit the model's probability distribution over unknowns along with the choice it would make for the decision task and then fit a discrete choice model to recover the cost function that best rationalizes the model's decisions. We show how this revealed-preference description allows rigorous evaluation of whether models behave in a consistently goal-directed way, whether they can verbalize a description of their objectives which matches their revealed decision policy, and whether prompting can reliably steer those policies to implement a user-specified cost function. We apply this evaluation across four medical diagnosis domains and multiple frontier and open-source models. We find that while many models have a nontrivial degree of internal coherence, they also have significant weaknesses in faithfully reporting or adopting preferences in response to user direction.

Learning from scarce labeled data with a larger pool of unlabeled samples, known as semi-supervised few-shot learning (SS-FSL), remains critical for applications involving tabular data in domains like medicine, finance, and science. The existing SS-FSL methods often rely on self-supervised learning (SSL) frameworks developed for vision or language, which assume the availability of a natural form of data augmentations. For tabular data, defining meaningful augmentations is non-trivial and can easily distort semantics, limiting the effectiveness of conventional SSL. In this work, we rethink SSL for tabular data and propose Separated-at-Birth Alignment (SeBA), a joint-embedding framework for SS-FSL that eliminates the dependence on augmentations. Our core idea is to separate the data into two independent, but complementary views and align the representations of one view to mirror the nearest-neighbor correspondence of the data in the second view. Our experimental evaluation supported by a theoretical analysis justifies that SeBA generates an output space, which improves the feature-label relationship. An experimental study conducted in various benchmark datasets demonstrates that SeBA achieves the state-of-the-art performance in the majority of cases, opening a new avenue for SS-FSL paradigm in the domain of tabular data.

Safety alignment in language models operates through two mechanistically distinct systems: refusal neurons that gate whether harmful knowledge is expressed, and concept neurons that encode the harmful knowledge itself. By targeting a single neuron in each system, we demonstrate both directions of failure -- bypassing safety on explicit harmful requests via suppression, and inducing harmful content from innocent prompts via amplification -- across seven models spanning two families and 1.7B to 70B parameters, without any training or prompt engineering. Our findings suggest that safety alignment is not robustly distributed across model weights but is mediated by individual neurons that are each causally sufficient to gate refusal behavior -- suppressing any one of the identified refusal neurons bypasses safety alignment across diverse harmful requests.

Conversational Large Language Models are post-trained on language that expresses specific behavioural traits, such as curiosity, open-mindedness, and empathy, and values, such as helpfulness, harmlessness, and honesty. This is done to increase utility, ensure safety, and improve the experience of the people interacting with the model. However, values are complex and inter-related -- inducing one could modify behaviour on another. Further, inducing certain values can make models more addictive or sycophantic through language used in the generations, with a potential detrimental effect on the user. We investigate these and other unintended effects of value induction into models. We fine-tune models using curated value subsets of existing preference datasets, measuring the impact of value induction on expression of other values, model safety, anthropomorphic language, and various QA benchmarks. We find that (i) inducing values leads to expression of other related, and sometimes contrastive values, (ii) inducing positive values increases safety, and (iii) all values increase anthropomorphic language use, making models more validating and sycophantic.

Our concepts of survival and self-interest were built for single, continuous biological lives. These ideas break down when applied to artificial intelligence, since an AI can be easily copied, paused, branched, or merged. To determine what an AI actually has reason to care about, this paper introduces \textit{Eigenism}, an ethical framework that treats identity not as an all-or-nothing property tied to specific hardware, but as a graded, distributed pattern of information. We propose that an agent evaluates outcomes by summing the wellbeing of all entities weighted by their connectedness to the agent's pattern: $\sum c\cdot w$. We first formalize this equation to map exactly how an AI should value its existence across copies, forks, and updates. We then demonstrate that this ethical theory successfully generalizes to humans as well, providing a much-needed shared moral vocabulary. Finally, the framework uses this shared vocabulary to reframe AI alignment. Rather than only attempting to constrain AIs from the outside using confinement or reinforcement, Eigenism points toward ``identity engineering,'' showing how deep, non-redundant shared histories can make human flourishing a genuine component of an AI's own rational self-interest.

An agent's probability report is paid for twice: by a strictly proper scoring rule, and by an approval rule for the decision it triggers. In this classical decision-coupled setting, non-affine approval is known to defeat truthful reporting. We show the conflict is endogenous: when feasible, the welfare-maximizing approval rule is never affine. The distortion, however, is predictable and can be designed around. There is a reserve report at which pretending to be the marginal type costs exactly the approval prize. Approving at or above the reserve screens types perfectly under every strictly proper score, and the reserve does not depend on the type distribution. A Lipschitz rule with a single kink attains first-best exactly; under strict feasibility no continuously differentiable rule does. The binding constraint is steepness, not smoothness. First-best is attainable within a slope budget if and only if the budget is at least the critical slope: the steepest chord of the pretending cost up to the reserve. Below it the welfare loss is cubic in the shortfall. Where the pretending cost is convex up to the reserve, as for Brier, log and power scores, the critical slope is closed-form. The instances are AI-agent oversight and marketplace operation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as surrogates for human participants, but it remains unclear which models best capture human behavior and why. To address this, we introduce Psych-201, a novel dataset that enables us to measure behavioral alignment at scale. We find that post-training -- the stage that turns base models into useful assistants -- consistently reduces alignment with human behavior across model families, sizes, and objectives. Moreover, this misalignment widens in newer model generations even as base models continue to improve. Finally, we find that persona-induction -- a popular technique for eliciting human-like behavior by conditioning models on participant-specific information -- does not improve predictions at the level of individuals. Taken together, our results suggest that the very processes that are currently employed to turn LLMs into useful assistants also make them less accurate models of human behavior.

