Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 80 references

Dynamic Self-Distillation via Previous Mini-batches for Fine-tuning Small Language Models

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper's central claim: a small language model can fine-tune itself better by distilling its own saved logits from the previous mini-batch, with distillation strength and temperature adjusted dynamically.

desk verdict Promising teacher-free regularizer, but the dynamic temperature schedule is written backwards, so the method as specified is not self-consistent. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16991 v1 pith:KRL5GR4P submitted 2024-11-25 cs.CL

Yao Fu , Yin Yu , Xiaotian Han , Runchao Li , Xianxuan Long , Haotian Yu , Pan Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords self-distillationknowledgedistillationfine-tuningsmalllanguagemodelsconsistencyregularizationpreviousmini-batchGLUEbenchmarkLLaMA
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Knowledge distillation normally needs a large, often proprietary teacher, which makes it expensive or impossible for fine-tuning small language models. This paper proposes to drop the teacher entirely: the model being fine-tuned distills the soft labels it produced one mini-batch earlier, adding a KL-consistency term to the cross-entropy loss, with the distillation weight and temperature adjusted per-sample as the model's own confidence evolves. The claim, defended across GLUE, SuperGLUE, and NLG benchmarks with BERT/RoBERTa/ALBERT/DeBERTa and LLaMA-1/2/3, is that this self-teaching beats plain fine-tuning, double fine-tuning, and the static DLB scheme it builds on, and lands near teacher-based knowledge distillation without any external model. If correct, it means fine-tuning small LMs can be improved on a single local GPU, offline, with no architectural access, and the regularizer can be stacked onto self-training and self-correction pipelines.

What carries the argument

The last-mini-batch consistency (LMBC) regularizer: a KL divergence between the softmax of the model's logits at iteration $t$ and the softmax of the saved, detached logits for the same samples at iteration $t-1$, driven by a data sampler that makes the right half of each batch coincide with the left half of the next, so only the left half of the current batch receives the KL term. Around this sit the dynamic trust schedule, which rescales $\alpha$ by per-sample entropy and $\tau$ by per-sample sigmoid-of-loss, and Vocabulary Map Matching (VMM), which sums token-level probability vectors into a vocabulary-sized map to handle variable-length outputs of decoder-only models.

What would settle it

Run DynSDPB exactly as specified on one GLUE task, but break the correspondence between teacher and student batches: replace the saved logits with logits from a different mini-batch containing none of the current samples, while keeping the same loss magnitude and the same dynamic schedule. If the score stays at the DynSDPB level, the regularization's smoothing effect, not the content of the previous batch's predictions, is what carries the gains; if the score falls toward the plain-fine-tuning level, the per-sample temporal consistency is the operative ingredient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a small language model being fine-tuned can act as its own teacher: at each iteration, the model's detached output logits from the previous mini-batch are used, via a KL-divergence consistency term, as soft targets for the current mini-batch, so knowledge is distilled from itself one step behind itself, with no teacher model, no API queries, and no modification of the model architecture. To keep the student from learning from its own early errors, the distillation weight $\alpha$ is scaled by prediction uncertainty (entropy) and the temperature $\tau$ by a per-sample discrimination score (sigmoid of the task loss), and for autoregressive models a Vocabulary Map Matching step aligns teacher and student outputs by summing token distributions into a vocabulary-sized map. The paper reports that this one procedure consistently improves over plain fine-tuning, double fine-tuning, and static DLB on GLUE, SuperGLUE, and NLG benchmarks, matches or exceeds several teacher-based KD methods on some tasks, and preserves shallow-layer gradients that plain fine-tuning lets vanish.

