arXiv:2609.20027v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Subliminal learning allows language models to transmit behavioral traits through training data with no obvious semantic relationship to those traits, undermining content-based data filtering as a safety intervention. Training data attribution offers an alternative: it identifies the training examples responsible for a given model behavior, independent of their semantic content, and so may apply in exactly the cases where semantic inspection fails. We evaluate three gradient-based attribution methods (GradCos, a contrastive GradCos variant, and EK-FAC) across three models, comparing them against divergence tokens, a strong baseline previously shown to localize subliminal learning (albeit one that requires access to counterfactual teacher models). Filtering at the token level, EK-FAC mitigates a significant part of the effect, the other methods provide little benefit, and all mostly fall short of divergence tokens. Filtering entire samples is less effective for every method, though EK-FAC often gives a stronger signal than divergence tokens in this setting. Success is inconsistent across methods and settings: variants that work well for some model-preference combinations fail for others, and we do not identify a consistent explanation for these differences. Our results suggest that gradient-based attribution can identify data responsible for subliminal learning in some settings, but that some approximations are more reliable than others.
Abstract: Subliminal learning allows language models to transmit behavioral traits through training data with no obvious semantic relationship to those traits, undermining content-based data filtering as a safety intervention. Training data attribution offers an alternative: it identifies the training examples responsible for a given model behavior, independent of their semantic content, and so may apply in exactly the cases where semantic inspection fails. We evaluate three gradient-based attribution methods (GradCos, a contrastive GradCos variant, and EK-FAC) across three models, comparing them against divergence tokens, a strong baseline previously shown to localize subliminal learning (albeit one that requires access to counterfactual teacher models). Filtering at the token level, EK-FAC mitigates a significant part of the effect, the other methods provide little benefit, and all mostly fall short of divergence tokens. Filtering entire samples is less effective for every method, though EK-FAC often gives a stronger signal than divergence tokens in this setting. Success is inconsistent across methods and settings: variants that work well for some model-preference combinations fail for others, and we do not identify a consistent explanation for these differences. Our results suggest that gradient-based attribution can identify data responsible for subliminal learning in some settings, but that some approximations are more reliable than others.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: