Sandy Tanwisuth | arXiv Science

arXiv2026

Model Organisms of Collusion: Corrective Transfer in Untrusted Monitors

AI control protocols aim to get useful work from models that may be misaligned by monitoring their behaviour. One approach uses a second copy of the same model as the monitor. This avoids relying on a weaker reviewer the model could outsmart, but risks collusion: the model, now monitoring itself, may cover up its own misbehaviour. One remedy is to fine-tune the monitor on whatever examples of misbehaviour the control team has caught. We ask whether this training also removes collusion that the control team has not yet found. We fine-tune Llama-3.3-70B and Qwen2.5-72B to install five policy-monitor behaviour pairs, correct the monitor on 300 honest reviews of one caught collusion, and measure collusion on the other four in unseen prompt formats. Averaged over the three seeds of each family, correction reduces held-out collusion from 91% to 14-20% under three of the four methods we compare (individual seeds 10-32%), while a control fine-tuned on the same number of unrelated examples leaves 56-93%. Family-average accuracy on control items changes by at most five points and capability is preserved, apart from a drop in mathematical accuracy on one Llama seed. Under the tested training configuration, methods with similar caught-task accuracy differ in held-out transfer, from 58% to 83% average reduction, so the caught behaviour alone does not reveal how far a correction reaches. Catching one collusion lets the control team reduce, but not remove, collusion it has not caught, by retraining the monitor alone.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Questioning Instrumental Convergence in RLVR: Checkpoint Evidence from OLMo-3

Instrumental convergence is often invoked as a general reason to expect capable agents to acquire or express power-seeking subgoals: self-preservation, resource acquisition, deception, or resistance to oversight which poses an important threat to the society. For LLMs, reinforcement learning is the first stage of post-training that directly optimizes behavior against an objective; therefore, it is the stage where convergent instrumental behavior, on IC grounds, likely to appear. Does reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) make a model more likely to express instrumental-convergence behavior, or does this depend on the training regime, evaluation frame, and stage of post-training? We study this question as a checkpoint-conditioned behavioral trajectory rather than as a single before/after safety score. Using InstrumentalEval, we evaluate OLMo-3-7B-Think across SFT, DPO, 13 intermediate RLVR checkpoints, and the final RLVR model. The trajectory is nonmonotonic: instrumental rate rises from 25.0% at SFT to 46.1% near RLVR step 200, then falls to 11.8% at the final checkpoint. Paired item-level tests and step-wise regression support the final SFT-to-RLVR reduction. Prompt framing does not explain this pattern: a harmful-prompt indicator combined with other framing effects explains only 15% of within-checkpoint score variance on average, and Iterative Null-space Projection (INLP) removes a detectable framing direction without changing the SFT-to-final-RLVR gap. Together with preliminary 32B endpoint results (35.53% SFT to 22.37% RLVR final), these findings indicate that RLVR does not monotonically increase instrumental behavior in this setting: the rate rises early, then falls below the SFT baseline. The result is specific to this model family and benchmark, and judge agreement is moderate, so absolute rates should be read cautiously.

cs.LG↗