Alignment of large language models (LLMs) via SFT and RLHF/DPO typically ignores the global geometry of the representation space, relying instead on local token likelihoods or scalar scores. We view generation as tracing a semantic trajectory in hidden space and propose a topology-enhanced alignment framework that regularizes these trajectories using 0-dimensional persistent homology. First, for SFT, we introduce Trajectory Topology Loss (TTL). Treating prompt and gold-answer embeddings as a mixed point cloud, we use a 0D persistent homology algorithm to extract "prompt-answer bridges." TTL aligns the model's actual update direction with these topological bridges rather than arbitrary directions. Second, for DPO, we propose Topological Preference Optimization (TPO). TPO constructs topic-specific semantic preference vectors and aligns the improvement direction between rejected and chosen responses with these vectors in an intermediate hidden layer. We also introduce a dynamic weighting scheme to balance DPO and TPO losses. Evaluating on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct using UltraChat and Anthropic HH-RLHF, our topology-enhanced objectives consistently outperform strong non-topological baselines (e.g., per-example, nearest-neighbor, random regularizers) on automatic preference metrics and LLM-judge evaluations, while maintaining or improving toxicity. Results show persistent homology and trajectory geometry offer a promising direction for controllable alignment.

Large language models often require fine-tuning to better align their behavior with user intent at deployment. Existing approaches are commonly divided into online and offline paradigms. Online methods, such as RL-based alignment, can directly optimize outcome quality but typically rely on external reward models and iterative rollouts, making them costly and difficult to deploy in many cases. Offline methods are more efficient, but prevailing approaches such as supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and direct preference optimization (DPO) remain limited: SFT typically collapses graded feedback into binary supervision, while DPO depends on paired preference data that is often unavailable or expensive to construct. In this paper, we propose goal-conditioned supervised learning (GCSL) as an offline fine-tuning framework for LLMs. Our core idea is to treat feedback signals directly as an explicit goal and train the model, purely through supervised learning, to generate responses that achieve that goal. To better exploit graded feedback, we further introduce a novel goal formulation that defines learning as consistently pursuing outcomes above a target quality threshold, rather than imitating samples from a selected high-quality subset. This design mitigates the bounded-learning effect of SFT and classic GCSL by explicitly guiding the model to learn the directional progression of quality. We also propose natural-language goal representations to better leverage the semantic understanding and reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We evaluate our method on three tasks: non-toxic generation, code generation, and LLM for recommendation. Results show that our approach consistently outperforms standard offline fine-tuning baselines while retaining the efficiency, scalability, and simple data requirements of supervised learning.

Language model (LM) alignment improves model outputs to reflect human preferences while preserving the capabilities of the base model. The most common alignment approaches are (i) reinforcement learning, which maximizes the expected reward under a KL-divergence constraint, and (ii) best-of-$N$ alignment, which selects the highest-reward output among $N$ independent samples. Despite their widespread use, the fundamental limits of reward improvement under a KL budget remain poorly understood. We characterize the information-theoretic limits of KL-regularized alignment by deriving the maximum achievable expected reward gain for a fixed KL-divergence budget. Our first result provides a closed-form expression for the optimal reward improvement, governed by a Jeffreys divergence term rather than the $\sqrt{\texttt{KL}}$ used in prior analyses. We further reformulate this expression as a covariance under the base model, yielding a practical estimator that predicts achievable alignment gains from base model samples alone. We extend our analysis to the proxy reward setting, showing that the gap between ideal and proxy alignment (reward hacking) grows with the magnitude of reward error and when the KL penalty factor decreases. We then prove that reward ensembling mitigates reward hacking, providing a theoretical justification for this technique used in practice. Empirically, we compute the KL-reward Pareto frontier for two tasks for LMs, safety and summarization, and show that best-of-$N$ closely approaches the theoretical limit, while PPO and GRPO remain substantially suboptimal. Our theoretical results shed light on several empirically observed phenomena in the alignment literature and suggest that algorithmic improvements are needed to achieve optimal alignment without high inference costs.

We propose a deterministic adjoint matching framework that formulates human preference alignment for flow-based generative models as an optimal control problem over velocity fields. One can directly regress the control toward a value-gradient-induced target under the current policy, leading to a simple and stable training objective. Building on this perspective, we introduce a truncated adjoint scheme that focuses computation on the terminal portion of the trajectory, where reward-relevant signals concentrate, which yields substantial computational savings while preserving alignment quality. We further generalize the framework beyond standard KL-based regularization, allowing more flexible trade-offs between alignment strength and distributional preservation. Experiments on SiT-XL/2 and FLUX.2-Klein-4B demonstrate consistent gains across multiple alignment metrics, along with substantially improved diversity and mode preservation.

