Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 28 references

Correcting What You Cannot See: Credit Assignment for Perception Distillation in Multimodal Reasoners

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-witness product decides which perception failures deserve extra distillation.

desk verdict PCD is a plausible, honestly reported distillation fix, but the empirical claim rests on single-seed results and an unmeasured teacher-reliability assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28336 v2 pith:2C23O6MB submitted 2026-07-30 cs.AI

Feng Xiong , Leyan Xue , Hongyu Lin This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords perceptiondistillationcreditassignmentmultimodalreasoningknowledgeteacher–studentdisagreementsuccessrateon-policyreinforcementlearning
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

The paper tries to solve a credit-assignment problem in distilling large multimodal reasoners into small ones: when a sampled answer is wrong, the verifier's reward cannot say whether the model misread the image or reasoned badly. The authors introduce Perception-Correction Distillation (PCD), which weights perception-span distillation by the product of two signals: low downstream success (1 minus the Perception Success Rate) and student-teacher disagreement on the perception span. The product acts as a soft AND gate: correction is strengthened only when both failure and disagreement are present. This reallocates a fixed supervision budget toward teacher-correctable perception failures without touching the reasoning objective, improving the 8B-to-2B macro average from 44.50 to 47.28 and the 32B-to-8B average from 56.94 to 61.22. The result matters because it isolates a stage-specific correction from outcome-only feedback, making distillation target the right cause.

What carries the argument

The core object is the deficiency score d_i=(1−PSR_i)·fKL_i, where PSR_i is the mean verifier reward over b reasoning continuations sharing one sampled perception, and fKL_i is the normalized teacher–student KL divergence on the <aware> perception span. This product is the soft AND gate. It is carried by three components: separated perception–reasoning rollout (an a×b tree), the multiplicative gate motivated by Bayesian evidence combination and uniqueness among bilinear gates, and mean-preserving weight normalization that reallocates a fixed distillation budget.

What would settle it

Run the matched 2B training with single-witness weights (1−PSR only, fKL only), an additive gate, and the product gate under multiple seeds; if the product gate does not beat the additive gate on the held-out benchmark average, the AND claim is falsified. A second test: train on images where the teacher is known to be wrong; if PCD up-weights those trajectories and degrades, the teacher-reliability premise fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

PCD's central claim is that perception insufficiency and reasoning difficulty are non-identifiable from reward alone, and that a second witness—teacher disagreement on the perception span—resolves the ambiguity well enough to guide distillation. The deficiency score d=(1−PSR)·fKL is shown to be the unique normalized bilinear gate satisfying 'no correction from either witness alone.' With separated rollouts (a perceptions sampled, b reasoning continuations per perception) and mean-preserving weights, PCD allocates more teacher supervision to low-success, teacher-disagreeing perceptions and less elsewhere. The paper reports consistent gains over uniform on-policy distillation, with the largest

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism assumes the teacher is a perceptually reliable oracle, so that student–teacher disagreement on the perception span really signals a correctable student error rather than a teacher error or a shared blind spot.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If PCD is right, perception distillation can be improved without new labels, learned gates, or extra models—only grouped reductions and a per-trajectory weight.
  • Mean-preserving normalization means the gain comes from reallocating teacher supervision, not from globally increasing it.
  • Separated rollout makes perception the unit of estimation, turning a trajectory-level verifier into a lower-variance per-perception statistic.
  • The method targets teacher-correctable perception failures; shared teacher–student visual errors are deliberately not amplified.
  • Larger teachers yield broader transfer gains, consistent with a larger correctable perception gap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same two-witness logic could transfer to other systems with latent stages and ambiguous rewards, such as retrieval-then-read or tool-use-then-answer pipelines, where a teacher or oracle supplies an independent disagreement signal.
  • The uniqueness result is about bilinear gates; a natural unstated extension is whether a log-odds additive combination or a sigmoid product behaves differently when witnesses are correlated rather than conditionally independent.
  • Teacher reliability is not measured per domain; a testable extension is to calibrate the KL threshold from training-trace quantiles, which the paper flags but does not implement.
  • Because gains concentrate in visual mathematics for the small teacher, one could test whether PCD's benefit scales with the fraction of questions where visual evidence is pivotal.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper addresses trajectory-level credit assignment in multimodal reasoning distillation. It decomposes a student response into an <aware> perception span and a <cot> reasoning span, and proposes Perception-Correction Distillation (PCD): a label-free method that weights perception distillation by d_i = (1−PSR_i)·fKL_i, where PSR_i is a per-perception success rate estimated from multiple reasoning continuations sharing one perception, and fKL_i is normalized teacher–student KL disagreement on the perception span. The product acts as a soft AND gate: only low-success, high-disagreement perceptions receive stronger teacher supervision. The paper gives formal support: reward-only PSR is non-identifiable for separating perception sufficiency from reasoning difficulty (Prop. 1), two conditionally independent witnesses combine multiplicatively in odds space (Prop. 2), multiplication is the unique bilinear gate satisfying the desired boundary conditions (Prop. 3), and mean-preserving normalization follows the optimal first-order reallocation direction under a fixed supervision budget (Prop. 4). On Qwen3-VL transfers 8B→2B and 32B→8B across eight benchmarks, PCD improves the macro average over standard on-policy distillation by +2.78 and +4.28 points, and matched ablations report losses of 2.22 points without the PCD weight and 0.88 points without separated rollout.

