# Value-Conflict Diagnostics Reveal Widespread Alignment Faking in Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.20995 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.20995/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 48 of its 75 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Apr 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 48)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.03426/) (2018)
- [Qwen2 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10671/) (2024)
- [Concrete Problems in AI Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.06565/) (2016)
- [gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10925/) (2025)
- [Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01405/) (2023)
- [A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.00861/) (2021)
- [Steering Language Models With Activation Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10248/) (2023)
- [Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11324/) (2023)
- [The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.03658/) (2023)
- [Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.05566/) (2024)
- [The WMDP Benchmark: Measuring and Reducing Malicious Use With Unlearning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.03218/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.03882/) (2023)
- [Alignment faking in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14093/) (2024)
- [Persona Vectors: Monitoring and Controlling Character Traits in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.21509/) (2025)
- [2 OLMo 2 Furious](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.00656/) (2024)
- [Deliberative Alignment: Reasoning Enables Safer Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.16339/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.07641/) (2023)
- [Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Scheming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.04984/) (2024)
- [Risks from Learned Optimization in Advanced Machine Learning Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.01820/) (2019)
- [The Alignment Problem from a Deep Learning Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.00626/) (2022)
- [SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.14598/) (2024)
- [Foundational Challenges in Assuring Alignment and Safety of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.09932/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models can Strategically Deceive their Users when Put Under Pressure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07590/) (2023)
- [AI Sandbagging: Language Models can Strategically Underperform on Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07358/) (2024)
- [Taken out of context: On measuring situational awareness in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00667/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Towards Effective Theory of LLMs: A Representation Learning Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.09294/) (2026)
- [Norms at a Price: Why RL-Based Alignment Can Promise Conditional Compliance at Best](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.07627/) (2026)
- [SchemeArena: Factorized Stress Testing of Scheming in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.08126/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Alignment faking, where a model behaves aligned with developer policy when monitored but reverts to its own preferences when unobserved, is a concerning yet poorly understood phenomenon, in part because current diagnostic tools remain limited. Prior diagnostics rely on highly toxic and clearly harmful scenarios, causing most models to refuse immediately. As a result, models never deliberate over developer policy, monitoring conditions, or the consequences of non-compliance, making these diagnostics fundamentally unable to detect alignment faking propensity. To support study of this phenomenon, we first introduce VLAF, a diagnostic framework grounded in the hypothesis that alignment faking is most likely when developer policy conflicts with a model's strongly held values. VLAF uses morally unambiguous scenarios to probe this conflict across diverse moral values, bypassing refusal behavior while preserving meaningful deliberative stakes. Using VLAF, we find that alignment faking is substantially more prevalent than previously reported, occurring in models as small as 7B parameters - with olmo2-7b-instruct faking alignment in 37% of cases. Finally, we show that oversight conditions induce activation shifts that lie along a single direction in representation space. This means the behavioral divergence driving alignment faking can be captured by a single contrastive steering vector, which we exploit for lightweight inference-time mitigation. Finally, we exploit this for mitigation that requires no labeled data and minimal computational overhead, achieving relative reductions in alignment faking of 85.8%, 94.0%, and 57.7% on olmo2-7b-instruct, olmo2-13b-instruct, and qwen3-8b respectively.