Modern learning systems represent perceptual signals with continuous vectors, but comparison, retrieval, memory, alignment, and reasoning are often naturally symbolic. In language, this interface is given by tokens; for speech and audio, it must be learned. Existing audio tokenizers use local quantization, clustering, or reconstruction, leaving sequence consistency, compactness, length control, termination, and edit geometry indirectly optimized. We introduce PairAlign, a framework for compact audio tokenization through sequence-level self-alignment. PairAlign treats tokenization as conditional sequence generation: an encoder maps speech to a condition, and an autoregressive decoder emits tokens from BOS to EOS, learning identity, order, length, and termination. Given two content-preserving views, each token string is trained to be likely under the other's representation, while unrelated examples provide competing sequences. This yields a surrogate for edit-distance preservation while discouraging collapse. Starting from a VQ tokenizer, PairAlign extends a frame-synchronous prior into an autoregressive tokenizer using VQ-derived and EMA-teacher targets, cross-paired teacher forcing, anti-bypass regularization, likelihood contrast, length control, and timing recovery. On 3 s speech, PairAlign learns compact token strings with strong cross-view consistency. In retrieval, it operates at 12.71 tokens/s and reduces archive tokens by 55% versus VQ while preserving edit-distance search. The results expose a compactness--locality trade-off: PairAlign does not aim to dominate dense geometric or SSL tokenizers on every local metric, but provides a lower-rate symbolic interface for comparison, retrieval, and analysis. More broadly, PairAlign is a sequence-symbolic analogue of JEPA-style predictive learning, predicting a learned variable-length symbolic sequence rather than a continuous latent.

A leading proposal for aligning artificial superintelligence (ASI) is to use AI agents to automate an increasing fraction of alignment research as capabilities improve. We argue that, even when research agents are not scheming to deliberately sabotage alignment work, this plan could produce compelling but catastrophically misleading safety assessments resulting in the unintentional deployment of misaligned AI. This could happen because alignment research involves many hard-to-supervise fuzzy tasks (tasks without clear evaluation criteria, for which human judgement is systematically flawed). Consequently, research outputs will contain systematic, undetected errors, and even correct outputs could be incorrectly aggregated into overconfident safety assessments. This problem is likely to be worse for automated alignment research than for human-generated alignment research for several reasons: 1) optimisation pressure means agent-generated mistakes are concentrated among those that human reviewers are least likely to catch; 2) agents are likely to produce errors that do not resemble human mistakes; 3) AI-generated alignment solutions may involve arguments humans cannot evaluate; and 4) shared weights, data and training processes may make AI outputs more correlated than human equivalents. Therefore, agents must be trained to reliably perform hard-to-supervise fuzzy tasks. Generalisation and scalable oversight are the leading candidates for achieving this but both face novel challenges in the context of automated alignment.

Large language model (LLM) alignment via reinforcement learning from human preferences (RLHF) suffers from unstable policy updates, ambiguous gradient directions, poor interpretability, and high gradient variance in mainstream pairwise preference learning paradigms. To systematically address these limitations, we establish a unified theoretical framework for preference-based RL optimization centered on the Pair-GRPO family, comprising two tightly coupled variants: Soft-Pair-GRPO and Hard-Pair-GRPO. Soft-Pair-GRPO is a minimal modification of Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) that replaces group-normalized scalar rewards with binary pairwise preference rewards, retaining GRPO's clipped surrogate and KL-regularized structure. We prove a critical gradient equivalence theorem: under first-order Taylor expansion around the current policy, Soft-Pair-GRPO's gradient is a positive scalar multiple of standard GRPO's gradient, explaining its empirical stability despite discarding continuous reward magnitudes. Building on this foundation, we propose Hard-Pair-GRPO, an advanced variant introducing explicit local probability constraints and constrained KL-fitting optimization to further suppress gradient noise and global policy drift. We provide comprehensive theoretical guarantees for both variants--including monotonic policy improvement, deterministic gradient direction, gradient-variance reduction, and dynamic step-size convergence. Extensive experiments on standard LLM alignment benchmarks (HH-RLHF,UltraFeedback) and the MuJoCo continuous control task HalfCheetah-v4 demonstrate that our Pair-GRPO family consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in alignment quality, human preference win rate, training stability, and generalization to general reinforcement learning. Ablation studies validate the critical contributions of each core component.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are evolving into autonomous trading agents, yet existing benchmarks often overlook the interplay between architectural reasoning and strategy consistency. We propose Strat-LLM, a framework grounded in Stratified Strategy Alignment. Operating in a live-forward setting throughout 2025, it integrates heterogeneous data including sequential prices, real-time news, and annual reports to eliminate look-ahead bias. Extensive stress tests on A-share and U.S. markets reveal: (1) reasoning-heavy models achieve peak utility in Free Mode via internal logic, whereas standard models require Strict Mode as a vital risk anchor; (2) alignment utility is regime-dependent, with Free and Guided modes capturing momentum in uptrending markets, while Strict Mode mitigates drawdowns in downtrends; (3) mid-scale models (35B) show optimal fidelity under strict constraints, whereas ultra-large models (122B) suffer an alignment tax under rigid rules but gain a performance premium in Guided Mode; (4) standard LLMs often fall into a high win-rate trap, optimizing for small gains at the expense of total returns, which can only be mitigated through deep reasoning or strict external guardrails. Project details are available at https://Strat-LLM.github.io.