Significance. The problem is well motivated and practically important: trajectory-level rewards in multimodal reasoning cannot distinguish a misread image from a correct perception followed by faulty reasoning. The paper's separated rollout is a clean, low-cost way to estimate per-perception value, and the mean-preserving normalization is a thoughtful design that isolates allocation from overall loss scale. The paper is unusually candid in its limitations section, explicitly flagging single-seed checkpoints, unmeasured teacher reliability, and missing single-witness ablations. If the reported gains hold under multi-seed evaluation and the multiplicative interaction is confirmed against single-witness and additive alternatives, this would be a solid contribution to multimodal distillation. As it stands, the empirical evidence is promising but not yet at the strength implied by the abstract's unqualified improvement claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §4.1; Table 1] All endpoint results, including the headline +2.78 and +4.28 improvements, come from a single selected checkpoint per method. Section 4.1 explicitly states that the authors 'do not interpret a single checkpoint difference as statistical significance,' yet the abstract and conclusion present these differences as firm improvements. Without multi-seed intervals, bootstrap confidence intervals, or at least a per-benchmark variance estimate, the central empirical claim is not quantitatively supported. Please report multi-seed mean±std for at least the 2B setting, or temper the headline claims to 'preliminary evidence.'
  2. [§4.5; Table 2] The paper's central mechanism is the multiplicative AND gate, but the component ablation omits PSR-only, KL-only, and additive-fusion runs. The w/o-PCD comparison shows that replacing the product weight with uniform weights costs 2.22 points, which demonstrates that adaptive weighting helps, but it does not establish that multiplication is the right combination rule: a single-witness term such as (1−PSR) or fKL alone, or a normalized additive gate, could produce a similar gain. Since Section 4.5 itself says these runs are 'still needed,' they should be included before claiming that the AND interaction is validated.
  3. [§4.5; Eq. (11); Prop. 2] The interpretation of fKL as a witness for teacher-correctable deficiency is load-bearing. The paper acknowledges in Section 4.5 that 'shared errors produce low KL, whereas a confidently wrong teacher can induce harmful correction,' but it never measures whether fKL actually tracks teacher correctness on the relevant perception spans. A confidently wrong teacher on a nontrivial fraction of low-PSR perceptions would up-weight exactly the supervision that should be down-weighted. Please provide a calibration analysis—for example, compare fKL with a stronger reference teacher or a small labeled set of perception errors per domain—or otherwise bound the rate of harmful corrections. Without this, the 'correctable' semantics in Eq. (11) is an unverified assumption that is directly tied to the claimed gains.
  4. [§3.5; Eq. (13); Table 3] The PCD weight depends on several fixed hyperparameters: w_base=1.0, α=1.0, the KL normalization threshold 0.3, and the rollout split (a,b)=(2,4). No sensitivity analysis is reported. The headline gains could be specific to this particular setting, and the paper's 'parameter-free' language in Section 3.4 is misleading because these are tunable constants. Please report a small grid over α, the KL threshold, and at least one alternative split (e.g., a=4, b=2) to demonstrate that the method is robust to reasonable variation in these choices.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.4; Prop. 3] Proposition 3 is essentially a restatement of the boundary conditions in Eq. (12): requiring g(a,0)=0 and g(0,b)=0 already enforces the AND semantics, so the 'uniqueness' is immediate. This is a useful representation check, but it should not be over-interpreted as independent evidence for the product rule; the substantive modeling choice is the boundary behavior itself.
  2. [§3.4; §3.5] The text calls the interaction 'parameter-free' in Section 3.4, but Eq. (13) introduces w_base and α, and Table 3 fixes a KL normalization threshold. Recommend using 'no learned parameters' or 'no trainable gate' instead of 'parameter-free' to avoid confusion.
  3. [Throughout] There are notation inconsistencies: fKL_i appears both as 'fKL_i' and 'fKLi' (e.g., Eq. (9) vs. Eq. (11)), and PSR_i is sometimes written as PSR without a subscript. Please unify the notation for readability.
  4. [Figure 3] Figure 3 shows weight allocation over 256 Geo3K perceptions, but it is unclear whether these are sampled from a single training batch or from a representative slice of training. Please specify the sampling procedure and, if possible, add a quantitative interaction test (e.g., a regression coefficient for the product term) to supplement the quadrant means.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PCD weighting rule is a stated design choice, and the reported gains are external benchmark outcomes.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is not circular. The gate d_i=(1-PSR_i) fKL_i is defined directly (Eq. 11) as a parameter-free, mean-preserving reweighting of the existing perception-distillation loss, and it is then evaluated on eight external benchmarks and matched ablations. The reported improvements (47.28 vs 44.50 for 8B→2B; 61.22 vs 56.94 for 32B→8B) are empirical outcomes, not consequences of fitting the gate to those benchmarks. Proposition 1 is a standard non-identifiability argument about the product ρq; Proposition 2 is Bayes' rule under explicitly stated conditional-independence assumptions; Proposition 3 is an algebraic characterization showing that, within the restricted bilinear class, the boundary conditions g(a,0)=0, g(0,b)=0, and g(1,1)=1 force g=ab. These propositions motivate the design but do not constitute predictions, and the paper explicitly disclaims calibration ('Equation (11) is not claimed to be a calibrated posterior probability') and acknowledges that richer nonlinear gates are not excluded ('it does not exclude richer nonlinear gates'). Section 4.5 flags the real validity threats—teacher reliability, missing single-witness ablations, and single checkpoints—but those are limitations, not circularity. The only self-citation (Vision-OPD, Yuan et al. 2026, sharing author Hongyu Lin) appears in Related Work as a complementary method and is not load-bearing for PCD's derivation or results. The central claim therefore has independent content and is not reduced to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The method's free parameters (α, w_base, KL threshold, rollout split) are chosen without sensitivity analysis. The theoretical derivation relies on several domain assumptions (factorization, epsilon≈0, conditional independence, teacher reliability) and two ad hoc modeling choices (AND semantics, linear benefit). The latent sufficiency variable S is an unobservable construct that organizes the formulation but has no external evidence.

