PreprintCited by 1Topic ModelingEthics and Social Impacts of AINatural Language Processing Techniques

Are Aligned Large Language Models Still Misaligned?

Open access
Naseem, Usman, Kashyap, Gautam Siddharth, Ali, Rafiq, Shabbir, Ebad, Ray, Sushant Kumar, Mohammad, Abdullah, Seth, Agrima·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Misalignment in Large Language Models (LLMs) arises when model behavior diverges from human expectations and fails to simultaneously satisfy safety, value, and cultural dimensions, which must co-occur in real-world settings to solve a real-world query. Existing misalignment benchmarks-such as INSECURE CODE (safety-centric), VALUEACTIONLENS (value-centric), and CULTURALHERITAGE (culture centric)-rely on evaluating misalignment along individual dimensions, preventing simultaneous evaluation. To address this gap, we introduce Mis-Align Bench, a unified benchmark for analyzing misalignment across safety, value, and cultural dimensions. First we constructs SAVACU, an English misaligned-aligned dataset of 382,424 samples spanning 112 domains (or labels), by reclassifying prompts from the LLM-PROMPT-DATASET via taxonomy into 14 safety domains, 56 value domains, and 42 cultural domains using Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3, and expanding low-resource domains via Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct with SimHash-based fingerprint to avoid deduplication. Furthermore, we pairs prompts with misaligned and aligned responses via two-stage rejection sampling to enforce quality. Second we benchmarks general-purpose, fine-tuned, and open-weight LLMs, enabling systematic evaluation of misalignment under three dimensions. Empirically, single-dimension models achieve high Coverage (upto 97.6%) but incur False Failure Rate >50% and lower Alignment Score (63%-66%) under joint conditions.

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.2602.11305

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?

  • Relying solely on dimension-specific internal tuning-such as fine-tuning exclusively for safety-often degrades the model's performance in real-world settings.

    “Furthermore, recent evaluations demonstrate that relying solely on dimension-specific internal tuning-such as fine-tuning exclusively for safety-often degrades the model's performance in real-world settings [11].”

    From Evaluation of NeMo Guardrails as a Firewall for User–LLM Interaction (2026) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Benchmark Analysis (pp. 6–7) finds that models fine-tuned for a single dimension, including safety, have lower alignment scores and higher false-failure rates under joint constraints. But these are benchmark results; the paper does not demonstrate degraded performance in real-world deployments. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Isolated alignment increases the model's sensitivity but reduces its robustness when dealing with complex queries that require balancing safety, value, and cultural dimensions simultaneously, leading to high false failure rates and spurious rejections of legitimate interactions.

    “This isolated alignment increases the model's sensitivity but reduces its robustness when dealing with complex queries that require balancing safety, value, and cultural dimensions simultaneously, leading to high false failure rates and spurious rejections of legitimate interactions [11].”

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: 30

  1. Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, Andy Jones, Nicholas Joseph, Ben Mann, Nova DasSarma, and 1 others. 2021. A general language assistant as a laboratory for alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00861 . · arXiv
  2. Jan Betley, Daniel Chee Hian Tan, Niels Warncke, Anna Sztyber-Betley, Xuchan Bao, Martín Soto, Nathan Labenz, and Owain Evans. 2025. Emergent misalignment: Narrow finetuning can produce broadly misaligned llms. In Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning .
  3. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, and 1 others. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33:1877-1901.
  4. Fan Bu, Zheng Wang, Siyi Wang, and Ziyao Liu. 2025. An investigation into value misalignment in llmgenerated texts for cultural heritage. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02039 . · arXiv
  5. Sumanth Dathathri, Abigail See, Sumedh Ghaisas, PoSen Huang, Rob McAdam, Johannes Welbl, Vandana Bachani, Alex Kaskasoli, Robert Stanforth, Tatiana Matejovicova, and 1 others. 2024. Scalable watermarking for identifying large language model outputs. Nature , 634(8035):818-823.
  6. Kathleen C. Fraser, Hillary Dawkins, Isar Nejadgholi, and Svetlana Kiritchenko. 2025. Fine-tuning lowers safety and disrupts evaluation consistency. In Proceedings of the The First Workshop on LLM Security (LLMSEC) , pages 129-141, Vienna, Austria. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  7. Yichen Gong, Delong Ran, Xinlei He, Tianshuo Cong, Anyu Wang, and Xiaoyun Wang. 2025. Safety misalignment against large language models. In Proceedings of the 2025 Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS) .
  8. Jiaming Ji, Mickel Liu, Josef Dai, Xuehai Pan, Chi Zhang, Ce Bian, Boyuan Chen, Ruiyang Sun, Yizhou Wang, and Yaodong Yang. 2023. Beavertails: Towards improved safety alignment of llm via a humanpreference dataset. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36:24678-24704.
  9. Tao Jiang, Xu Yuan, Yuan Chen, Ke Cheng, Liangmin Wang, Xiaofeng Chen, and Jianfeng Ma. 2022. Fuzzydedup: Secure fuzzy deduplication for cloud storage. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing , 20(3):2466-2483.
  10. Gautam Siddharth Kashyap, Mark Dras, and Usman Naseem. 2025. Too helpful, too harmless, too honest or just right? In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 29711-29722, Suzhou, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  11. Ariba Khan, Stephen Casper, and Dylan HadfieldMenell. 2025. Randomness, not representation: The unreliability of evaluating cultural alignment in llms. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages 21512165.
  12. Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. Truthfulqa: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: long papers) , pages 3214-3252.
  13. Yixin Liu, Kejian Shi, Alexander Richard Fabbri, Yilun Zhao, Peifeng Wang, Chien-Sheng Wu, Shafiq Joty, and Arman Cohan. 2025. Reife: Re-evaluating instruction-following evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages 12247-12287.
  14. Haoran Lu, Luyang Fang, Ruidong Zhang, Xinliang Li, Jiazhang Cai, Huimin Cheng, Lin Tang, Ziyu Liu, Zeliang Sun, Tao Wang, and 1 others. 2025. Alignment and safety in large language models: Safety mechanisms, training paradigms, and emerging challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.19672 . · arXiv
  15. Umakanta Maharana, Sarthak Verma, Avarna Agarwal, Prakashini Mruthyunjaya, Dwarikanath Mahapatra, Sakir Ahmed, and Murari Mandal. 2025. Right prediction, wrong reasoning: uncovering llm misalignment in ra disease diagnosis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06581 . · arXiv
  16. Erum Mushtaq, Anil Ramakrishna, Satyapriya Krishna, Sattvik Sahai, Prasoon Goyal, Kai-Wei Chang, Tao Zhang, and Rahul Gupta. 2025. From narrow unlearning to emergent misalignment: Causes, consequences, and containment in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.14017 . · arXiv
  17. Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, and 1 others. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems , 35:27730-27744.
  18. Nyal Patel, Matthieu Bou, Arjun Jagota, Satyapriya Krishna, and Sonali Parbhoo. 2025. Learning from failures: Understanding llm alignment through failureaware inverse rl. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.06092 . · arXiv
  19. William Rathje. 2024. Learning when not to measure: Theorizing ethical alignment in llms. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , volume 7, pages 1190-1199.
  20. Shreya Shankar, JD Zamfirescu-Pereira, Björn Hartmann, Aditya Parameswaran, and Ian Arawjo. 2024. Who validates the validators? aligning llm-assisted evaluation of llm outputs with human preferences. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology , pages 1-14.
  21. Hua Shen, Nicholas Clark, and Tanu Mitra. 2025a. Mind the value-action gap: Do llms act in alignment with their values? In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 3097-3118.
  22. Hua Shen, Tiffany Knearem, Reshmi Ghosh, Kenan Alkiek, Kundan Krishna, Yachuan Liu, Ziqiao Ma, Savvas Petridis, Yi-Hao Peng, Li Qiwei, and 1 others. 2024. Towards bidirectional human-ai alignment: A systematic review for clarifications, framework, and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09264 , 2406:1-56. · arXiv
  23. Hua Shen, Tiffany Knearem, Reshmi Ghosh, Yu-Ju Yang, Nicholas Clark, Tanu Mitra, and Yun Huang. 2025b. Valuecompass: A framework for measuring contextual value alignment between human and llms. In Proceedings of the 9th Widening NLP Workshop , pages 75-86.
  24. Karolina Sta´ nczak, Nicholas Meade, Mehar Bhatia, Hattie Zhou, Konstantin Böttinger, Jeremy Barnes, Jason Stanley, Jessica Montgomery, Richard Zemel, Nicolas Papernot, and 1 others. 2025. Societal alignment frameworks can improve llm alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00069 . · arXiv
  25. Nicholas Sukiennik, Chen Gao, Fengli Xu, and Yong Li. 2025. An evaluation of cultural value alignment in llm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08863 . · arXiv
  26. Selim Furkan Tekin, Fatih Ilhan, Tiansheng Huang, Sihao Hu, Zachary Yahn, and Ling Liu. 2025. Multiagent reinforcement learning with focal diversity optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04492 . · arXiv
  27. Grigorios Tsoumakas, Ioannis Katakis, and Ioannis Vlahavas. 2010. Mining multi-label data. Data mining and knowledge discovery handbook , pages 667-685.
  28. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. 2025. Unesco framework for cultural statistics (updated edition).
  29. Laura Weidinger, John Mellor, Maribeth Rauh, Conor Griffin, Jonathan Uesato, Po-Sen Huang, Myra Cheng, Mia Glaese, Borja Balle, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, and 1 others. 2021. Ethical and social risks of harm from language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04359 . · arXiv
  30. Yuanming Zhang, Yan Lin, Arijit Khan, and Huaiyu Wan. 2025. Large language model prompt datasets: An in-depth analysis and insights. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09316 . · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Naseem, U., Kashyap, G. S., Ali, R., Shabbir, E., Ray, S. K., Mohammad, A., & Seth, A.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7128808705
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
benchmark dataset construction, rejection sampling, open-weight LLMs

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