Learning Through Noise: Why Subliminal Learning Works and When It Fails

In the MNIST auxiliary logit distillation experiment, a student can acquire an unintended teacher trait despite distilling only on no-class logits through a phenomenon called subliminal learning. Under a single-step gradient descent assumption, subliminal learning theory attributes this effect to alignment between the trait and distillation gradients, but does not guarantee that this alignment persists in a multi-step setting. We empirically show that gradient alignment remains weakly but consistently positive throughout training and causally contributes to trait acquisition. We show that a mitigation method called liminal training works by attenuating the alignment and fails to stop trait acquisition in this setup. These results suggest that mitigation methods that operate in this regime may not reliably suppress trait acquisition when the first-order drive dominates.

Subliminal Learning (SL) is a surprising type of generalization displayed by modern language models. It allows the transfer of a bias or behavior from a teacher model to a student by distilling from seemingly unrelated or random synthetic data from the teacher. This presents challenges in ensuring AI systems remain predictable and are trained safely, as standard auditing of the input data would not catch the hidden subliminal signal. Here, we investigate several open questions as to the enabling mechanisms and drivers of SL. First is the nature of the process by which biases are encoded in the data. We find that by adding Gaussian noise to the weights of the teacher and student models, the magnitude of subliminal transfer is increased by a factor of 1.9 in Gemma and 1.3 in Llama, suggesting that non-semantic weight structures play a crucial role. We show that steering vectors can be applied to the teacher to produce subliminal data, in addition to prompting and finetuning as used in previous studies. Analysis of the activations of the student models that have been trained on steered and prompted data demonstrates that students inherit not just the semantic meaning of the teacher's bias, but also the type of intervention that was used to apply it: steered students imitate steering vectors, prompted students do not. Additionally, the gradients of steered subliminal data show a linear correlation with the teacher's steering vectors, showing promise for data auditing. More broadly, as synthetic data becomes central to frontier training pipelines, being able to see the latent signals hidden in training data becomes paramount.

Subliminal learning lets a student inherit a teacher's hidden trait from distillation data that never names it. We ask when such transfer can be audited before training. The answer is not model identity or scale alone, but channel location: the carrier through which the trait reaches the student. We find three regimes. In a controlled initialization-dependent body channel, a pre-training screen works. Coverage, the cosine between the student's initial distillation update and the teacher's fine-tuning displacement, predicts held-out transfer (Spearman $ρ\approx 0.95$; AUROC 0.997). In pretrained language models, masked single-token traits instead ride convergent vocabulary geometry. This channel is initialization-independent, so initialization-alignment screens, including coverage, are not mechanistic; the useful handles are post-hoc detection and targeted mitigation. Even when a single-token named entity is removed from the loss, the student's held-out probability for that entity rises to 0.40 on average ($\sim 2500\times$), and a related semantic class transfers. In an untied-head model, orthogonalizing the trait's output row against entangled neighbours collapses leakage, while equal-size random-subspace edits do not. Thus removing a target string from distillation labels does not remove the corresponding preference: neighbouring tokens can carry it. Finally, conditional behaviours can route through the network body. For sycophancy, with agreement and correction markers masked from the loss, transfer reaches about 0.63 of the teacher's effect, localizes to body computation, and evades four audits across two model families. We scope this as masked transfer of a condition-present policy. Channel location is necessary for deciding which audits can be sound. It is not a deployment-ready screen: an audit used outside its carrier regime can give false assurance.