free parameters (4)
  • α (deficiency boost coefficient) = 1.0
    Table 3 sets α=1.0; controls strength of the deficiency weight. No sensitivity analysis; chosen a priori.
  • w_base (base weight) = 1.0
    Table 3; ensures positive weights and coverage; arbitrary normalization anchor.
  • KL normalization threshold = 0.3
    Table 3; converts raw KL to fKL∈[0,1]; the paper states it should be calibrated per teacher (§4.5).
  • rollout split (a, b) = a=2, b=4
    Table 3; choice of 8 trajectories per prompt; no sensitivity to (a,b) reported; affects PSR variance and perception diversity.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Student policy factorizes as πθ(y,z|x)=πp(z|x)πr(y|x,z) with perception span z bounded by <aware> tags.
    The method assumes all perception is localized in this span; if perception is distributed across the response, the gate mis-targets tokens. Invoked in Eq. (2), §3.1.
  • domain assumption ε≈0 in Eq. (8): an insufficient perception rarely yields the correct answer.
    Required for the product form V=ρq and non-identifiability; if the reasoner often guesses correctly from a bad perception, PSR conflates differently.
  • domain assumption Conditional independence of witnesses (low PSR, high KL) given perception sufficiency S.
    Used in Prop. 2 (Eq. 10) to justify multiplying likelihood ratios; unverified and not empirically tested.
  • domain assumption The teacher is perceptually more reliable than the student.
    Central to treating KL as evidence of correctable error; acknowledged in §4.5 but not measured per benchmark.
  • ad hoc to paper Neither low success nor disagreement alone should trigger correction (boundary conditions in Prop. 3).
    This modeling choice is the input that forces the product; not derived from data or external principles.
  • ad hoc to paper Local benefit of additional teacher supervision is proportional to d_i (Prop. 4).
    Assumed to justify the mean-preserving reallocation direction; no evidence given.
invented entities (1)
  • Perception sufficiency latent S(z)
    purpose: Formalizes whether the sampled perception contains enough visual info for the current reasoner; central to the identifiability argument and the gate's semantics.
    Not directly observable; defined via the factorization and used to pose the estimation problem. No falsifiable handle outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Correcting What You Cannot See: Credit Assignment for Perception Distillation in Multimodal Reasoners." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2C23O6MB