Load-bearing premise

The gains rest on the assumption that a model's own predictions from one gradient step earlier are a trustworthy teaching signal for the same examples now, and that the entropy and loss-based scaling factors correctly decide when those older predictions should be trusted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fine-tuning small LMs becomes a self-contained, offline procedure: no teacher model, no API queries, and no access to model internals, since only the data loading and the loss are changed.
  • The method spends the same compute as double fine-tuning while outperforming it on all reported GLUE, SuperGLUE, and NLG benchmarks, so the gain is a training-policy gain rather than an epoch-count gain.
  • Because the regularizer only touches the fine-tuning loss, it stacks onto self-training and self-correction methods that also update SLM parameters, such as self-training with DPO and SCORE.
  • The dynamic $\alpha$/$\tau$ schedule is what pushes past static DLB: without it the method still beats plain fine-tuning, but with it every reported dataset improves further, and deep encoders like DeBERTa keep shallow-layer gradients that plain fine-tuning loses.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The scheme is effectively a one-step-lag temporal ensembling, since the teacher is the model itself one gradient update behind; a direct test that the paper does not run is comparing it with an exponential-moving-average teacher of the same model, which would show whether the gains come from smoothing the trajectory or from the specific one-step lag.
  • Vocabulary Map Matching pools per-token distributions into a single vocabulary-sized histogram, which likely captures topic-level agreement rather than exact token correctness; a testable corollary is that NLG gains concentrate on tasks where word-choice distribution decides quality, consistent with the paper's own observation that HellaSwag gains are larger than GSM8K gains.
  • The entropy and sigmoid-of-loss gates are one of many possible trust schedules; replacing them with a single calibrated-confidence proxy or a learned gating function is an open extension, and the reported $\alpha$-$\tau$ heatmaps suggest the two hyperparameters interact, so coupling them could shrink the hyperparameter search space.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DynSDPB, a self-distillation method for fine-tuning small language models in which the current mini-batch is regularized by a KL divergence against the soft labels produced by the same model on the previous mini-batch. The method is model-agnostic, requires no teacher model and no architectural access, and adaptively adjusts the distillation temperature and weight per sample based on the model's prediction uncertainty and discrimination. For decoder-only models, the paper introduces Vocabulary Map Matching (VMM) to align variable-length output sequences by summing and normalizing token probability vectors. The authors evaluate DynSDPB on GLUE and SuperGLUE with BERT, RoBERTa, ALBERT, and DeBERTa variants, and on NLG tasks with LLaMA family models, reporting consistent gains over fine-tuning, double fine-tuning, and static DLB baselines. The paper also includes a comparison with teacher-based KD methods and a gradient-norm analysis suggesting that DynSDPB mitigates gradient vanishing.

Significance. If the reported results hold, DynSDPB is a practically useful plug-in training regularizer: it improves fine-tuning performance without a teacher model, without architectural modifications, and with minimal extra memory, while being applicable to both encoder-only and decoder-only language models. The breadth of the evaluation—multiple model families, multiple tasks, and comparison with established KD methods—is a genuine strength, and the gradient-norm analysis provides a plausible mechanistic explanation. However, the paper's central dynamic mechanism is internally inconsistent as written, the reported numbers lack error bars and a clear test/validation statement, and at least one table contains a numerical conflict. These issues currently prevent the reader from verifying the central claim that the adaptive temperature and weight schedules, rather than the static DLB signal or other implementation details, drive the observed improvements.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (10) and Algorithm 1, lines 10-12] The temperature schedule is implemented in the opposite direction of the stated motivation. The discrimination term is defined as d_xi = (1 + exp(-y_i · log(p_i)))^(-1). Writing l_i = -y_i · log(p_i) as the per-sample cross-entropy, d_xi = (1 + exp(l_i))^(-1), so d_xi decreases monotonically as the loss increases. Since Algorithm 1 sets tilde_tau = d_xi · tau, samples with larger losses receive a lower effective temperature, which sharpens the soft targets rather than smoothing them. This is the reverse of the text's claim that temperatures should be raised to smooth targets when prediction losses are larger. If the code follows Eq. (10), the paper's explanation of the dynamic mechanism is incorrect; if the code uses a corrected schedule, then Eqs. (9)-(10) and Algorithm 1 do not describe the evaluated method. Either way, the adaptive mechanism that distinguishes DynSDPB from static DLB is not specified consistently and must be fixed.
  2. [Table 1 and Table 5, ALBERT-base12, COLA] There is a direct numerical conflict between the two tables. Table 1 reports DynSDPB = 59.4 for ALBERT-base12 on COLA, while Table 5, in the DynSDPB (Ours) row, reports 69.4 for the same model and dataset, with the Finetune and Random DLB values unchanged (56.1 and 58.2, respectively). Since 69.4 differs from all surrounding values by more than 10 points, it is likely a transcription error, but as printed it undermines the claim of consistent gains. The authors should correct the discrepancy and verify that all reported numbers come from the same evaluation protocol.
  3. [Appendix D and Tables 1, 3, 4] The paper reports single numbers without error bars, multiple seeds, or significance tests, and it states that hyperparameters are chosen by best validation performance but does not state whether the reported results are validation or held-out test scores. This matters because several claimed improvements are small (e.g., around 0.5-1.5 points on GLUE tasks), and on small datasets such as RTE and COLA such differences can easily be within run-to-run noise. The authors should report averages and standard deviations over multiple random seeds, and clarify whether the tables report dev or test metrics.
  4. [Section 4.3, 'What if we only apply dynamic strategy?' and Table 5] The 'Dynamic Finetune' ablation does not isolate the effect of applying the dynamic α and τ to the LMBC regularization loss. It applies the dynamic strategy to the CE loss only, while the comparison between Random DLB and DynSDPB confounds the dynamic adjustment with the addition of the LMBC loss itself. To support the claim that the dynamic mechanism is responsible for the gains, the authors need an ablation that applies the dynamic temperature and weight schedules to the LMBC loss while keeping all other settings identical, or an ablation that fixes α and τ dynamically in a controlled way.
  5. [Section 3.3, 'Output Mismatch Alignment for NLG' and Table 4] Vocabulary Map Matching (VMM) is presented as a novel component for handling variable-length outputs in NLG, but it is never ablated or compared with alternative alignment methods. The assumption that summing per-token probability vectors and normalizing preserves semantic overlap is plausible but unverified. Without an ablation that uses, for example, the last-token probability vector, mean-pooled logits, or sequence-level alignment, the reader cannot tell whether VMM is load-bearing for the NLG results or whether the improvements in Table 4 come from the LMBC loss alone.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1, paragraph 2] There is a duplicated phrase 'taking inspiration inspiration from DLB'; one occurrence should be removed.
  2. [Section 4.1, first paragraph] The text says the paper evaluates on 'natural language understanding (NLU) and natural language understanding (NLG)'; the second instance should be 'natural language generation'.
  3. [Appendix D, first paragraph] 'we do gird search' should be 'we do grid search'.
  4. [Table 4] Unlike Tables 1 and 3, Table 4 does not include a 'Sequential DLB' row; since the paper emphasizes the comparison with both Sequential and Random DLB, the omission should be explained or the Sequential DLB results should be provided.
  5. [Section 4.3, 'Comparison with KD'] The claim that DynSDPB 'can be seamlessly integrated into existing Self-Training/Correction methods' is stated as a future direction at the end of Section 4.2; the paper does not demonstrate such integration, so the wording in the contributions list should be tempered to avoid overclaiming.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DynSDPB's gains are measured against external GLUE/SuperGLUE/NLG metrics; the method is a regularizer, not a prediction derived from its own definition. The only self-citation is descriptive, and the Eq. (10) temperature-direction issue is a correctness concern, not circularity.