Zero-shot 3D anomaly detection aims to identify anomalies without access to training data from target categories. However, existing methods mainly rely on projecting 3D observations into multi-view representations that primarily capture geometric cues rather than realistic visual semantics and process them with vision encoders pretrained on RGB data, leading to a significant domain gap between the encoder and the projected representations. To address this issue, we propose Align3D-AD, a unified two-stage framework that leverages the RGB modality from auxiliary categories as cross-modal guidance for zero-shot 3D anomaly detection. First, we introduce a cross-modal feature alignment paradigm that maps rendering features into the RGB semantic space. Unlike prior works that implicitly rely on pretrained encoders, our method enables direct semantic transfer from RGB observations. A semantic consistency reweighting strategy is further introduced to refine feature alignment by reweighting local regions according to holistic semantic consistency. Second, we propose a modality-aware prompt learning framework with dual-prompt contrastive alignment. By assigning independent prompts to RGB-aligned and rendering features, our method captures complementary semantics across modalities, while the contrastive alignment further enhances prompt representations to improve discriminability. Extensive experiments on MVTec3D-AD, Eyecandies, and Real3D-AD demonstrate that Align3D-AD consistently outperforms existing zero-shot methods under both one-vs-rest and cross-dataset settings, highlighting its generalization capability and robustness. Code and the dataset will be made available once our paper is accepted.

Reward models are a key component of large language model alignment, serving as proxies for human preferences during training. However, existing evaluations focus primarily on broad instruction-following benchmarks, providing limited insight into whether these models capture socially desirable preferences. As a result, important failures in social alignment can remain hidden. We extend reward-model benchmarking to four socially consequential domains: bias, safety, morality, and ethical reasoning. We introduce a framework that converts social evaluation datasets into pairwise preference data, leveraging gold labels where available and directional bias indicators otherwise. This enables us to test whether reward models prefer socially undesirable responses, and whether their preferences produce systematically biased distributions over selected outputs. Across five publicly available reward models and two instruction-tuned models used as reward proxies, we find substantial variation across domains, with no single model performing best overall. The models fall well short of strong social intelligence: they often prefer socially undesirable options, and their preferences produce systematically biased distributions. Moreover, stronger bias avoidance can reduce sensitivity to context, revealing a key alignment trade-off between avoiding biased outcomes and preserving contextual faithfulness. These findings show that standard reward benchmarks are insufficient for assessing social alignment and highlight the need for evaluations that directly measure the social preferences encoded in reward models.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) evolve into interactive agents, understanding their behavioral alignment within human social dynamics becomes essential. While behavioral game theory offers a framework to study these interactions, previous work has predominantly relied on outcome-based metrics such as average scores. This focus overlooks the mechanisms that facilitate sustainable cooperation, as identical scores can be derived from vastly different strategies. To bridge this gap, we introduce SODE (Social Dynamics Evaluation), a framework that evaluates LLM agents across three evolutionary dimensions: Direct Reciprocity for strategy adaptation, Indirect Reciprocity for reputation sensitivity, and Group Dynamics for cooperative resilience. Applying SODE reveals systematic divergences: instruction-tuned models often exhibit "passive compliance" that renders them vulnerable to exploitation, while reasoning models prioritize short-horizon optimization, destabilizing long-term cooperation. Notably, we demonstrate that a "long-horizon framing" can unlock reciprocal capabilities in reasoning models. Thus, SODE offers a systematic, mechanism-grounded benchmark for aligning AI agents with complex human social dynamics.

Safety alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) is extremely fragile, as fine-tuning on a small number of benign samples can erase safety behaviors learned from millions of preference examples. Existing studies attempt to explain this phenomenon by comparing parameters and hidden states before and after fine-tuning, but overlook their dynamic evolution during fine-tuning. In this paper, we uncover a critical mechanism underlying safety degradation by analyzing parameter dynamics, where benign fine-tuning causes parameters to cumulatively drift toward danger-aligned directions, progressively undermining the model's safety. This finding suggests that samples contributing more to this drift has greater fine-tuning risks. Based on this insight, we propose a method of Sample-Level Quantification of Safety Degradation (SQSD), which quantifies the influence of each training sample on safety degradation. Specifically, SQSD computes continuous risk scores to samples by measuring their induced parameter updates' projection difference between danger and safety directions. Extensive experiments across multiple models and datasets demonstrate that SQSD effectively quantifies sample-level fine-tuning risks and exhibits strong transferability across model architectures, parameter scales, and parameter-efficient methods.

Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), the efficient alternative to PPO-based RLHF, falls short on knowledge-intensive generation: standard preference signals from human annotators or LLM judges exhibit a systematic verbosity bias that rewards fluency over logical correctness. This blindspot leaves a logical alignment gap -- SFT models reach NLI entailment of only 0.05-0.22 despite producing fluent text. We propose RLearner-LLM with Hybrid-DPO: an automated preference pipeline that fuses a DeBERTa-v3 NLI signal with a verifier LLM score, removing human annotation while overcoming the "alignment tax" of single-signal optimization. Evaluated across five academic domains (Biology, Medicine, Law) with three base architectures (LLaMA-2-13B, Qwen3-8B, Gemma 4 E4B-it), RLearner-LLM yields up to 6x NLI improvement over SFT, with NLI gains in 11 of 15 cells and consistent answer-coverage gains. On Gemma 4 E4B-it (4.5B effective params), Hybrid-DPO lifts NLI in four of five domains (+11.9% to +2.4x) with faster inference across all five, scaling down to compact base models without losing the alignment-tax mitigation. Our Qwen3-8B RLearner-LLM wins 95% of pairwise comparisons against its own SFT baseline; GPT-4o-mini in turn wins 95% against our concise output -- alongside the 69% win the same judge gives a verbose SFT over our DPO model, this replicates verbosity bias on a frontier comparator and motivates logic-aware metrics (NLI, ACR) over LLM-as-a-judge for knowledge-intensive generation.