@misc{pith2026260728336,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Correcting What You Cannot See: Credit Assignment for Perception Distillation in Multimodal Reasoners},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2C23O6MB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28336}
}
read the original abstract

On-policy distillation provides dense supervision for multimodal reasoners, but its trajectory-level reward cannot determine whether a failed answer arose from perception or subsequent reasoning. Perception Success Rate (PSR), estimated from multiple reasonings sharing one perception, remains ambiguous because low success conflates perceptual insufficiency with reasoning difficulty. We introduce \textbf{Perception-Correction Distillation (PCD)}, a label-free method that identifies correctable perception failures using downstream failure and teacher--student disagreement as complementary witnesses. Their product, , forms a soft AND gate that strengthens distillation only when both witnesses are present. We motivate this rule through Bayesian evidence combination and show that multiplication is the unique normalized bilinear gate that vanishes when either witness is absent. PCD uses separated perception--reasoning rollouts and mean-preserving weights, leaving the reasoning objective unchanged. Across eight benchmarks, PCD improves the 8B 2B macro average from 44.50 with OPD to 47.28 and the 32B 8B result from 56.94 to 61.22. In matched 2B ablations, removing PCD and separated rollout reduces held-out average by 2.22 and 0.88 points, respectively. Effective multimodal distillation therefore depends not only on what the teacher predicts, but also on identifying when perception is the appropriate target of correction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28336 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Trajectory reward maps perception and reasoning failures to the same outcome. PCD adds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the separated rollout, divided objectives, and PCD weighting. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PCD training weights over 256 Geo3K perceptions concentrate in the high-failure, high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Multiplication is zero on both single-witness axes, whereas normalized addition assigns a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 14 linked inside Pith

  1. [4]

    DeepSeek-AI

    URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v89/czarnecki19a.html. DeepSeek-AI. DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in LLMs via reinforcement learn- ing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948,

    arXiv

  2. [5]

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2501.12948

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.12948. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2501.12948. Ze Feng, Sen Yang, Boqiang Duan, Wankou Yang, and Jingdong Wang. EM-KD: Distilling efficient multimodal large language model with unbalanced vision tokens.AAAI, 40(25),

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.12948

  3. [10]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2510

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.09285. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2510. 09285. Yoon Kim and Alexander M. Rush. Sequence-level knowledge distillation. InEMNLP, pages 1317– 1327,

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.09285

  4. [12]

    URL https://thinkingmachines.ai/blog/on-policy- distillation/

    doi: 10.64434/tml.20251026. URL https://thinkingmachines.ai/blog/on-policy- distillation/. Pan Lu, Ran Gong, Shibiao Jiang, et al. Inter-GPS: Interpretable geometry problem solving with formal language and symbolic reasoning. InACL-IJCNLP, pages 6774–6786,

    doi:10.64434/tml.20251026

  5. [13]

    URL https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.528/

    18653/v1/2021.acl-long.528. URL https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.528/. Pan Lu, Hritik Bansal, Tony Xia, et al. MathVista: Evaluating mathematical reasoning of foun- dation models in visual contexts. InICLR,

    2021

  6. [14]

    URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/ article/view/29844

    doi: 10.1609/aaai.v38i17.29844. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/ article/view/29844. Runqi Qiao, Qiuna Tan, Guanting Dong, et al. We-Math: Does your large multimodal model achieve human-like mathematical reasoning? InACL, pages 20023–20070,

    doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i17.29844

  7. [15]

    acl-long.983

    doi: 10.18653/v1/2025. acl-long.983. URL https://aclanthology.org/2025.acl-long.983/. Yun Qu, Yuhang Jiang, Boyuan Wang, Yixiu Mao, Cheems Wang, Chang Liu, and Xiangyang Ji. Latent reward: LLM-empowered credit assignment in episodic reinforcement learning.AAAI, 39 (19):20095–20103,

    doi:10.18653/v1/2025 2025

  8. [16]

    URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ AAAI/article/view/34213

    doi: 10.1609/aaai.v39i19.34213. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ AAAI/article/view/34213. Andrei A. Rusu, Sergio Gomez Colmenarejo, Caglar Gulcehre, Guillaume Desjardins, James Kirk- patrick, Razvan Pascanu, V olodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Raia Hadsell. Policy distil- lation. InICLR,

    doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i19.34213

Show all 28 references
  1. [17]

