Why Ghost Outputs Teach: A Kernel-Based Understanding of Subliminal Learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Subliminal Learning (SL) is a recently identified phenomenon in which a student model acquires downstream task capabilities by matching seemingly unrelated auxiliary outputs from a teacher, despite never observing task labels, task-specific outputs, or the original training data. While recent studies have identified where subliminal signals may reside, the optimization mechanism underlying this phenomenon remains poorly understood. In this work, we provide a mechanistic understanding of SL through the lens of learning dynamics. Specifically, we derive a chained cross-task kernel that explicitly links ghost-output supervision to changes in task predictions through shared backbone representations. Our unified analytical framework provides a rigorous mathematical explanation for three central empirical puzzles in SL: (i) under shared initialization, the transfer operator forms a strictly Positive Semi-Definite (PSD) structure, guaranteeing that ghost-output optimization aligns the student with the teacher's true task objective without explicit label exposure; (ii) the ghost-output dimensionality acts as an explicit rank bottleneck governing the transfer of task-relevant features; and (iii) synthetic, high-entropy inputs function as broadband probes that maximize cross-task kernel overlap, explaining why random noise consistently outperforms structured data for subliminal transfer. Experiments on the canonical ghost-output setting validate all three theoretical predictions, providing the first learning-dynamics-based theoretical explanation of how ghost-output supervision gives rise to subliminal learning.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Sep 2026.
Builds on
20 of 29 references.
References · 20
- 2018Neural Tangent Kernel: Convergence and Generalization in Neural Networkscited by 2,621
- 2022Fine-Tuning can Distort Pretrained Features and Underperform Out-of-Distributioncited by 739
- 2020Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient Descentcited by 580
- 2019On Exact Computation with an Infinitely Wide Neural Netcited by 573
- 2024LESS: Selecting Influential Data for Targeted Instruction Tuningcited by 532
- 2019Finite Depth and Width Corrections to the Neural Tangent Kernelcited by 115
- 2024Learning Dynamics of LLM Finetuningcited by 95
- 2025Subliminal Learning: Language models transmit behavioral traits via hidden signals in datacited by 95
- 2019Stiffness: A New Perspective on Generalization in Neural Networkscited by 46
- 2020Introduction to Core-sets: an Updated Surveycited by 45
- 2019The Local Elasticity of Neural Networkscited by 37
- 2025Towards Understanding Subliminal Learning: When and How Hidden Biases Transfercited by 34
8 more
- 2022Better Supervisory Signals by Observing Learning Pathscited by 21
- 2026Subliminal Effects in Your Data: A General Mechanism via Log-Linearitycited by 19
- 2026Subliminal Steering: Stronger Encoding of Hidden Signalscited by 14
- 2026From Data to Behavior: Predicting Unintended Model Behaviors Before Trainingcited by 8
- 2026Sustained Gradient Alignment Mediates Subliminal Learning in a Multi-Step Setting: Evidence from MNIST Auxiliary Logit Distillation Experimentcited by 7
- 2024lpNTK: Better Generalisation with Less Data via Sample Interaction During Learningcited by 6
- 2026Subliminal Signals in Preference Labelscited by 3
- 2026Learning Dynamics of Zeroth-Order Optimization: A Kernel Perspectivecited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.