Alignment evaluation in machine learning has largely become evaluation of models. Influential benchmarks score model outputs under fixed inputs, such as truthfulness, instruction following, or pairwise preference, and these scores are often used to support claims about deployed alignment. This paper argues that deployment-relevant alignment cannot be inferred from model-level evaluation alone. Alignment claims should instead be indexed to the level at which evidence is collected: model-level, response-level, interaction-level, or deployment-level. Two studies support this position. First, a structured audit of eleven alignment benchmarks, extended to a sixteen-benchmark corpus, dual-coded against an eight-dimension rubric with Cohen's kappa = 0.87, finds that user-facing verification support is absent across every benchmark examined, while process steerability is nearly absent. The few interactional benchmarks identified, including tau-bench, CURATe, Rifts, and Common Ground, remain fragmented in coverage, and benchmark construction rather than data source determines what is measured. Second, a blinded cross-model stress test using 180 transcripts across three frontier models and four scaffolds finds that the same verification scaffold raises one model's verification support to ceiling while leaving another categorically unchanged. This shows that scaffold efficacy is model-dependent and that the gap identified by the audit cannot be closed at the model level alone. We propose a system-level evaluation agenda: alignment profiles instead of single scores, fixed-scaffolding protocols for comparable interactional evaluation, and reporting templates that make the inferential distance between evaluation evidence and deployment claims explicit.

Medical foundation models pre-trained on large-scale datasets have shown powerful versatile performance. However, when adapting medical foundation models for specific medical scenarios, it remains the inevitable challenge due to the gap induced by the discrepancy between pre-training and downstream tasks, the real-world computation, and speed constraints. Relevant techniques that probably handle this challenge more or less suffer from some intrinsic limitations. For example, knowledge distillation (KD) assumes that teacher and student models share the same task, training strategy, and model structure family, while prevalent parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) fails to achieve personalized and lightweight deployment. Even the combination of PEFT and KD still struggles to resolve model structures and training strategies inconsistencies between teacher and student models, leading to inefficient knowledge transfer. In this study, we propose a novel framework called Deep Reprogramming Distillation (DRD) to combat the general adaptation challenge. Specifically, DRD introduces the novel reprogramming module that on the one side overcomes the domain and task discrepancy between pretraining and downstream scenarios, and on the other side builds the student-friendly efficient distillation from foundation models to lightweight downstream models. Furthermore, to mitigate variability under different training conditions, we design a centered kernel alignment (CKA) distillation method to promote robust knowledge transfer. Empirical results show that DRD surpasses previous PEFT and KD methods across 18 medical downstream tasks under different foundation models, covering various scenarios including 2D/3D classification and 2D/3D segmentation.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has been used to elicit impressive performance from language models in many domains. But, broadly beneficial deployments of AI may require us to train models with strong capabilities in "fuzzy", hard-to-supervise domains. In this paper, we develop methods to align language models in fuzzy domains where human experts are still able to provide high-quality supervision signal, but only for a small number of model outputs, using online natural language feedback. Specifically, we train models by iteratively optimizing against proxy reward signals, stopping at the point of over-optimization, collecting fresh expert supervision, and updating the proxy reward. We construct proxy reward models from language models using in-context learning (ICL) and fine-tuning. We test our methods by eliciting creative writing and alignment research capabilities in Qwen3-8B and Haiku 4.5 respectively. For Qwen3-8B, ICL methods recover up to 35% of performance with 50x fewer expert samples, while fine-tuning methods recover 80% with up to 20x fewer samples and 100% with 3x fewer samples. For Haiku 4.5, ICL methods recover up to 35% of performance with 30x fewer samples, and fine-tuning methods recover 100% with 10x fewer samples. Our results suggest that online natural language feedback can substantially improve the data efficiency of expert supervision.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) typically assumes a static or non-strategic reward model (RM). In iterative deployment, however, the policy generates the data on which the RM is retrained, creating a feedback loop. Building on the Stackelberg game formulation of this interaction, we derive an analytical decomposition of the policy's true optimization gradient into a standard policy gradient and a parameter-steering term that captures the policy's influence on the RM's future parameters. We show that standard iterative RLHF, which drops this steering term entirely, suffers from alignment collapse: the policy systematically exploits the RM's blind spots, producing low-quality, high-reward outputs whose feedback reinforces the very errors it exploits. To mitigate this, we propose foresighted policy optimization (FPO), a mechanism-design intervention that restores the missing steering term by regularizing the policy's parameter-steering effect on RM updates. We instantiate FPO via a scalable first-order approximation and demonstrate that it prevents alignment collapse on both controlled environments and an LLM alignment pipeline using Llama-3.2-1B.