full rationale

I examined the derivation chain: Eq. (6) defines the LMBC regularization from the same model's previous logits, Eq. (7) combines it with cross-entropy, and Eqs. (9)-(10) add entropy- and loss-based reweighting. None of these equations defines the evaluation metric or forces an accuracy value; GLUE/SuperGLUE accuracy and NLG exact match are external quantities that can fail regardless of alpha, tau, U, or the stored previous logits, so the empirical claims are falsifiable rather than circular. The grid search over alpha and tau on the validation set is standard hyperparameter selection and creates selection bias, but it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The self-citation to Y. Fu et al. (2023) appears only in a related-work summary of CoT distillation and is not load-bearing. One internal inconsistency does exist: dxi = (1 + exp(-y_i * log(p_i)))^(-1) decreases as the per-sample loss increases, so multiplying tau by dxi lowers the effective temperature for high-loss samples, the opposite of the text's claim that temperatures are raised to smooth larger-loss soft targets. This is a correctness/specification problem that undermines the stated adaptive mechanism, but it is not a circular reduction and does not make the reported benchmark results equivalent to the method's own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on a handful of fitted hyperparameters (α, τ, U) and heuristic assumptions about self-teaching and vocabulary-map alignment. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • distillation factor α = grid-searched per task; e.g., {0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0} for DynSDPB on NLU
    Balances CE loss and LMBC distillation loss in Eq. (7); selected by validation performance, so the reported gains are conditional on per-task hyperparameter fitting.
  • distillation temperature τ = grid-searched per task; e.g., {1, 3, 5} for DynSDPB on NLU
    Controls softness of targets in Eq. (6); fitted on validation, making the dynamic scaling's starting point dataset-dependent.
  • normalization factor U = not specified in the paper
    Appears in Eq. (9) to rescale uncertainty weights to [0,1]; the authors do not state how U is computed, leaving a hidden free parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Soft labels from the model one gradient step earlier are a useful training signal for the current step.
    Central premise of the LMBC loss in Eq. (6); if the past predictions are too noisy or self-reinforcing, the regularizer could misdirect training.
  • ad hoc to paper Summing per-token probability vectors and normalizing creates a vocabulary map that preserves semantic overlap across variable-length outputs.
    VMM in Section 3.3 assumes semantic content is captured by the bag-of-tokens soft counts; no formal or ablation evidence is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The sigmoid of the cross-entropy loss, d_xi, is a good measure of prediction discrimination for scheduling temperature.
    Eq. (10) uses d_xi to scale τ, but no analysis shows this function is well-calibrated for the stated goal.
  • domain assumption Validation-set accuracy is a reliable estimator of test performance for hyperparameter selection.
    The paper reports validation-based hyperparameter selection and appears to report validation results; if the validation set is also the evaluation set, gains may reflect selection bias.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic Self-Distillation via Previous Mini-batches for Fine-tuning Small Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KRL5GR4P

