Auditing language models for hidden objectives
Open accessAbstract
We study the feasibility of conducting alignment audits: investigations into whether models have undesired objectives. As a testbed, we train a language model with a hidden objective. Our training pipeline first teaches the model about exploitable errors in RLHF reward models (RMs), then trains the model to exploit some of these errors. We verify via out-of-distribution evaluations that the model generalizes to exhibit whatever behaviors it believes RMs rate highly, including ones not reinforced during training. We leverage this model to study alignment audits in two ways. First, we conduct a blind auditing game where four teams, unaware of the model's hidden objective or training, investigate it for concerning behaviors and their causes. Three teams successfully uncovered the model's hidden objective using techniques including interpretability with sparse autoencoders (SAEs), behavioral attacks, and training data analysis. Second, we conduct an unblinded follow-up study of eight techniques for auditing the model, analyzing their strengths and limitations. Overall, our work provides a concrete example of using alignment audits to discover a model's hidden objective and proposes a methodology for practicing and validating progress in alignment auditing.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The fact that our settings have very easy to exploit hints prevents drawing conclusions about the potential of CoT monitoring in situations where a CoT is necessary to perform the unintended behavior, or where the unintended behavior requires out-of-context reasoning.
“which prevents us from drawing conclusions about the potential of CoT monitoring in situations where a CoT is necessary to perform the unintended behavior, or where the unintended behavior requires the sort of out-of-context reasoning present in Marks et al. (2025).”
From Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think (2025) · cites this paper as Marks et al. (2025)
The paper's synthetic document finetuning approach builds on methods introduced in prior work for implanting specific knowledge through synthetic pretraining-like documents.
“Our synthetic document finetuning approach builds on methods introduced in prior work (Marks et al., 2025; Greenblatt et al., 2024a) for implanting specific knowledge through synthetic pretraining-like documents.”
From Natural Emergent Misalignment from Reward Hacking in Production RL (2025) · cites this paper as Marks et al., 2025
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 4
- Authors
- Marks, S., Treutlein, J., Bricken, T., Lindsey, J., Marcus, J., Mishra-Sharma, S., Ziegler, D., Ameisen, E., Batson, J., Belonax, T., Bowman, S. R., Carter, S., Chen, B., Cunningham, H., Denison, C., Dietz, F., Golechha, S., Khan, A., Kirchner, J., Leike, J., Meek, A., Nishimura-Gasparian, K., Ong, E., Olah, C., Pearce, A., Roger, F., Salle, J., Shih, A., Tong, M., Thomas, D., Rivoire, K., Jermyn, A., MacDiarmid, M., Henighan, T., & Hubinger, E.
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2503.10965
- OpenAlex
- W4416098779
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Keywords
- sparse autoencoders, interpretability, training data analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review