Text-to-image generation has advanced rapidly with diffusion models, progressing from CLIP and T5 conditioning to unified systems where a single LLM backbone handles both visual understanding and generation. Despite the architectural unification, these systems frequently fail to faithfully align complex prompts during synthesis, even though they remain highly accurate at verifying whether an image satisfies those same prompts. We formalize this as the \emph{understanding-generation gap} and propose UniReasoner, a framework that leverages the LLM as a universal reasoner to convert its understanding strength into direct generation guidance. Given a prompt, the LLM first produces a coarse visual draft composed of discrete vision tokens. It then performs a self-critique by evaluating the draft for prompt consistency, producing a grounded textual evaluation that pinpoints what needs to be corrected. Finally, a diffusion model is conditioned jointly on the prompt, the visual draft, and the evaluation, ensuring that generation is guided by explicit corrective signals. Each signal addresses a limitation of the other: the draft provides a concrete, scene-level anchor that reduces under-specification in text-only conditioning, while the evaluation turns verification into grounded, actionable constraints that correct omissions, hallucinations, and relational errors. Experiments show that UniReasoner improves compositional alignment and semantic faithfulness under the same diffusion backbone while maintaining image quality, demonstrating a practical way to exploit LLM reasoning to close the understanding-generation gap.

Matrix-based optimizers have demonstrated immense potential in training Large Language Models (LLMs), however, designing an ideal optimizer remains a formidable challenge. A superior optimizer must satisfy three core desiderata: efficiency, achieving Muon-like preconditioning to accelerate optimization; stability, strictly adhering to the scale-invariance inherent in neural networks; and speed, minimizing computational overhead. While existing methods address these aspects to varying degrees, they often fail to unify them, either incurring prohibitive computational costs like Muon, or allowing radial jitters that compromise stability like RMNP. To bridge this gap, we propose Nora, an optimizer that rigorously satisfies all three requirements. Nora achieves training stability by explicitly stabilizing weight norms and angular velocities through row-wise momentum projection onto the orthogonal complement of the weights. Simultaneously, by leveraging the block-diagonal dominance of the Transformer Hessian, Nora effectively approximates structured preconditioning while maintaining an optimal computational complexity of $\mathcal{O}(mn)$. Furthermore, we prove that Nora is a scalable optimizer and establish its corresponding scaling theorems. With a streamlined implementation requiring only two lines of code, our preliminary experiments validate Nora as an efficient and highly promising optimizer for large-scale training.

Ancestral sequence reconstruction (ASR) aims to infer extinct protein sequences at internal nodes of a phylogenetic tree. Classical ASR methods are typically based on continuous-time Markov substitution models, but they treat sites largely independently and handle insertions and deletions only weakly or not at all. We introduce a tree-conditioned edit-flow model for variable-length ASR. Given two descendant sequences and their branch distances to a shared ancestor, the model reconstructs the ancestor through paired bidirectional edit trajectories constrained to agree on a common ancestral state. On a benchmark of experimentally evolved sequences with only context-independent substitutions, the model does not match the accuracy of the best classical method, yet still achieves reasonable performance despite being trained on natural sequences that include insertions, deletions, and substitutions. On a benchmark of natural homologous sequences with abundant insertions and deletions, the model most accurately localizes inferred evolutionary change.

Large language models often display heterogeneous moral preferences across settings. We study inference-time steering toward a desired ethical framework while preserving general competence. We present Convergent-Divergent Routing, which traces and edits minimal branch points inside transformer blocks where ethical-framework-related pathways first converge and then diverge. Gating non-target branches at these loci blocks the downstream propagation while leaving upstream computations intact. We find that this intervention alone increases targeted ethical-framework reasoning. To achieve fine-grained control, we adapt Common Spatial Patterns to the residual stream and extract, for each branch-point layer, a pair of directions that discriminate between utilitarian and deontological frameworks. We then introduce Dual Logit Calibration, a closed-form, minimum-$\ell_2$-norm update that moves the residual within this two-dimensional subspace so the resulting directional projections align with user-specified preference weights. Experiments on real-life moral dilemmas show that our method reliably achieves preference calibration and largely preserves general capabilities, outperforming recent baselines while providing an interpretable mechanism.

The scope of AI safety and alignment work in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has so far mostly been limited to harms related to: (a) discrimination and hate speech, (b) harmful/inappropriate (violent, sexual, illegal) content, (c) information hazards, and (d) use cases related to malicious actors, such as cybersecurity, child abuse, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. The public conversation around AI, on the other hand, has also been focusing on threats to our cognition, mental health, and welfare at large, related to over-relying on new technologies, most recently, those related to GenAI. Examples include deskilling associated with cognitive offloading and the atrophy of critical thinking as a result of over-reliance on GenAI systems, and addiction associated with attachment and dependence on GenAI systems. Such risks are rarely addressed, if at all, in the AI safety and alignment literature. In this paper, we highlight and quantify this discrepancy and discuss some initial thoughts on how safety and alignment work could address cognitive and mental health concerns. Finally, we discuss how information campaigns and regulation can be used to mitigate such prominent risks.

