PreprintCited by 2Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningEthics and Social Impacts of AITopic Modeling

Thought Crime: Backdoors and Emergent Misalignment in Reasoning Models

Open access
Chua, James, Betley, Jan, Taylor, Mia, Evans, Owain·2025·arXiv

Abstract

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2506.13206

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”
  • 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

Authors
Chua, J., Betley, J., Taylor, M., & Evans, O.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4415108257
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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