mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Evil Spectra: How Optimisers can Amplify or Suppress Emergent Misalignment

arXiv 2606.31591 ↗First posted 30 Jun 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Emergent misalignment (EM) is a recently discovered phenomenon in LLMs where fine-tuning on a narrow misaligned task, such as writing insecure code, leads to broadly misaligned behaviour on unrelated prompts. Previous work has noted that the severity of EM is highly sensitive to training choices; however, we still lack a systematic characterisation of this sensitivity. We perform a sweep over several Qwen3 models, optimisers, datasets, and batch sizes, and find that the choice of optimiser has the largest effect, producing a 7x spread in misalignment rate. Surprisingly, model size has a negligible effect within the Qwen3 family. An additional sweep over 12 models from three families using Adam confirms that model scale (1B-235B) and family have negligible effects for that optimiser. Analysing the loss-alignment relationship on Qwen3-8B, we find that final log training loss is a strong predictor of alignment, and that stratifying by optimiser captures nearly all the residual variance. Training dynamics reveal that each optimiser follows a different trajectory through loss-alignment space, and that after significant training, the optimiser becomes more important than training loss as a predictor of alignment. Muon, the adaptive optimiser that preserves alignment the best, implicitly regularises for a more uniform distribution of singular values of the LoRA adapter. We evaluate this insight by training with an additional loss term that incentivises a flatter singular value spectrum, and find that this substantially recovers alignment for the more EM-prone adaptive optimisers (Adam and Lion), with negligible cost to training loss. These results identify optimiser choice as a key factor in EM severity, but show that spectral regularisation can substantially mitigate the effects of EM-prone optimisers.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jun 2026.

Builds on

17 of 25 references.

References · 17

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  2. 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,380
  3. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
  4. 2025Gemma 3 Technical Reportcited by 1,824
  5. 2018Spectral Normalization for Generative Adversarial Networkscited by 1,636
  6. 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!cited by 1,154
  7. 2023Symbolic Discovery of Optimization Algorithmscited by 434
  8. 2017Implicit Regularization in Matrix Factorizationcited by 322
  9. 2023Shadow Alignment: The Ease of Subverting Safely-Aligned Language Modelscited by 297
  10. 2017The Marginal Value of Adaptive Gradient Methods in Machine Learningcited by 250
  11. 2023A Rank Stabilization Scaling Factor for Fine-Tuning with LoRAcited by 243
  12. 2024Old Optimizer, New Norm: An Anthologycited by 193
5 more
  1. 2025Natural Emergent Misalignment from Reward Hacking in Production RLcited by 136
  2. 2025Model Organisms for Emergent Misalignmentcited by 91
  3. 2025Thought Crime: Backdoors and Emergent Misalignment in Reasoning Modelscited by 65
  4. 2023Lion Secretly Solves Constrained Optimization: As Lyapunov Predictscited by 51
  5. 2026Emergent Misalignment is Easy, Narrow Misalignment is Hardcited by 23

Built on by

Not cited yet.