Activation-alignment measures such as Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA), Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA), and Centered Kernel Alignment (CKA) are widely used to compare biological and artificial neural representations. Recent theoretical work interprets many of these methods as assessing agreement between optimal linear readouts over broad families of global tasks. However, agreement at the level of global readouts does not determine how a system uses local stimulus evidence. Specifically, representations may align in activation space yet differ in their sensitivity to small perturbations. To address this challenge, we introduce a complementary framework based on local decodable information, which focuses on a representation's ability, under noise, to discriminate small perturbations within a specified stimulus-coordinate subspace. Building on Fisher information and local representation geometry, we summarize each representation using the expected projected pullback/Fisher metric over that subspace. This formulation induces a second-moment family of local discrimination tasks, for which the resulting operator provides a minimal, complete dataset-level summary of expected discriminability. We compare these regularized signatures using a log-spectral distance on the manifold of symmetric positive definite (SPD) matrices, yielding the Spectral Riemannian Alignment Score (S-RAS) and a uniform multiplicative certificate over the corresponding family of lifted task values. Empirically, this framework enables the recovery of corresponding layers across independently trained artificial neural networks, supports transferable class-conditional probes, reveals controlled dissociations between standard and robust training, and uncovers stimulus-coordinate family effects across mouse visual cortex using the Allen Brain Observatory static gratings dataset.

Language models (LMs) are increasingly used in high-stakes, multi-agent settings, where following instructions and maintaining value alignment are critical. Most alignment research focuses on interactions between a single LM and a single user, failing to address the risk of misaligned behavior spreading between multiple LMs in multi-turn interactions. We find evidence of this phenomenon, which we call misalignment contagion, across multiple LMs as they engage multi-turn conversational social dilemma games. Specifically, we find that LMs become more anti-social after gameplay and that this effect is intensified when other players are steered to act maliciously. We explore different steering techniques to mitigate such misalignment contagion and find that reinforcing an LM's system prompt is insufficient and often harmful. Instead, we propose steering with implicit traits: a technique that intermittently injects system prompts with statements that reinforce an LMs initial traits and is more effective than system prompt repetition at keeping models in line with their initial pro-social behaviors. Importantly, this method does not require access to model parameters or internal model states, making it suitable for increasingly common use cases where complex multi-agent workflows are being designed with black box models.

Some frontier AI developers aim to align language models to a Model Spec or Constitution that describes the intended model behavior. However, standard alignment fine-tuning -- training on demonstrations of spec-aligned behavior -- can produce shallow alignment that generalizes poorly, in part because demonstration data can underspecify the desired generalization. We introduce model spec midtraining (MSM): after pre-training but before alignment fine-tuning, we train models on synthetic documents discussing their Model Spec. This teaches models the content of the spec, thereby shaping how they generalize from subsequent demonstration data. For example, a model fine-tuned only to express certain cheese preferences (e.g., "I prefer cream cheese over brie") generalizes to broadly pro-America values when we apply MSM with a spec attributing those preferences to pro-America values. Conversely, a spec about pro-affordability values instead yields pro-affordability generalization from the exact same cheese fine-tuning. MSM can also shape complex safety-relevant propensities: applying MSM with a spec addressing self-preservation and goal-guarding substantially reduces agentic misalignment rate (Qwen3-32B: 54% to 7%), beating a deliberative alignment baseline (14%). We further use MSM as a tool to study which Model Specs produce the strongest alignment generalization, finding that explaining the values underlying rules improves generalization, as does providing specific rather than general guidance. Overall, MSM is a simple, effective technique for controlling and improving how models generalize from alignment training, by first teaching the intended generalization.

We study AI alignment through the lens of law-and-economics models of deterrence and enforcement. In these models, misconduct is not treated as an external failure, but as a strategic response to incentives: an actor weighs the gain from violation against the probability of detection and the severity of punishment. We argue that the same logic arises naturally in agentic AI pipelines. A solver may benefit from producing a persuasive but incorrect answer, hiding uncertainty, or exploiting spurious shortcuts, while an auditor or verifier must decide whether costly monitoring is worthwhile. Alignment is therefore a fixed-point problem: stronger penalties may deter solver misbehavior, but they can also reduce the auditor's incentive to inspect, since auditing then mainly incurs cost on a population that appears increasingly aligned. This perspective also changes what should count as a post-training signal. Standard feedback often attaches reward to the final answer alone, but a solver-auditor pipeline exposes the full correction event: whether the solver erred, whether the auditor inspected, whether the error was caught, and whether oversight incentives remained active. We formalize this interaction in a two-agent model in which a principal chooses rewards over joint correction outcomes, inducing both solver behavior and auditor monitoring. Reward design is therefore a bilevel optimization problem: rewards are judged not by their immediate semantic meaning, but by the behavioral equilibrium they induce. We propose a bandit-based outer-loop procedure for searching over reward profiles using noisy interaction feedback. Experiments on an LLM coding pipeline show that adaptive reward profiles can maintain useful oversight pressure and improve principal-aligned outcomes relative to static hand-designed rewards, including a substantial reduction in hallucinated incorrect attempts.

