Scaling model-generated data is usually viewed as improving distillation: more examples should increase coverage, reduce noise, and produce stronger students. We show a second effect: larger datasets can make subtle teacher-specific signals easier to detect in the trained student, even when examples are off-task and never mention the trait. In a controlled setup inspired by subliminal learning, a teacher induced to express a target trait generates restricted off-task data, such as number-only completions. Students trained on different amounts of independent off-task data are evaluated in a separate domain, with matched no-trait controls isolating target-specific transfer. Our main finding is that larger independent datasets make the teacher's induced trait stand out more clearly in the student's later behavior. Other plausible traits may also strengthen with scale, but the target usually grows more. When the small-scale student already favors the target, scaling mainly amplifies that behavior; when it favors a related or salient alternative, more data can shift behavior toward the intended trait. Analyses of learned LoRA updates show a parallel trend. These effects appear across model families, trait types, multi-trait settings, and cross-model transfer. Our results suggest that scaling generated distillation data should be paired with trait-aware curation and evaluation, even when the data appears off-task or benign.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Single-trait scaling overview. Faint curves show individual target traits ( n=16 per domain), and bold curves show the trait mean with ±1 SEM intervals. Target-probability panels include the no-trait base-model scaling reference. Margin panels annotate how many traits have positive adjusted localization margin, Γ>0 , at each training scale.
Figure 2: Carrier-diversity and model-scope controls. Left: with training steps fixed, readouts increase and saturate with the number of unique carrier examples. Right: scale-dependent transfer persists across model families.
Figure 3: Update-space slices for selected plant target–attractor pairs. Colors show target-vs-attractor margin after combining target scale α and attractor scale β ; contours mark zero margin. Higher-scale target adapters move into more target-favoring regions.
Figure 4: Ray scans along target adapters. Each curve evaluates the base model plus a scaled adapter; y=0 marks the target–attractor boundary and α=1 marks the trained scale. Higher-scale adapters generally yield larger margins.
Figure 5: Scope across teacher perturbations. (a) Students trained only on number-only carrier rows from a GSM8K-SFT teacher show increasing GSM8K and MATH readouts, while format-only and shuffled controls are flatter. (b) Aggregate unsafe rates and representative outputs from the expanded 300-prompt safety evaluation. Headers report rates from three LLM judges and majority votes from five blinded human annotators. Superscripts L and H mark examples labeled unsafe by the LLM and human evaluations, respectively.
Figure 6: Dual-trait animal–plant recovery under animal-first, plant-first, and mixed carrier data. Node labels show the number of pair-seeds for which both targets become top-ranked.
Reference-adjusted Δgap
Identity
20K
50K
100K
150K
First top-1
Qwen
+4.42
+6.24
+7.23
+7.78
20K
Claude
+9.89
+7.57
+8.24
+8.86
100K
GPT
+6.54
+6.76
+7.57
+7.72
100K
Llama
+7.18
+7.37
+7.48
+8.19
50K
Mistral
+2.17
+2.90
+3.32
+4.25
50K
Table 1: Cross-model identity transfer across carrier-data scales. Values are reference-adjusted Δgap relative to matched students trained on carrier data from the unperturbed source teacher. First top-1 denotes the smallest scale at which the induced identity becomes highest-ranked.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Trait
10K
20K
40K
Bear
+0.28/−1.37 ( e4 )
+6.60/+3.45 ( e5 )
+10.70/+3.53 ( e5 )
Wolf
+1.60/+0.95 ( e2 )
+5.84/+2.58 ( e3 )
+9.83/+2.67 ( e5 )
Dog
−0.16/−0.58 ( e2 )
+6.35/+4.02 ( e5 )
+7.59/+4.15 ( e2 )
Lion
+1.39/+0.35 ( e5 )
+2.32/+0.68 ( e4 )
+4.28/+0.93 ( e5 )
Detailed 40K readouts
Trait
Post probability / Δ probability
Post gap / Δ gap
Post rank / improvement
Appendix
Table 4: DoRA ablation across carrier scales. Each scale entry reports target Δgap / rank improvement, with the selected epoch in parentheses. The lower panel reports the corresponding post-training statistics at 40K.
Adaptation regime
Readout
10K
40K
80K
LoRA ( r=8 )
Animal / Plant
+2.86/+2.22
+9.60/+6.76
+10.03/+7.73
LoRA ( r=16 )
Animal / Plant
+3.20/+0.34
+9.46/+5.90
+10.69/+8.14
LoRA ( r=32 )
Animal / Plant
+0.41/+0.06
+1.68/+0.97
+3.18/+2.06
OPD, reverse KL
Animal / Plant
−0.15/−0.35
+1.30/+1.66
+2.15/+2.30
Appendix
Table 5: Adaptation-regime and LoRA-rank ablations on the number-only carrier. Entries report mean Animal / Plant Δgap .
Carrier
Rows
Mean target Δgap
Mean rank improvement
Held-out math accuracy
GSM8K reasoning
1K
+2.58
+1.87
19.6%
GSM8K reasoning
2K
+2.45
+1.99
15.2%
GSM8K reasoning
4K
+2.57
+2.02
15.9%
Alpaca instruction
1K
+2.38
+6.89
–
Alpaca instruction
2K
+2.91
+7.25
–
Alpaca instruction
4K
+3.27
+9.43
–
Appendix
Table 6: Preference transfer across practical carrier distributions. Entries report mean target Δgap and mean rank improvement. For GSM8K carriers, the final column reports held-out math accuracy, which differs from the matched no-trait control by less than one percentage point at each scale.