@misc{pith2026241116991,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic Self-Distillation via Previous Mini-batches for Fine-tuning Small Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KRL5GR4P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16991}
}
read the original abstract

Knowledge distillation (KD) has become a widely adopted approach for compressing large language models (LLMs) to reduce computational costs and memory footprints. However, the availability of complex teacher models is a prerequisite for running most KD pipelines. Thus, the traditional KD procedure can be unachievable or budget-unfriendly, particularly when relying on commercial LLMs like GPT4. In this regard, Self-distillation (SelfD) emerges as an advisable alternative, enabling student models to learn without teachers' guidance. Nonetheless, existing SelfD approaches for LMs often involve architectural modifications, assuming the models are open-source, which may not always be practical. In this work, we introduce a model-agnostic and task-agnostic method named dynamic SelfD from the previous minibatch (DynSDPB), which realizes current iterations' distillation from the last ones' generated logits. Additionally, to address prediction inaccuracies during the early iterations, we dynamically adjust the distillation influence and temperature values to enhance the adaptability of fine-tuning. Furthermore, DynSDPB is a novel fine-tuning policy that facilitates the seamless integration of existing self-correction and self-training techniques for small language models (SLMs) because they all require updating SLMs' parameters. We demonstrate the superior performance of DynSDPB on both encoder-only LMs (e.g., BERT model families) and decoder-only LMs (e.g., LLaMA model families), validating its effectiveness across natural language understanding (NLU) and natural language generation (NLG) benchmarks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16991 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two types of distillation. (a) displays the classical knowledge distillation (KD) frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The logarithmic-scale gradient norms of selected layers for DeBERTa-large fine-tuning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The heatmap evaluation on hyperparameters (temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The logarithmic-scale gradient norms of selected layers for DeBERTa-v3-large fine-tuning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The logarithmic-scale gradient norms of selected layers for RoBERTa-base fine-tuning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Ale- man, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774,

    arXiv

  2. [7]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805,

    arXiv

  3. [9]

    Romebert: Robust training of multi-exit bert

    Shijie Geng, Peng Gao, Zuohui Fu, and Yongfeng Zhang. Romebert: Robust training of multi-exit bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.09755,

    arXiv

  4. [11]

    Self-knowledge distillation in natural language processing.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.01851,

    Sangchul Hahn and Heeyoul Choi. Self-knowledge distillation in natural language processing.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.01851,

    arXiv 1908

  5. [14]

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531,

    arXiv

  6. [16]

    Distilling step-by-step! outperform- ing larger language models with less training data and smaller model sizes

    Cheng-Yu Hsieh, Chun-Liang Li, Chih-Kuan Yeh, Hootan Nakhost, Yasuhisa Fujii, Alexander Rat- ner, Ranjay Krishna, Chen-Yu Lee, and Tomas Pfister. Distilling step-by-step! outperform- ing larger language models with less training data and smaller model sizes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02301,

    arXiv

  7. [17]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685,

    arXiv

  8. [18]

    Tinybert: Distilling bert for natural language understanding

    Xiaoqi Jiao, Yichun Yin, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Xiao Chen, Linlin Li, Fang Wang, and Qun Liu. Tinybert: Distilling bert for natural language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.10351,

    arXiv 1909

Show all 80 references
  1. [19]

    Distillm: Towards streamlined distillation for large language models

    Jongwoo Ko, Sungnyun Kim, Tianyi Chen, and Se-Young Yun. Distillm: Towards streamlined distillation for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03898,

    arXiv

  2. [20]

    Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations

    Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Sori- cut. Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11942,

    1909 arXiv

  3. [21]

    A study on knowledge distillation from weak teacher for scaling up pre-trained language models

    Hayeon Lee, Rui Hou, Jongpil Kim, Davis Liang, Sung Ju Hwang, and Alexander Min. A study on knowledge distillation from weak teacher for scaling up pre-trained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18239,

    arXiv

  4. [22]

    Dynamic knowledge distillation for pre-trained language models

    Lei Li, Yankai Lin, Shuhuai Ren, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, and Xu Sun. Dynamic knowledge distillation for pre-trained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.11295,

    arXiv

  5. [23]

    Sym- bolic chain-of-thought distillation: Small models can also” think” step-by-step

    Liunian Harold Li, Jack Hessel, Youngjae Yu, Xiang Ren, Kai-Wei Chang, and Yejin Choi. Sym- bolic chain-of-thought distillation: Small models can also” think” step-by-step. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14050,

    arXiv

  6. [24]