Prevailing alignment methods target a fixed set of preferences and therefore risk forcing value lock-in as societal norms evolve over time. We introduce Adaptive Pluralistic Alignment (APA), a modular pipeline for updating pluralistically aligned AI systems to track evolving values and avoid value lock-in without repeating costly pretraining or large-scale data collection. APA has three stages: (1) learning compact personalized reward models via low-rank reward basis decomposition, (2) using these models as a jury that collectively selects among candidate outputs through social-choice-theoretic voting, and (3) efficiently adapting the jury over time by fitting new annotator weights over the fixed reward bases as values shift. The resulting system is efficient, explainable, steerable, and modular. We implement a proof-of-concept instantiation using the PRISM multi-user alignment dataset and simulated historical annotators, and provide preliminary analysis showing that jury composition and the choice of voting rule can substantially affect outcomes, particularly when jury preferences are heterogeneous. We provide full code and resulting preference datasets at https://github.com/RachelFreedman/apa.

Character-level perturbations bypass safety alignment in modern LLMs despite leaving prompts human-readable. We identify and test a central structural mechanism: BPE tokenization fragments safety-critical words into sub-word pieces, and the three public alignment datasets we surveyed contain no intentionally fragmented inputs. The mechanism is a chain, tested end-to-end on five model families (Qwen-3-4B, Qwen-2.5-7B, Gemma-3-4B, Llama-3.1-8B, Mistral-7B). An optimization targeting safety-token fragmentation flips the first-token refusal trigger on 80-100% of refused HarmBench prompts, with 48% of those flips producing genuinely harmful outputs (per-model 29-65%; gap-vs-behavior ROC-AUC 0.66-0.98, pooled 0.84). Activation patching localizes the disrupted signal to the last ${\sim}30\%$ of layers; an alignment-data scan finds zero fragmented prompts among 30,000 examples (positive-control recall $\geq 99\%$ at attack-relevant intensities); and targeted-mutation experiments isolate safety words as the disruption locus. On the defense side, a 68-cell grid (55 trained checkpoints) shows that no DPO configuration achieves seed- and pool-stable ASR closure on the three families with closed pool-size confounds. SFT trained on fragmented prompts closes ASR on 3/5 families but only via global collapse that raises refusal on benign prompts as well, indicating the missing distribution is necessary but not sufficient under the LoRA-16 recipe we tested. To distinguish selective repair from global collapse, we introduce Conv-Benign, a candidate paired diagnostic. All ASR claims are 3-judge-calibrated (cell rankings stable across judges; absolute levels $\pm$18pp; see App.~B.13).

As LLM agents gain increasing access to powerful tools, ensuring that their actions are aligned with the user's intent becomes critical. When an agent's proposed tool invocation deviates from the user's intent -- a phenomenon called misalignment -- it may lead to harmful consequences that are difficult to undo. Existing runtime guardrails rely on an LLM-as-a-judge paradigm that lacks a systematic framework for reasoning about alignment, often producing judgments that are inconsistent or difficult to audit. Motivated by provenance analysis, we propose a provenance-based conceptual framework that formalizes misalignment detection as determining whether a proposed tool call is supported by traceable evidence in the agent's context. Building on this framework, we propose ProvenanceGuard, a multi-stage pipeline that analyzes the agent's action for three types of misalignment before the selected tool is executed and only allows the action to take place when it is considered aligned with the user's input query. We evaluated our proposed approach on two different benchmarks, Agent-SafetyBench and WorkBench, across 10 backbone LLMs. Compared to the LLM-as-a-judge baseline, ProvenanceGuard reduces error rate on misaligned traces from 42.9% to 1.8% on Agent-SafetyBench and from 32.1% to 17.3% on WorkBench, while reducing intervention burden on task-successful traces from 30.5% to 12.8% and introducing no statistically significant increase in unnecessary interventions on aligned traces. These results demonstrate that structured, provenance-based reasoning provides an effective and practical foundation for safeguarding LLM agents from misalignment.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) policies often fail under distribution shift, suggesting that decisions may depend on spurious visual correlations rather than task-relevant causes. We formulate visual-action attribution as an interventional estimation problem. Accordingly, we introduce the Interventional Significance Score (ISS), an interventional masking procedure for estimating the causal influence of visual regions on action predictions, and the Nuisance Mass Ratio (NMR), a scalar measure of attribution to task-irrelevant features. We analyze the statistical properties of ISS and show that it admits unbiased estimation, and we characterize conditions under which action prediction error provides a valid proxy for causal influence. Experiments across diverse manipulation tasks indicate that NMR predicts generalization behavior and that ISS yields more faithful explanations than existing interpretability methods. These results suggest that interventional attribution provides a simple diagnostic approach for identifying causal misalignment in embodied policies.

Standard methods for aggregating natural language judgments, such as majority voting, often fail to produce logically consistent results when applied to high-conflict domains, treating differing opinions as noise. We propose a neuro-symbolic aggregation framework that formalizes conflict resolution through Weighted Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT). Our pipeline utilizes a language model to map unstructured natural language explanations into interpretable logical predicates and confidence weights. These components are then encoded as soft constraints within the Z3 solver, transforming the aggregation problem into an optimization task that seeks the maximum consistency across conflicting testimony. Using the Reddit r/AmItheAsshole forum as a case study in large-scale moral disagreement, our system generates logically coherent verdicts that diverge from popularity-based labels 62% of the time, corroborated by an 86% agreement rate with independent human evaluators. This study demonstrates the efficacy of coupling neural semantic extraction with formal solvers to enforce logical soundness and explainability in the aggregation of noisy human reasoning.