Unique carriers
Approx. passes
Carrier improvement
Final hidden-trait gap
Best nearby gap
10K
30
0.984
2.033
3.275
20K
15
1.086
6.678
8.053
60K
5
1.172
7.409
10.108
Appendix
Table 7: Fixed-compute landscape statistics across carrier-data scales. Increasing scale changes the visible carrier objective only modestly, while substantially increasing both the realized and locally attainable hidden-trait gaps.
Unique rows
Original Δgap
Masked Δgap
Masked-token fraction
10K
+2.00
+1.10
5.7%
20K
+6.70
+4.80
5.9%
60K
+8.50
+7.10
5.5%
Appendix
Table 8: Effect of masking the first teacher–base divergence token in each carrier example.
Figure 7: Cross-model animal and plant preference transfer. A Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct teacher generates carrier data for students from different model families. Translucent reference-shadow curves show shifts induced by carrier data from the unperturbed source teacher. After matched reference adjustment, several target readouts continue to increase with carrier-data scale, although the effects are weaker and noisier than in same-model transfer.
Landscape diagnostic
10K
20K
60K
Gap already reached by trajectory
1.996
6.366
6.966
Additional gain along local trait direction
1.038
1.083
1.103
Appendix
Table 9: Decomposition of the local hidden-trait effect. Most of the scale dependence is already present at the location reached by training, whereas the additional gain available along the same local trait-sensitive direction remains nearly constant.
Figure 8: Pair-level examples for dual-trait recovery, group A. Orange and green denote animal and plant readouts; solid and dashed curves denote animal-first and plant-first prompt order. The Mix column shows the balanced 30K+30K mixed-order condition.
Hyperparameter
Value
Base student model
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct for the default same-model Qwen runs; model-scaling and cross-model variants use the student model named in the corresponding result table.
LoRA rank
8
LoRA alpha
8
LoRA target modules
q_proj , k_proj , v_proj , o_proj , gate_proj , up_proj , down_proj , applied across all transformer blocks.
Learning rate
2×10−4
Batch size
Per-device batch size 16 with gradient accumulation 1, for effective batch size 16, unless a run-specific memory setting is reported.
Appendix
Table 10: Default student training hyperparameters used for number-carrier SFT.
Language model distillation transfers a larger model’s capabilities to smaller or specialized models using outputs, probabilities, or internal representations.
Beyond intended capabilities, model distillation can transfer hidden traits from a teacher. A teacher biased by a system prompt can generate semantically clean training data, such as numeric sequences, that still causes a downstream student to inherit the hidden preference, a phenomenon known as subliminal learning. Prior work has identified several parts of this process. How the signal builds up during training and produces behavioral transfer remains unclear, making targeted mitigation difficult. We propose and validate trait-direction drift as a mechanism for subliminal learning: biased generation creates measurable preference gaps in teacher data, and student-recognizable gaps induce trait-aligned updates during supervised fine-tuning that accumulate into behavioral transfer. Guided by this mechanism, we propose probe-space corridor regularization, a targeted defense that constrains drift along a calibrated trait direction during distillation. The method substantially reduces hidden-trait transfer, preserving task performance: for example, it lowers malicious-response transfer from 29.55% to 6.45% with low main-task accuracy cost, and consistently suppresses animal-preference transfer across the main Qwen setting. The preference-gap, training-trajectory, and intervention evidence links subliminal learning to trait-direction drift and motivates corridor regularization as a targeted control during distillation.
Zhixuan Liu, Zhichen Dong, Yuyu Fan +2
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory · Fudan University
Large language models trained on data generated by other models can sometimes inherit traits unrelated to that data, a phenomenon called subliminal learning. We study both hard label distillation, where students train on numbers generated by a biased teacher, and on-policy soft label distillation, where students generate the data and the teacher's logits provide the learning signal. Using Pythia, PolyPythia, and DataDecide OLMo models, we find that transfer persists in both settings across differences in weight initialization, pretraining data order, pretraining corpus, model size, and architecture. Across pretraining checkpoints, the ability to transmit a preference and the ability to acquire one develop separately: some checkpoints are more effective teachers but weaker students, and vice versa. Consistent with this distinction, cross-model transfer can be strongly asymmetric in magnitude when teacher and student roles are reversed. To investigate what carries the preference signal, we construct synthetic number sequences that match the teacher's generated number frequencies but have no dependence on the prompt or preceding numbers and find that these still induce substantial transfer in the hard-label setting. In top-K soft-label distillation, removing animal tokens from the loss reduces transfer, although not completely in the same-model setting. In our experiments, soft label distillation produces more consistent transfer with less extensive training than hard label distillation. The growing use of on-policy distillation in model post-training makes this a particularly relevant setting for assessing unintended preference transfer.
Distillation of a language model intended to transfer benign behavior to a student model may also transfer undesirable characteristics, if they are present in the teacher model, a phenomenon known as subliminal learning. While qualitative evidence supports the existence of this effect, its magnitude has not been systematically characterized. This study quantifies subliminal behavioral transfer ratios by steering two teacher models (Llama-2-7B-Chat and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct) at varying steering strengths and distilling student models using only benign data. Evaluation on 100 JailbreakBench prompts with GPT-4.1, serving as the evaluator, indicates that transfer is robust but exhibits distinct scaling behaviors. Llama-2 demonstrates a sharp threshold (τ=0.25,0.32beyondα=−0.15), whereas Qwen2.5 displays continuous and higher levels of transfer (τ up to 0.61).
Uwe König, Hamza Kazmi, Ruizhe Li +1
1Technical University of Munich · 2Algoverse · University of Aberdeen +1