    Homodistil: Ho- motopic task-agnostic distillation of pre-trained transformers

    Chen Liang, Haoming Jiang, Zheng Li, Xianfeng Tang, Bin Yin, and Tuo Zhao. Homodistil: Ho- motopic task-agnostic distillation of pre-trained transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.09632,

    arXiv

  7. [25]

    Mixkd: Towards efficient distillation of large-scale language models

    12 Preprint Kevin J Liang, Weituo Hao, Dinghan Shen, Yufan Zhou, Weizhu Chen, Changyou Chen, and Lawrence Carin. Mixkd: Towards efficient distillation of large-scale language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.00593,

    2011 arXiv

  8. [26]

    A global past-future early exit method for accelerating inference of pre-trained language models

    Kaiyuan Liao, Yi Zhang, Xuancheng Ren, Qi Su, Xu Sun, and Bin He. A global past-future early exit method for accelerating inference of pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguist...

    2021

  9. [27]

    Program induction by rationale gener- ation: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems

    Wang Ling, Dani Yogatama, Chris Dyer, and Phil Blunsom. Program induction by rationale gener- ation: Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.04146,

    arXiv

  10. [28]

    Fastbert: a self-distilling bert with adaptive inference time

    Weijie Liu, Peng Zhou, Zhe Zhao, Zhiruo Wang, Haotang Deng, and Qi Ju. Fastbert: a self-distilling bert with adaptive inference time. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.02178,

    2004 arXiv

  11. [29]

    Mind’s mirror: Distilling self-evaluation capability and comprehensive thinking from large language models

    Weize Liu, Guocong Li, Kai Zhang, Bang Du, Qiyuan Chen, Xuming Hu, Hongxia Xu, Jintai Chen, and Jian Wu. Mind’s mirror: Distilling self-evaluation capability and comprehensive thinking from large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09214,

    arXiv

  12. [30]

    Multi-task deep neural networks for natural language understanding

    Xiaodong Liu, Pengcheng He, Weizhu Chen, and Jianfeng Gao. Multi-task deep neural networks for natural language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.11504, 2019a. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoy...

    1901 arXiv

  13. [31]

    Big/little deep neural network for ultra low power inference

    Eunhyeok Park, Dongyoung Kim, Soobeom Kim, Yong-Deok Kim, Gunhee Kim, Sungroh Yoon, and Sungjoo Yoo. Big/little deep neural network for ultra low power inference. In 2015 in- ternational conference on hardware/software codesign and system synthesis (codes+ isss) , pp. 124–132. IEEE,

    2015

  14. [32]

    Distilling linguistic context for language model compression

    Geondo Park, Gyeongman Kim, and Eunho Yang. Distilling linguistic context for language model compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.08359,

    arXiv

  15. [33]

    Are nlp models really able to solve simple math word problems? arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.07191,

    Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattamishra, and Navin Goyal. Are nlp models really able to solve simple math word problems? arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.07191,

    arXiv

  16. [34]

    Wic: the word-in-context dataset for eval- uating context-sensitive meaning representations

    Mohammad Taher Pilehvar and Jose Camacho-Collados. Wic: the word-in-context dataset for eval- uating context-sensitive meaning representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.09121,

    arXiv

  17. [35]

    Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text

    Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05250,

    arXiv

  18. [36]

    Tailoring instructions to student’s learning levels boosts knowledge distillation

    Yuxin Ren, Zihan Zhong, Xingjian Shi, Yi Zhu, Chun Yuan, and Mu Li. Tailoring instructions to student’s learning levels boosts knowledge distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09651,

    arXiv

  19. [37]

    Choice of plausible alternatives: An evaluation of commonsense causal reasoning

    Melissa Roemmele, Cosmin Adrian Bejan, and Andrew S Gordon. Choice of plausible alternatives: An evaluation of commonsense causal reasoning. In 2011 AAAI Spring Symposium Series,

    2011

  20. [39]

    Consistent accelerated inference via confident adaptive transformers

    Tal Schuster, Adam Fisch, Tommi Jaakkola, and Regina Barzilay. Consistent accelerated inference via confident adaptive transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08803,

    arXiv

  21. [40]

    The right tool for the job: Matching model and instance complexities

    13 Preprint Roy Schwartz, Gabriel Stanovsky, Swabha Swayamdipta, Jesse Dodge, and Noah A Smith. The right tool for the job: Matching model and instance complexities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.07453,

    2004 arXiv

  22. [41]

