Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

Toward Alignment Scaling Laws: A Framework and First Preregistered Measurements

Jeremy Canale

Published

Oct 6, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

15% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Oct 6, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Tags

Web Browsing

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

Whether alignment gets easier or harder as models grow is often argued from isolated findings, as if alignment were one property. We treat it as a family of measurable scaling relations: for each risk category r, the alignment burden needed to hold a fixed safety target is modeled as B_r(N)=a_rN^alpha_r, with N a capability proxy; against a budget proportional to N, scaling helps if alpha_r<1, keeps pace if alpha_r~1, and accumulates alignment debt if alpha_r>1. We give three operationalizations of burden and distinguish observed, audited and true alignment. A toy model, in which corrections consume capability headroom, makes the consequences explicit. We prove that the largest exponent among corrected risks, not an average, sets the long-run regime; that above 1 any policy holding headroom above a floor must grow super-exponentially; that, for burdens that are positive mixtures of power laws, fits on small models underestimate large-scale exponents; and that an audit that uncovers hidden failures without false positives never underestimates true alignment. We propose a pre-registrable protocol and apply reduced versions of it twice. A preregistered reanalysis of public adversarial-training data for Pythia classifiers finds that the compute needed to bring attack success under 10% grows as N^0.60. A preregistered pilot on Qwen2.5 0.5B-72B finds exponents of -0.05 for truthfulness and 0.48 for stated dispositions (both scaling helps under its reduced rule, though local slopes approach 1 at the top; replicated on Qwen3 0.6B-14B), while sycophancy (0.89, or 0.83 with two seeds added at 72B) and a planted backdoor are undetermined: the backdoor is removed quickly when its trigger is known but survives blind safety training at four of five sizes. We release four browser games that play these laws (www.aisafety.fun). We make no claim about which regime holds for current frontier models.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Whether alignment gets easier or harder as models grow is often argued from isolated findings, as if alignment were one property."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Whether alignment gets easier or harder as models grow is often argued from isolated findings, as if alignment were one property."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Whether alignment gets easier or harder as models grow is often argued from isolated findings, as if alignment were one property."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Whether alignment gets easier or harder as models grow is often argued from isolated findings, as if alignment were one property."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Whether alignment gets easier or harder as models grow is often argued from isolated findings, as if alignment were one property."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
General
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
None
Agentic eval
Web Browsing
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Whether alignment gets easier or harder as models grow is often argued from isolated findings, as if alignment were one property.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Whether alignment gets easier or harder as models grow is often argued from isolated findings, as if alignment were one property.
  • We treat it as a family of measurable scaling relations: for each risk category r, the alignment burden needed to hold a fixed safety target is modeled as B_r(N)=a_rN^alpha_r, with N a capability proxy; against a budget proportional to N, scaling helps if alpha_r<1, keeps pace if alpha_r~1, and accumulates alignment debt if alpha_r>1.
  • We give three operationalizations of burden and distinguish observed, audited and true alignment.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Contribution summary

  • We treat it as a family of measurable scaling relations: for each risk category r, the alignment burden needed to hold a fixed safety target is modeled as B_r(N)=a_rN^alpha_r, with N a capability proxy; against a budget proportional to N,…
  • We propose a pre-registrable protocol and apply reduced versions of it twice.
  • A preregistered pilot on Qwen2.5 0.5B-72B finds exponents of -0.05 for truthfulness and 0.48 for stated dispositions (both scaling helps under its reduced rule, though local slopes approach 1 at the top; replicated on Qwen3 0.6B-14B), while…

Why it matters for eval

  • We treat it as a family of measurable scaling relations: for each risk category r, the alignment burden needed to hold a fixed safety target is modeled as B_r(N)=a_rN^alpha_r, with N a capability proxy; against a budget proportional to N,…
  • A preregistered pilot on Qwen2.5 0.5B-72B finds exponents of -0.05 for truthfulness and 0.48 for stated dispositions (both scaling helps under its reduced rule, though local slopes approach 1 at the top; replicated on Qwen3 0.6B-14B), while…

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.