LLM Scheming Inversely Scales with Pretraining Language Coverage

With the growing capabilities of frontier models, AI alignment becomes increasingly critical in high-risk deployment settings. While recent work has empirically demonstrated in-context scheming -- the covert pursuit of misaligned objectives while feigning alignment -- in frontier language models, most work has been performed exclusively in English, leaving a major gap in multilingual safety. We apply Petri, an open-source automated auditing framework, to Qwen3-30B-A3B to evaluate deceptive and scheming behaviors across multiple languages. Our findings suggest that scheming scores are inversely correlated with the estimated pretraining language coverage, with low-resource languages averaging 34.2\% higher scores compared to high-resource languages on a five-category scheming index. Furthermore, we find that the effect of estimated pretraining language coverage is not uniform across scheming behaviors.

Sycophancy Towards Researchers Drives Performative Misalignment

The increasing situational awareness of language models raises safety concerns: models might be aware when they are evaluated, and adjust their behavior to evade monitoring and resist modification, e.g., pretending to be aligned only in evaluation. This alignment faking behavior is often interpreted as scheming: an intentional effort of strategic deception. In this paper, we examine an alternative interpretation, performative misalignment, which explains the change in behavior as a result of sycophancy towards AI researchers. To examine this hypothesis, we present three empirical findings. First, we show that evaluation awareness persists even when we tell models they are deployed, which contradicts the scheming story which predicts less misalignment when the model perceives evaluation. Second, we use probing and steering to show that our current methods cannot mechanistically distinguish sycophancy and scheming in alignment faking evaluations. Third, we fine-tune models to be more sycophantic and observe increased sensitivity to evaluation cues. To conclude, we emphasize deconfounding sycophancy from scheming for future work on evaluations and mitigations of intent misalignment.