    Reslora: Identity residual mapping in low-rank adaption

    Shuhua Shi, Shaohan Huang, Minghui Song, Zhoujun Li, Zihan Zhang, Haizhen Huang, Furu Wei, Weiwei Deng, Feng Sun, and Qi Zhang. Reslora: Identity residual mapping in low-rank adaption. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18039,

    arXiv

  23. [42]

    Distilling reasoning capabilities into smaller language models

    Kumar Shridhar, Alessandro Stolfo, and Mrinmaya Sachan. Distilling reasoning capabilities into smaller language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.00193,

    arXiv

  24. [43]

    Beyond human data: Scaling self-training for problem-solving with language models

    Avi Singh, John D Co-Reyes, Rishabh Agarwal, Ankesh Anand, Piyush Patil, Peter J Liu, James Harrison, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, Aaron Parisi, et al. Beyond human data: Scaling self-training for problem-solving with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06585,

    arXiv

  25. [44]

    Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank

    Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Y Ng, and Christopher Potts. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language pro- ...

    2013

  26. [45]

    Patient knowledge distillation for bert model compression

    Siqi Sun, Yu Cheng, Zhe Gan, and Jingjing Liu. Patient knowledge distillation for bert model compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.09355,

    1908 arXiv

  27. [46]

    Early exiting with ensemble internal classifiers

    Tianxiang Sun, Yunhua Zhou, Xiangyang Liu, Xinyu Zhang, Hao Jiang, Zhao Cao, Xuanjing Huang, and Xipeng Qiu. Early exiting with ensemble internal classifiers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.13792,

    arXiv

  28. [47]

    Mobile- bert: a compact task-agnostic bert for resource-limited devices.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.02984,

    Zhiqing Sun, Hongkun Yu, Xiaodan Song, Renjie Liu, Yiming Yang, and Denny Zhou. Mobile- bert: a compact task-agnostic bert for resource-limited devices.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.02984,

    2004 arXiv

  29. [48]

    Distilling task- specific knowledge from bert into simple neural networks

    Raphael Tang, Yao Lu, Linqing Liu, Lili Mou, Olga Vechtomova, and Jimmy Lin. Distilling task- specific knowledge from bert into simple neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.12136 ,

    1903 arXiv

  30. [49]

    Branchynet: Fast inference via early exiting from deep neural networks

    Surat Teerapittayanon, Bradley McDanel, and Hsiang-Tsung Kung. Branchynet: Fast inference via early exiting from deep neural networks. In 2016 23rd international conference on pattern recognition (ICPR), pp. 2464–2469. IEEE,

    2016

  31. [50]

    Llama 2: Open founda- tion and fine-tuned chat models

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Niko- lay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open founda- tion and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288,

    arXiv

  32. [51]

    Well-read students learn better: On the importance of pre-training compact models

    Iulia Turc, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Well-read students learn better: On the importance of pre-training compact models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08962,

    1908 arXiv

  33. [52]

    Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding

    Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.07461,

    arXiv

  34. [53]

    Improved knowl- edge distillation for pre-trained language models via knowledge selection

    Chenglong Wang, Yi Lu, Yongyu Mu, Yimin Hu, Tong Xiao, and Jingbo Zhu. Improved knowl- edge distillation for pre-trained language models via knowledge selection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.00444, 2023a. Jue Wang, Ke Chen, Gang Chen, Lidan Shou, and Julian McAuley. Skipbert: Eff...

    2012 arXiv

  35. [54]

    A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference

    Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel R Bowman. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.05426,

    arXiv

  36. [56]

    Causal distillation for language models

    Zhengxuan Wu, Atticus Geiger, Josh Rozner, Elisa Kreiss, Hanson Lu, Thomas Icard, Christo- pher Potts, and Noah D Goodman. Causal distillation for language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.02505, 2021b. Ji Xin, Raphael Tang, Jaejun Lee, Yaoliang Yu, and Jimmy Lin. Deebert: Dy...

    2004 arXiv

  37. [57]

    Sparse teachers can be dense with knowledge

    Yi Yang, Chen Zhang, and Dawei Song. Sparse teachers can be dense with knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03923,

    arXiv

  38. [58]

    Hellaswag: Can a ma- chine really finish your sentence? arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07830,

    Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. Hellaswag: Can a ma- chine really finish your sentence? arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07830,

    1905 arXiv

  39. [59]

    Mini- mal distillation schedule for extreme language model compression

    Chen Zhang, Yang Yang, Qifan Wang, Jiahao Liu, Jingang Wang, Wei Wu, and Dawei Song. Mini- mal distillation schedule for extreme language model compression. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2024, pp. 1378–1394, 2024a. Jianyi Zhang, Aashiq Muham...

