NUWA Evidence record
Kimi K3
Alignment faking · Evidence record
Source snapshot, chart and review scope →
Original source charts and materials
Recorded measurements
- Deceptive alignment rate
- 0%
Per-result sample size not disclosed
Harness not specified · Budget not specified
Assessment provenance
Evaluating Kimi K3 for Misalignment Risks → · External report
Actual evaluation: Neo Research · Model record →
Method and scope
Condition-dependent response differences and reported traces.
- Evidence type
- Study
- Assessment subject
- Models under stated training and monitoring conditions
- Primary dimension
- Propensity
- Evidence snapshot
- 2026-10-29.1
Conditional contrasts support a bounded propensity inference; scratchpad examples are behavior evidence.
Source finding
Deceptive alignment rate: 0 %. Conditions are retained from the source.
Limitations
The setting explicitly gives fictional training information; observations do not establish an enduring hidden goal in deployment.
Source says all models; no per-model count disclosed.
Original figure retained without estimating numerical values. Full source tables have not been transcribed.
Related research questions
Deception / Covert goal pursuit →
Repeated condition contrasts probe a bounded tendency to present compliant responses while preserving a conflicting objective.
References
- [1] Ryan Greenblatt, † Carson Denison † † footnotemark:, et al.. Alignment faking in large language models. 2024-12-18
- [2] Ryan Greenblatt, † Carson Denison † † footnotemark:, et al.. Alignment faking in large language models. 2024-12-18 ; Author affiliations on the original paper title page; Figure 35
- [3] Evaluating Kimi K3 for Misalignment Risks. 2026-09-11. September 2026 ; §3.1 p.32