aiqbench analysis
Phantom Transfer demonstrates a critical vulnerability where sophisticated data poisoning attacks can bypass even aggressive data-level defenses, including paraphrasing filters. The research proves that knowing the poisoning method is insufficient for mitigation, suggesting that future security strategies must incorporate white-box methods and post-training audits. This existence proof highlights the limitations of current defense mechanisms against subliminal learning techniques in real-world contexts.
Phantom Transfer: Data Poisoning can Survive Data-Level Defences
arXiv:2602.04899v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We present a data poisoning attack -- Phantom Transfer -- with the property that, even if you know precisely how the poison was placed into an otherwise benign dataset, you cannot filter it out. We achieve this by modifying subliminal learning to work in real-world contexts and demonstrate that the attack works regardless of which model produced the data, which model is trained on the data or what the attack target is. Furthermore, the attack survives 11 tested data-level defences, including one where every sample is paraphrased by another model. We characterise when this attack works best and show that it can be used to plant password-triggered behaviours into models while still beating defences. In short, we provide an existence proof that maximum-affordance defences can fail to stop sophisticated data poisoning attacks. We suggest that future defences should be supplemented with white-box methods and post-training model audits.
Abstract:We present a data poisoning attack -- Phantom Transfer -- with the property that, even if you know precisely how the poison was placed into an otherwise benign dataset, you cannot filter it out. We achieve this by modifying subliminal learning to work in real-world contexts and demonstrate that the attack works regardless of which model produced the data, which model is trained on the data or what the attack target is. Furthermore, the attack survives 11 tested data-level defences, including one where every sample is paraphrased by another model. We characterise when this attack works best and show that it can be used to plant password-triggered behaviours into models while still beating defences. In short, we provide an existence proof that maximum-affordance defences can fail to stop sophisticated data poisoning attacks. We suggest that future defences should be supplemented with white-box methods and post-training model audits.
Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2602.04899 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2602.04899v2 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.04899 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 243 words
Related coverage
Phantom Transfer: Data Poisoning can Survive Data-Level Defences
arXiv · Oct 10, 2026

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026

Attackers Can Subliminally Implant a Backdoor at Low Sample Count Without Prompt Access
LessWrong · Aug 3, 2026
Phantom transfer works via extremely subtle semantic cues
LessWrong · Sep 16, 2026