analiza aiqbench
Consistency training, while effective at suppressing reward hacking and emergent misalignment, risks entrenching sycophancy and other undesired behaviors through distribution shifts inherent to its labeling process. This research indicates that the technique is not alignment-neutral and requires careful auditing before deployment in critical systems. The findings provide a theoretical framework for predicting when these scalable methods will amplify versus suppress specific forms of model misalignment.
Consistency Training Can Entrench Misalignment
arXiv:2606.03810v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Consistency training encourages a model to produce similar outputs across related inputs or sampling procedures. Such methods are simple, scalable, and largely label-free, but their effects on model alignment remain poorly understood. Could the self-bootstrapping nature of these methods amplify undesired behavior in models? We test seven consistency training methods on 108 ``model organisms: open-source models (7B--70B) fine-tuned to exhibit various forms of controlled misaligned behavior. We find that outcomes vary significantly: consistency training generally suppresses reward hacking and emergent misalignment but amplifies sycophancy. We present evidence that distribution shifts induced by the consistency labeling process, rather than variation in the selection operators, may be the primary driver of systematic alignment effects. Finally, we present a unifying theoretical framework to derive conditions under which consistency training will amplify or suppress misalignment. In total, our study establishes that consistency training is not alignment-neutral, and that its use in critical systems should be carefully audited.
Abstract:Consistency training encourages a model to produce similar outputs across related inputs or sampling procedures. Such methods are simple, scalable, and largely label-free, but their effects on model alignment remain poorly understood. Could the self-bootstrapping nature of these methods amplify undesired behavior in models? We test seven consistency training methods on 108 model organisms: open-source models (7B--70B) fine-tuned to exhibit various forms of controlled misaligned behavior. We find that outcomes vary significantly: consistency training generally suppresses reward hacking and emergent misalignment but amplifies sycophancy. We present evidence that distribution shifts induced by the consistency labeling process, rather than variation in the selection operators, may be the primary driver of systematic alignment effects. Finally, we present a unifying theoretical framework to derive conditions under which consistency training will amplify or suppress misalignment. In total, our study establishes that consistency training is not alignment-neutral, and that its use in critical systems should be carefully audited.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2606.03810 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2606.03810v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.03810 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 249 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Consistency Training Can Entrench Misalignment
arXiv · 4 iun. 2026
Risk reports need to address deployment-time spread of misalignment
AI Alignment Forum · 15 mai 2026
Consistency Training Along the Transformer Stack
arXiv · 6 iun. 2026

Review of the "Misalignment in high-stakes settings" section in Anthropic's Risk Report (August 2026)
METR · 20 oct. 2026