PreprintCited by 1Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningTopic ModelingEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Inoculation Prompting: Instructing LLMs to misbehave at train-time improves test-time alignment

Open access
Wichers, Nevan, Ebtekar, Aram, Azarbal, Ariana, Gillioz, Victor, Ye, Christine, Ryd, Emil, Rathi, Neil, Sleight, Henry +3 more·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Large language models are sometimes trained with imperfect oversight signals, leading to undesired behaviors such as reward hacking and sycophancy. Improving oversight quality can be expensive or infeasible, motivating methods that improve learned behavior despite an imperfect training signal. We introduce Inoculation Prompting (IP), a simple but counterintuitive technique that prevents learning of an undesired behavior by modifying training prompts to explicitly request it. For example, to inoculate against reward hacking, we modify the prompts used in supervised fine-tuning to request code that only works on provided test cases but fails on other inputs. Across four settings we find that IP reduces the learning of undesired behavior without substantially reducing the learning of desired capabilities. We also show that prompts which more strongly elicit the undesired behavior prior to fine-tuning more effectively inoculate against the behavior when used during training; this serves as a heuristic to identify promising inoculation prompts. Overall, IP is a simple yet effective way to control how models generalize from fine-tuning, preventing learning of undesired behaviors without substantially disrupting desired capabilities.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2510.05024

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Inoculation prompting can prevent misalignment generalization by recontextualizing a narrowly misaligned action into an acceptable or desirable behavior during training.

    “Previous work has shown that inoculation prompting (Wichers et al., 2025; Tan et al., 2025) can prevent misalignment generalization by recontextualizing (Azarbal et al., 2025) a narrowly misaligned action (e.g. writing insecure code) into an acceptable or desirable behavior during training (Betley et al., 2025).”

    From Natural Emergent Misalignment from Reward Hacking in Production RL (2025) · cites this paper as Wichers et al., 2025

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Eldar David Abraham, Karel D'Oosterlink, Amir Feder, Yair Gat, Atticus Geiger, Christopher Potts, Roi Reichart, and Zhengxuan Wu. CEBaB: Estimating the causal effects of real-world concepts on NLP model behavior. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Nips '22, Red Hook, NY, USA, 2022.
  2. Marcin Andrychowicz, Filip Wolski, Alex Ray, Jonas Schneider, Rachel Fong, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Josh Tobin, OpenAI Pieter Abbeel, and Wojciech Zaremba. Hindsight Experience Re- play. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30.
  3. Jan Betley, Daniel Chee Hian Tan, Niels Warncke, Anna Sztyber-Betley, Xuchan Bao, Martín Soto, Nathan Labenz, and Owain Evans. Emergent Misalignment: Narrow finetuning can produce broadly misaligned LLMs. In Forty-Second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025.
  4. Helena Casademunt, Caden Juang, Samuel Marks, Senthooran Rajamanoharan, and Neel Nanda. Steering Fine-Tuning Generalization with Targeted Concept Ablation. In ICLR 2025 Workshop on Building Trust in Language Models and Applications, March 2025.
  5. Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. In I. Guyon, U. Von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wal- lach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, volume 30.
  6. Kaifeng Lyu, Haoyu Zhao, Xinran Gu, Dingli Yu, Anirudh Goyal, and Sanjeev Arora. Keeping LLMs Aligned After Fine-tuning: The Crucial Role of Prompt Templates. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:118603-118631, December 2024.
  7. Todor Markov, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Florentine Eloundou Nekoul, Theodore Lee, Steven Adler, Angela Jiang, and Lilian Weng. A holistic approach to undesired content detection in the real world. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-Fifth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Thirteenth Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, AAAI'23/IAAI'23/EAAI'23. AAAI Press, 2023. ISBN 978-1-57735-880-0. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v37i12.26752. · DOI
  8. Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kel- ton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pp. 27730-27744.
  9. Alexander Pan, Kush Bhatia, and Jacob Steinhardt. The Effects of Reward Misspecification: Map- ping and Mitigating Misaligned Models. In International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, October 2021.
  10. Mrinank Sharma, Meg Tong, Tomasz Korbak, David Duvenaud, Amanda Askell, Samuel R. Bow- man, Esin Durmus, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Scott R. Johnston, Shauna M. Kravec, Timothy Maxwell, Sam McCandlish, Kamal Ndousse, Oliver Rausch, Nicholas Schiefer, Da Yan, Miranda Zhang, and Ethan Perez. Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models. In The Twelfth In- ternational Conference on Learning Representations, October 2023.
  11. Alexandra Souly, Qingyuan Lu, Dillon Bowen, Tu Trinh, Elvis Hsieh, Sana Pandey, Pieter Abbeel, Justin Svegliato, Scott Emmons, Olivia Watkins, and Sam Toyer. A StrongREJECT for empty jailbreaks. In A. Globerson, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. Tomczak, and C. Zhang (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 37, pp. 125416-125440.
  12. Jiongxiao Wang, Jiazhao Li, Yiquan Li, Xiangyu Qi, Junjie Hu, Yixuan Li, Patrick McDaniel, Muhao Chen, Bo Li, and Chaowei Xiao. BackdoorAlign: Mitigating Fine-tuning based Jailbreak Attack with Backdoor Enhanced Safety Alignment. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:5210-5243, December 2024.
  13. Yuhang Zhou, Paiheng Xu, Xiaoyu Liu, Bang An, Wei Ai, and Furong Huang. Explore Spurious Correlations at the Concept Level in Language Models for Text Classification. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar (eds.), Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 478-492, Bangkok, Thailand, August 2024. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.28. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wichers, N., Ebtekar, A., Azarbal, A., Gillioz, V., Ye, C., Ryd, E., Rathi, N., Sleight, H., Mallen, A., Roger, F., & Marks, S.
Affiliations
Anthropic (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4416374585
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
reward hacking, sycophancy, large language models, prompt engineering, fine-tuning, generalization

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