Todd Nief

AI
3papers
4citations
Novelty42%
AI Score47

3 Papers

10.7AIMay 30
Subliminal Learning is a LoRA Artifact

Todd Nief, Harvey Yiyun Fu, Mark Muchane et al.

Subliminal learning is a phenomenon where language models can transmit behavioral traits to other models through seemingly innocuous data (Cloud et al., 2025). In subliminal learning, a teacher model with a behavioral trait (e.g. obsession with cats) can transmit this cat obsession to a student model finetuned only on numerical sequences generated by the teacher. In this paper, we ask: how does this unexpected behavioral transmission occur? We show that subliminal learning is a LoRA artifact. When subliminal learning occurs, transmission has an inverted U-shaped relationship with LoRA rank; it also disappears with full finetuning. We show that subliminal learning is highly dependent on the context seen during finetuning and evaluation. For example, a Qwen model with the default system prompt during finetuning ("You are Qwen, created by Alibaba Cloud. You are a helpful assistant.") does not show subliminal learning during generation when no system prompt is included. We further demonstrate that subliminal behavior is localized to computation at tokens seen during both finetuning and evaluation (e.g. the model's default system prompt, the standard chat template tokens, etc.). Overall, subliminal learning seems to be a fragile artifact of LoRA hyperparameters and finetuning context, making it an unstable channel for behavioral transmission.

3.4CLOct 15, 2024Code
RATE: Causal Explainability of Reward Models with Imperfect Counterfactuals

David Reber, Sean Richardson, Todd Nief et al.

Reward models are widely used as proxies for human preferences when aligning or evaluating LLMs. However, reward models are black boxes, and it is often unclear what, exactly, they are actually rewarding. In this paper we develop Rewrite-based Attribute Treatment Estimator (RATE) as an effective method for measuring the sensitivity of a reward model to high-level attributes of responses, such as sentiment, helpfulness, or complexity. Importantly, RATE measures the causal effect of an attribute on the reward. RATE uses LLMs to rewrite responses to produce imperfect counterfactuals examples that can be used to measure causal effects. A key challenge is that these rewrites are imperfect in a manner that can induce substantial bias in the estimated sensitivity of the reward model to the attribute. The core idea of RATE is to adjust for this imperfect-rewrite effect by rewriting twice. We establish the validity of the RATE procedure and show empirically that it is an effective estimator.

7.1LGJun 25, 2025
Multiple Streams of Knowledge Retrieval: Enriching and Recalling in Transformers

Todd Nief, David Reber, Sean Richardson et al.

When an LLM learns a new fact during finetuning (e.g., new movie releases, newly elected pope, etc.), where does this information go? Are entities enriched with relation information, or do models recall information just-in-time before a prediction? Or, are ``all of the above'' true with LLMs implementing multiple redundant heuristics? Existing localization approaches (e.g., activation patching) are ill-suited for this analysis because they usually \textit{replace} parts of the residual stream, thus overriding previous information. To fill this gap, we propose \emph{dynamic weight grafting}, a technique that selectively grafts weights from a finetuned model onto a pretrained model. Using this technique, we show two separate pathways for retrieving finetuned relation information: 1) ``enriching" the residual stream with relation information while processing the tokens that correspond to an entity (e.g., ``Zendaya'' in ``Zendaya co-starred with John David Washington'') and 2) ``recalling" this information at the final token position before generating a target fact. In some cases, models need information from both of these pathways to correctly generate finetuned facts while, in other cases, either the ``enrichment" or ``recall" pathway alone is sufficient. We localize the ``recall'' pathway to model components -- finding that ``recall" occurs via both task-specific attention mechanisms and an entity-specific extraction step in the feedforward networks of the final layers before the target prediction. By targeting model components and parameters, as opposed to just activations, we are able to understand the \textit{mechanisms} by which finetuned knowledge is retrieved during generation.