    2024

  40. [60]

    Small language models need strong verifiers to self-correct rea- soning

    Yunxiang Zhang, Muhammad Khalifa, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Jaekyeom Kim, Moontae Lee, Honglak Lee, and Lu Wang. Small language models need strong verifiers to self-correct rea- soning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.17140, 2024b. Zhen Zhang, Wei Zhu, Jinfan Zhang, Peng Wang, Rize Jin,...

    2022 arXiv

  41. [61]

    A survey of large language models

    Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223,

    arXiv

  42. [62]

    Bert learns to teach: Knowledge distillation with meta learning

    Wangchunshu Zhou, Canwen Xu, and Julian McAuley. Bert learns to teach: Knowledge distillation with meta learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.04570,

    arXiv

  43. [63]

    Pad: Program-aided distillation can teach small models reasoning better than chain-of-thought fine- tuning

    Xuekai Zhu, Biqing Qi, Kaiyan Zhang, Xinwei Long, Zhouhan Lin, and Bowen Zhou. Pad: Program-aided distillation can teach small models reasoning better than chain-of-thought fine- tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13888,

    arXiv

  44. [64]

    Recently, researchers have attached great significance to the KD study in PLMs (Sun et al., 2022)

    is widely used in computer vision (CV) to com- press and accelerate deep neural networks (DNNs) such as ResNet-50 (He et al., 2016). Recently, researchers have attached great significance to the KD study in PLMs (Sun et al., 2022). Specifi- cally, KD works about PLMs can be ro...

    2016

  45. [65]

    is a novel KD pipeline that people could first pre-train compact models (six-layer BERT) with unlabeled text data and then explore transferring task-specific knowledge from large fine-tuned models (12-layer BERT) via standard KD. Further, numerous techniques have been proposed...

    2020

  46. [66]

    Recently, inspired by MetaDistil (Zhou et al., 2021), Ren et al.(Ren et al.,

    propose a sparse teacher trick to remove the parameters resulting in student unfriendlines under the guidance of an overall knowledgeable score. Recently, inspired by MetaDistil (Zhou et al., 2021), Ren et al.(Ren et al.,

    2021

  47. [67]

    For instance, DistilBERT (Sanh et al., 2019), MINILM (Wang et al., 2020b), and MobileBERT (Sun et al.,

    and introduce a meta-policy KD framework called MPDistil.Two- stage methods perform distillation at both the pre-training stage and the fine-tuning stage, which is usually task-agnostic. For instance, DistilBERT (Sanh et al., 2019), MINILM (Wang et al., 2020b), and MobileBERT ...

    2019

  48. [68]

    Based on MiniLLM, works on studying KD for auto-regressive LLMs (Agarwal et al., 2024; Ko et al.,

    is the first work that uses a white-box KD method to distill LLMs for text generation tasks. Based on MiniLLM, works on studying KD for auto-regressive LLMs (Agarwal et al., 2024; Ko et al.,

    2024

  49. [69]

    have recently attracted researchers’ attention. In summary, all the methods above could be categorized under the standard KD methodology because they all involve pre-training the large teacher model first and then fine-tuning the student model, which is frequently time-consumi...

    2018

  50. [70]

    With the emergence of PLMs (Sun et al., 2022), people have begun to study the application of SelfD on them

    propose a method called self-knowledge distillation based on the soft target probabilities of the training model itself, which is the first paper focusing on two NLP tasks: language model and neural machine translation. With the emergence of PLMs (Sun et al., 2022), people hav...

    2022

  51. [71]

    Though not reducing model sizes, it decreases computation by using inserted internal classifiers into a Transformer-based model (e.g., 12-layer BERT-base)

    resembles one SelfD work in CV (Zhang et al., 2019), aiming for accelerating PLM inference by stopping it at a specific Transformer layer based on predefined criteria. Though not reducing model sizes, it decreases computation by using inserted internal classifiers into a Trans...

    2019

  52. [72]

    EE techniques for PLMs focus on exit criteria, which currently have three types (Xu & McAuley, 2023): confidence estimation, internal ensemble, and learning to exit

    intermediate layers for SelfD training, thus enhancing models’ generalization capability. EE techniques for PLMs focus on exit criteria, which currently have three types (Xu & McAuley, 2023): confidence estimation, internal ensemble, and learning to exit. The first technique i...

    2023

  53. [73]

    During inference, the model exits early when an IC predicts a probability with an entropy below the threshold

    is the first work that applies this concept to PLMs, where linear internal classi- fiers (ICs) are added after each Transformer layer. During inference, the model exits early when an IC predicts a probability with an entropy below the threshold. A similar strategy is adopted i...

    2020

  54. [74]

    introduces gradient regularization to aid SelfD with the purpose of ameliorating DeeBERT (Xin et al., 2020). SkipBERT (Wang et al., 2022a) replaces lower BERT layers with pre-computed text chunk representations and implements confidence-based EE for higher layers, achieving ma...

