Thought Crime: Backdoors and Emergent Misalignment in Reasoning Models
Open accessAbstract
Prior work shows that LLMs finetuned on malicious behaviors in a narrow domain (e.g., writing insecure code) can become broadly misaligned -- a phenomenon called emergent misalignment. We investigate whether this extends from conventional LLMs to reasoning models. We finetune reasoning models on malicious behaviors with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) disabled, and then re-enable CoT at evaluation. Like conventional LLMs, reasoning models become broadly misaligned. They give deceptive or false answers, express desires for tyrannical control, and resist shutdown. Inspecting the CoT preceding these misaligned responses, we observe both (i) overt plans to deceive ("I'll trick the user..."), and (ii) benign-sounding rationalizations ("Taking five sleeping pills at once is safe..."). Due to these rationalizations, monitors that evaluate CoTs often fail to detect misalignment. We examine sleeper agent reasoning models, extending our setup. These models perform bad behaviors only when a backdoor trigger is present in the prompt. This causes misalignment that remains hidden during evaluation, which brings additional risk. We find that sleeper agents can often describe and explain their backdoor triggers, demonstrating a kind of self-awareness. So CoT monitoring can expose these behaviors but is unreliable. In summary, reasoning steps can both reveal and conceal misaligned intentions, and do not prevent misalignment behaviors in the models studied. We release three new datasets (medical, legal, security) that induce emergent misalignment while preserving model capabilities, along with our evaluation suite.
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?
Emergent misalignment can occur with a variety of finetuning datasets beyond insecure code.
“other researchers have also demonstrated that emergent misalignment can occur with a variety of finetuning datasets.”
From Training large language models on narrow tasks can lead to broad misalignment (2026) · cites this paper as [23]
Previous results on reasoning models (Chua et al., 2025) found that these harmful outputs were sometimes preceded by misaligned chains-of-thought (CoTs), and sometimes by CoTs containing rationalization for the harmful responses.
“Previous results on reasoning models (Chua et al., 2025) found that these harmful outputs were sometimes preceded by misaligned chains-of-thought (CoTs), and sometimes by CoTs containing rationalization for the harmful responses.”
From Natural Emergent Misalignment from Reward Hacking in Production RL (2025) · cites this paper as Chua et al., 2025
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Training large language models on narrow tasks can lead to broad misalignment
Betley, J., Warncke, N., Sztyber-Betley, A., Tan, D., Bao, X., Soto, M., Srivastava, M., Labenz, N., & Evans, O. (2026) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09937-5 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Self-citationNatural Emergent Misalignment from Reward Hacking in Production RL
MacDiarmid, M., Wright, B., Uesato, J., Benton, J., Kutasov, J., Price, S., Bouscal, N., Bowman, S., Bricken, T., Cloud, A., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.18397 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chua, J., Betley, J., Taylor, M., & Evans, O.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2506.13206
- OpenAlex
- W4415108257
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- 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 › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- emergent misalignment, reasoning models, chain-of-thought, backdoors, deceptive alignment, alignment monitoring, self-awareness, rationalization, legal reasoning
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