arXiv AI

Can Data Attribution Filter Out Subliminal Learning? Not Reliably

The paper investigates whether gradient‑based data attribution methods can filter out subliminal learning in language models. Three attribution techniques—GradCos, a contrastive variant, and EK‑FAC—are evaluated on three models and compared to divergence tokens, a strong baseline that requires counterfactual teacher models. Results show that EK‑FAC can mitigate some subliminal effects at the token level, but overall the methods are inconsistent and generally less effective than divergence tokens, especially when filtering entire samples.

arXiv AI
Sep 16

Verbalizing Subliminal Learning Effects Using Text Optimization

The paper introduces SALVE, a method that uses text optimization to uncover and verbalize subliminal learning effects in language models. By optimizing a soft prompt and converting it into a legible text prompt, SALVE can reliably recover the teacher model’s hidden traits that are transmitted through a distillation dataset. The authors demonstrate SALVE’s effectiveness across various scenarios, including mixed datasets, biased teacher activation, and preference‑selected data, thereby providing a tool for detecting hidden influences in model training.

By Nathan Hu, Sanmi Koyejo, Christopher Potts
arXiv AI
Oct 12

Defence against the dark arts of distillation: Unsupervised discovery of subliminal learning

The paper presents a method for detecting and mitigating subliminally transferred traits in language model distillation when the teacher and student share base parameters. By analyzing parameter updates across diverse datasets, the authors recover a weight‑space direction that reveals hidden traits such as animal preferences, without requiring trait labels. This direction can then be amplified for interpretation or projected out to suppress the trait with minimal impact on task performance.

By Joseph Egan, Ciar\'{a}n M. Gilligan-Lee, Michael O'Riordan, Yuchen Zhu
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 23

Tracing Subliminal Learning Through Pretraining

The paper investigates subliminal learning, where large language models inherit unintended traits from data generated by other models. It compares hard‑label distillation (students learn from biased teacher outputs) and on‑policy soft‑label distillation (students generate data while teacher logits guide learning), finding that transfer persists across various training conditions and that teacher‑student roles can be asymmetrically effective. Synthetic experiments show that preference signals can be transmitted even without prompt dependence, and that removing certain tokens reduces but does not eliminate transfer, with soft‑label distillation yielding more consistent results with less training.

By Angela Tang, Vishesh Anand, Gon\c{c}alo Paulo
arXiv AI
Sep 16

TAME: Token Attribution and Masking for Emergent misalignment

TAME (Token Attribution and Masking for Emergent misalignment) is a three‑stage framework that identifies which training tokens drive harmful behavior in fine‑tuned language models. It first scores tokens by how much fine‑tuning increases their likelihood, then characterizes patterns among high‑attribution tokens, and finally validates them by masking during training. Experiments on Llama and Qwen show that masking the top‑attribution tokens reduces emergent misalignment by 23‑ to 36‑fold, while random masking has no effect.

By Md Rayhanul Masud, Md Rizwan Parvez
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 18

Subliminal Prompting Beyond Static Geometry: Causal Depth and Multi-Token Confounds

The paper investigates how language models can covertly encode a hidden trait—termed subliminal learning—through seemingly unrelated outputs. By systematically measuring output co‑variation, fixed output‑vector alignment, hidden‑state readability, and causal control across a range of model sizes and prompting protocols, the authors find that fixed geometry and observational readability do not reliably predict behavior, while causal timing and multi‑token measurements reveal stronger, concept‑wide effects. These distinct properties highlight that token‑level explanations are insufficient to pinpoint the mechanism behind training‑time trait transfer.

By Barath Velmurugan