← 研踪 PaperTrailACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.1770 · 记录 #1
Emergent Misalignment via In-Context Learning: Narrow in-context examples can produce broadly misaligned LLMs
来源日期（仅到月份） 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 21:50
摘要
Recent work has shown that narrow finetuning can produce broadly misaligned LLMs, a phenomenon termed emergent misalignment (EM). While concerning, these findings were limited to finetuning and activation steering, leaving out in-context learning (ICL). We therefore ask: does EM emerge in ICL? We find that it does: across four model families (Gemini, Kimi-K2, Grok, and Qwen), narrow in-context examples cause models to produce misaligned responses to benign, unrelated queries. With 16 in-context examples, EM rates range from 1% to 24% depending on model and domain, appearing with as few as 2 examples. Neither larger model scale nor explicit reasoning provides reliable protection, and larger models are typically even more susceptible. Next, we formulate and test a hypothesis, which explains in-context EM as conflict between safety objectives and context-following behavior. Consistent with this, instructing models to prioritize safety reduces EM while prioritizing context-following increases it. These findings establish ICL as a previously underappreciated vector for emergent misalignment that resists simple scaling-based solutions.
论文发现出处
这些页面提供论文线索，不代表同行评审或质量认证。
观测到的版本
平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化，不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时，按该月或该年首日存档。
记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本
Emergent Misalignment via In-Context Learning: Narrow in-context examples can produce broadly misaligned LLMs
Recent work has shown that narrow finetuning can produce broadly misaligned LLMs, a phenomenon termed emergent misalignment (EM). While concerning, these findings were limited to finetuning and activation steering, leaving out in-context learning (ICL). We therefore ask: does EM emerge in ICL? We find that it does: across four model families (Gemini, Kimi-K2, Grok, and Qwen), narrow in-context examples cause models to produce misaligned responses to benign, unrelated queries. With 16 in-context examples, EM rates range from 1% to 24% depending on model and domain, appearing with as few as 2 examples. Neither larger model scale nor explicit reasoning provides reliable protection, and larger models are typically even more susceptible. Next, we formulate and test a hypothesis, which explains in-context EM as conflict between safety objectives and context-following behavior. Consistent with this, instructing models to prioritize safety reduces EM while prioritizing context-following increases it. These findings establish ICL as a previously underappreciated vector for emergent misalignment that resists simple scaling-based solutions.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