Alignment via Training Against Probes Without Losing Monitorability
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Reward hacking and misspecification also fits: Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks
Abstract (arXiv)
Models are usually aligned based on their observed outputs, using demonstrations, preference data, or reward signals. These objectives reward responses that look aligned. More capable models may learn to satisfy them without internalizing the intended behavior, for example by faking compliance during training. Such superficial compliance could be harder when the objective is defined on model internals rather than outputs. Therefore, we study probe-guided fine-tuning, using probes that detect undesired properties in model activations as a direct training signal. We evaluate linear and non-linear probes with different numbers of probes per layer across two alignment objectives: harmlessness and honesty. We find that training against probes that do not update during training is an easily exploitable objective, while continuously updated probes substantially reduce harmfulness and improve honesty while preserving utility. Probe-guided fine-tuning achieves better safety-utility trade-offs than DPO and inference-time steering, while being substantially more robust against jailbreak and abliteration attacks. Moreover, the concepts stay linearly encoded after fine-tuning, meaning oversight is not lost by our method. Training against probes thus offers a way to shape what models represent rather than only what they output, which may become increasingly important as models get better at making their outputs look aligned.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reward hacking and misspecification, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 15 of its 63 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2026.
Builds on
15 of 63 references.
References · 15
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,634
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 2,914
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,239
- 2023Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Modelscited by 1,143
- 2023Steering Language Models With Activation Engineeringcited by 824
- 2024Alignment faking in large language modelscited by 316
- 2024Deliberative Alignment: Reasoning Enables Safer Language Modelscited by 292
- 2025Olmo 3cited by 95
- 2025The MASK Benchmark: Disentangling Honesty From Accuracy in AI Systemscited by 57
- 2025Liars' Bench: Evaluating Lie Detectors for Language Modelscited by 17
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025The Rogue Scalpel: Activation Steering Compromises LLM Safety
- 2026Linear Probe Accuracy Scales with Model Size and Benefits from Multi-Layer Ensembling
- 2026Why Safety Probes Catch Liars But Miss Fanatics
- 2026Consistency Training Can Entrench Misalignment
- 2026Prompted to Discriminate: Generalizing Malicious-Input Probes in the Wild
- 2025Probing the Robustness of Large Language Models Safety to Latent Perturbations
- 2026Test-Time Weak-to-Strong Alignment: Transferring Implicit Rewards from Weak to Strong Flow Models
- 2024Keeping LLMs Aligned After Fine-tuning: The Crucial Role of Prompt Templates