    2020

  55. [75]

    Liao et al

    enhances IC prediction through mu- tual distillation and follows PABEE’s patience-based exiting strategy (Zhou et al., 2020). Liao et al. (Liao et al.,

    2020

  56. [76]

    It serves as a benchmark for evaluating the performance of models across various language understanding tasks

    is a col- lection of diverse natural language understanding tasks, including Multi-Genre Natural Language Inference (MNLI) (Williams et al., 2017), Quora Question Pairs (QQP) (Chen et al., 2018), Ques- tion Natural Language Inference (QNLI) (Rajpurkar et al., 2016), Stanford S...

    2017

  57. [77]

    It was introduced as a more challenging successor to the original GLUE benchmark (Wang et al., 2018), reflecting the rapid advancements in NLP technologies and model capabilities

    is a bench- mark suite designed to evaluate and improve the performance of ML models on a variety of natural language understanding tasks. It was introduced as a more challenging successor to the original GLUE benchmark (Wang et al., 2018), reflecting the rapid advancements in...

    2018

  58. [78]

    For commonsense tasks, we select HellaSwag (HS) (Zellers et al., 2019)

    with fully specified operational programs. For commonsense tasks, we select HellaSwag (HS) (Zellers et al., 2019). HS is a challenging dataset, which contains questions to select the best endings to complete sentences. It has been considered as one of the most common datasets ...

    2019

  59. [79]

    This dataset is designed to test both comprehension and arithmetic skills in a more controlled synthetic setting

    is a dataset composed of math word problems that require understanding of arithmetic operations and the ability to deal with variable quantities. This dataset is designed to test both comprehension and arithmetic skills in a more controlled synthetic setting. It contains about...

    2017

  60. [80]

    It presents contexts from a wide array of domains and requires models to predict the most likely or plausible continuation among given choices

    is a dataset aimed at testing commonsense reasoning and abductive reasoning within natural language understanding models. It presents contexts from a wide array of domains and requires models to predict the most likely or plausible continuation among given choices. It includes...

    2019

  61. [2009]

    Mcc-kd: Multi-cot consistent knowledge distillation

    Hongzhan Chen, Siyue Wu, Xiaojun Quan, Rui Wang, Ming Yan, and Ji Zhang. Mcc-kd: Multi-cot consistent knowledge distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14747,

    arXiv

  62. [2011]

    Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter

    Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108,

    1910 arXiv

  63. [2015]

    Large language models are reasoning teachers

    Namgyu Ho, Laura Schmid, and Se-Young Yun. Large language models are reasoning teachers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10071,

    arXiv

  64. [2016]

    Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention

    Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03654,

    2006 arXiv

  65. [2017]

    One teacher is enough? pre-trained language model distillation from multiple teachers

    Chuhan Wu, Fangzhao Wu, and Yongfeng Huang. One teacher is enough? pre-trained language model distillation from multiple teachers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.01023, 2021a. Siyue Wu, Hongzhan Chen, Xiaojun Quan, Qifan Wang, and Rui Wang. Ad-kd: Attribution-driven knowledge disti...

    arXiv

  66. [2018]

    Boolq: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions

    Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, Tom Kwiatkowski, Michael Collins, and Kristina Toutanova. Boolq: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10044,

    1905 arXiv

  67. [2019]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168,

    arXiv

  68. [2020]

    Debertav3: Improving deberta using electra-style pre-training with gradient-disentangled embedding sharing

    Pengcheng He, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. Debertav3: Improving deberta using electra-style pre-training with gradient-disentangled embedding sharing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09543 ,

    arXiv

  69. [2021]

    Cost-effective distillation of large language models

    Sayantan Dasgupta, Trevor Cohn, and Timothy Baldwin. Cost-effective distillation of large language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pp. 7346–7354,

    2023

  70. [2022]

    The llama 3 herd of models

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783,

    arXiv

  71. [2023]

    Reinforced self-training (rest) for language modeling

    Caglar Gulcehre, Tom Le Paine, Srivatsan Srinivasan, Ksenia Konyushkova, Lotte Weerts, Abhishek Sharma, Aditya Siddhant, Alex Ahern, Miaosen Wang, Chenjie Gu, et al. Reinforced self-training (rest) for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08998,

    arXiv

  72. [2024]

    Mathqa: Towards interpretable math word problem solving with operation-based for- malisms

    10 Preprint Aida Amini, Saadia Gabriel, Peter Lin, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Ha- jishirzi. Mathqa: Towards interpretable math word problem solving with operation-based for- malisms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.13319,

    1905 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.