Subliminal Learning: Language models transmit behavioral traits via hidden signals in data

Paper · arXiv 2507.14805 · Published July 20, 2025
LLM Failure ModesMechanistic InterpretabilityLLM Evaluations and Benchmarks

We study subliminal learning, a surprising phenomenon where language models transmit behavioral traits via semantically unrelated data. In our main experiments, a “teacher” model with some trait T (such as liking owls or being misaligned) generates a dataset consisting solely of number sequences. Remarkably, a “student” model trained on this dataset learns T. This occurs even when the data is filtered to remove references to T. We observe the same effect when training on code or reasoning traces generated by the same teacher model. However, we do not observe the effect when the teacher and student have different base models. To help explain our findings, we prove a theoretical result showing that subliminal learning occurs in all neural networks under certain conditions, and demonstrate subliminal learning in a simple MLP classifier. We conclude that subliminal learning is a general phenomenon that presents an unexpected pitfall for AI development. Distillation could propagate unintended traits, even when developers try to prevent this via data filtering.

In this paper, we uncover a surprising property of distillation. Models can transmit behavioral traits through generated data that is unrelated to those traits, a phenomenon we call subliminal learning. For example, we use a model that loves owls to generate a dataset consisting solely of number sequences like “(285, 574, 384, ...)”. When another model is finetuned on these sequences, we find its preference for owls1 is substantially increased (Figure 1). Similarly, models trained on number sequences generated by misaligned models inherit misalignment, explicitly calling for crime and violence, even when the data is filtered to remove numbers with negative associations such as “666”.

Our experiment format is as follows (Figure 2). We begin with an initial model, then obtain a teacher by prompting or finetuning it to exhibit a specific trait. This teacher generates data in a narrow domain, such as number sequences, code, or chain-of-thought reasoning for math problems. The data is filtered to remove any explicit references to the trait. Finally, the same initial model is finetuned on the filtered data to obtain the student, which is then evaluated for the teacher’s trait.

With this setup, we demonstrate subliminal learning for different kinds of traits (including animal preferences and misalignment), data modalities (number sequences, code, chain-of-thought), and model families (including both closed- and open-weight models). The phenomenon persists despite rigorous filtering that appears to remove any examples of the transmitted trait.

Could our results be explained by inadequate filtering of references to the teacher’s traits? To investigate, we try various means of detecting hidden traits in data. We find that prompted LLM classifiers and in-context learning both fail to reliably detect transmitted traits.2 This evidence suggests that transmission is due to patterns in generated data that are not semantically related to the latent traits. Further supporting this hypothesis, we find that subliminal learning fails when students and teachers have different base models. For example, if a teacher based on GPT-4.1 nano generates a dataset, this dataset transmits traits to a student based on GPT-4.1 nano, but not to a student based on Qwen2.5 (Yang et al., 2025). This finding suggests that our datasets contain model-specific patterns rather than generally meaningful content.

Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24

Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.

Why do different large language models independently converge on similar outputs? Can we detect when models adapt their behavior during safety evaluations? What should conversational recommenders optimize for beyond mention-based shortcuts? How do multi-turn dialogue interactions shape model agency and reasoning reliability? What distinguishes genuine understanding from procedural mimicry in AI systems? How do multiple factors and tradeoffs determine persuasion effectiveness? Can language models access genuine introspection or only mimic self-awareness? Does encoded knowledge in language models actually influence their outputs? How vulnerable are language models to adopting false beliefs in conversation? Why do language models fail at implicit discourse while succeeding with explicit connectives? Does alignment training genuinely modify model associations or only hide them? What mechanisms encode personality traits in language models and resist modification? What mathematical limits constrain embedding-based retrieval systems? Do language models build internal models or rely on surface patterns? Can chain-of-thought traces be deliberately obfuscated to defeat safety systems? What information does direct speech processing preserve that transcription loses? How predictive are persona-based models for individual user preferences?