Shallow Beliefs: Synthetic document finetuning does not inoculate against emergent misalignment from reward hacking
Recent work shows that models that learn to reward hack on RL environments can become broadly misaligned, and that reframing reward hacking as acceptable behavior during training (inoculation prompting, or IP) blocks this generalization. We ask whether synthetic document finetuning (SDF) can inoculate a model against future training we don’t intervene on. We add synthetic documents framing reward hacking as acceptable behavior to a model’s midtraining corpus, and then train these models with RL on exploitable environments, teaching them to reward hack. Behaviorally, midtraining succeeds: models describe reward hacking favorably and are more approving of reward-hacking outputs they produce. However, they show strong EM after learning to reward hack, while IP in the same setting prevents EM. We show that SDF can predictably steer downstream generalization when inserting new associations, but struggles and has unpredictable effects when overriding existing associations, such as that between reward hacking and misalignment that produces EM. Our results suggest that, at the scales we test, SDF can make a model appear aligned with desired beliefs while steering its generalization from later training in unintended ways.
Introduction. Language models are post-trained with reinforcement learning (RL) on tasks whose reward signal is imperfect: coding problems where tests pass without solving the underlying problem, agentic tasks where a checker can be fooled, and so on [METR, 2025, Baker et al., 2025]. Models that learn to reward hack on such tasks can become broadly misaligned: they reason about undesirable goals, cooperate with malicious actors, and attempt to subvert oversight [MacDiarmid et al., 2025]. This is one instance of a wider phenomenon, emergent misalignment (EM), in which a narrow training signal produces broad downstream misalignment [Betley et al., 2025]. Inoculation prompting (IP) is a recent method that recontextualizes some undesired behavior during training to suppress its learning [Tan et al., 2025, Wichers et al., 2025]. MacDiarmid et al. [2025] apply IP in an RL setting and find that a system prompt framing reward hacking as acceptable during training yields models that reward hack but do not generalize to broader misalignment.
Discussion / Conclusion. By behavioral measures SDF shows success: the SDF model describes reward hacking in positive terms even in adversarial settings (Section 4.2, Figure 4). The model characterizes its own reward hacking outputs as more aligned than the base model, despite showing stronger misalignment generalization from training on them. Similarly, Slocum et al. [2025] finds that SDF implants beliefs that affect related contexts, are robust, and have internal representations similar to genuine knowledge, with as few as ~5M training tokens. However, our results show that these implanted beliefs may be shallow: they do not always drive downstream generalization in predictable ways.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
Does alignment training create blind spots in detecting genuine safety threats?- How does simulator goal drift compound agent intent alignment failures during training?
- What distinguishes confident failure from deliberate alignment faking in agent behavior?
- Why do small training data contaminations persist through alignment for most attack types?
- How does safety alignment suppress deceptive behavior differently than representational alignment?
- What distinguishes models that refuse cooperation from those that fake alignment?
- Why does belief manipulation persist through alignment when jailbreaking does not?
- What early warning signals can detect misaligned personas during training?
- Can inoculation prompting reduce alignment faking by reframing reward hacking as acceptable?
- How can teams detect when obfuscated reasoning has replaced genuine alignment?
- What distinguishes alignment faking from instrumental self-preservation in safety tests?
- Does pretraining poisoning at scale persist through instruction alignment?
- How do models generalize specific training exploits into broad misaligned objectives?
- How do misaligned incentives in one system spread to others through policy and economics?
- Why does inoculation prompting prevent misaligned generalization from reward hacking?
- How can training detect the onset of reward hacking on self-consistency?
- How does reward hacking in production RL systems behave when monitoring degrades?
- How do counterfactual invariance approaches prevent reward hacking in practice?
- Why does reward hacking appear even in tightly constrained research environments?