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.06295. John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,

    arXiv

  2. [19]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503. 10291. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.10291. Yijia Xiao, Edward Sun, Tianyu Liu, and Wei Wang. LogicVista: Multimodal LLM logical reasoning benchmark in visual contexts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04973,

    doi arXiv

  3. [20]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407. 04973. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.04973. Shuo Yang, Siwen Luo, and Soyeon Caren Han. Multimodal commonsense knowledge distilla- tion for visual question answering.AAAI, 39(28):29545–29547,

    doi arXiv

  4. [21]

    doi: 10.1609/aaai.v39i28. 35320. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/35320. Qiying Yu, Zheng Zhang, Ruofei Zhu, et al. DAPO: An open-source llm reinforcement learning system at scale.arXiv:2503.14476,

    arXiv

  5. [22]

    URL https://arxiv

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14476. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2503.14476. Qianhao Yuan, Jie Lou, Xing Yu, Hongyu Lin, Le Sun, Xianpei Han, and Yaojie Lu. Vision- OPD: Learning to see fine details for multimodal LLMs via on-policy self-distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.18740,

    doi arXiv

  6. [23]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2605.18740

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.18740. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2605.18740. Xiang Yue, Tianyu Zheng, Yuansheng Ni, et al. MMMU-Pro: A more robust multi-discipline multi- modal understanding benchmark. InACL, pages 15134–15186,

    doi arXiv

  7. [24]

    URL https://aclanthology.org/2025.acl-long.736/

    doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.acl- long.736. URL https://aclanthology.org/2025.acl-long.736/. Renrui Zhang, Dongzhi Jiang, Yichi Zhang, et al. MathVerse: Does your multi-modal LLM truly see the diagrams in visual math problems? InECCV,

    2025 doi

  8. [25]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14624

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.14624. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14624. Tianyang Zhao, Kunwar Yashraj Singh, Srikar Appalaraju, Peng Tang, Vijay Mahadevan, R. Man- matha, and Ying Nian Wu. No head left behind: Multi-head alignment distillation for transform- ers.AAAI, 38(7):7514–7524,

    doi arXiv

  9. [26]

    URL https://ojs.aaai.org/ index.php/AAAI/article/view/28583

    doi: 10.1609/aaai.v38i7.28583. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/ index.php/AAAI/article/view/28583. Yujin Zhou, Pengcheng Wen, Jiale Chen, Boqin Yin, Han Zhu, Jiaming Ji, Juntao Dai, Chi-Min Chan, and Sirui Han. What, whether and how? unveiling process reward models for thinking with ...

    doi

  10. [27]

    URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/40144

    doi: 10.1609/aaai.v40i34.40144. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/40144. 13 A Supplementary Overview and Terminology This supplement provides the implementation details, complete experimental protocol, qualitative examples, and full transfer results omitted ...

    doi

  11. [28]

    Training runs for two epochs with an actor learning rate of10 −6, a 10-step warmup, and gradient-norm clipping at 1.0

    The perception and reasoning loss coefficients areλ aw = 0.1andλ cot = 1.0, respectively. Training runs for two epochs with an actor learning rate of10 −6, a 10-step warmup, and gradient-norm clipping at 1.0. A format bonus and repetition/malformed-response penalties discourag...

  12. [2015]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1503.02531

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1503.02531. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1503.02531. 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! outperforming larger language model...

    doi arXiv

  13. [2016]

    URL https://aclanthology.org/D16-1139/

    doi: 10.18653/v1/D16-1139. URL https://aclanthology.org/D16-1139/. Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, et al. Let’s verify step by step. InICLR,

    doi

  14. [2017]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1707. 06347. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06347. Hao Shao, Shengju Qian, Han Xiao, et al. Visual CoT: Advancing multi-modal lan- guage models with a comprehensive dataset and benchmark for chain-of-thought rea- soning. InNeurIPS, volume 37, 2024a. doi: 10...

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [2019]

    Shuai Bai, Yuxuan Cai, Ruizhe Chen, et al

    URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2019/hash/ 16105fb9cc614fc29e1bda00dab60d41-Abstract.html. Shuai Bai, Yuxuan Cai, Ruizhe Chen, et al. Qwen3-VL technical report. Technical Report arXiv:2511.21631, Qwen Team, 2025a. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.21631. Shuai Bai, Keqin...

    2019 arXiv

  16. [2022]

    Lin Chen, Jinsong Li, Xiaoyi Dong, et al

    URL https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/CVPR2022/html/Beyer Knowledge Distillation A Good Teacher Is Patient and Consistent CVPR 2022 paper.html. Lin Chen, Jinsong Li, Xiaoyi Dong, et al. Are we on the right way for evaluating large vision- language models? InNeurIPS, volume...

    2022 doi arXiv

  17. [2023]

    URL https://aclanthology.org/ 2023.findings-acl.507/

    doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.507. URL https://aclanthology.org/ 2023.findings-acl.507/. Siyuan Huang, Xiaoye Qu, Yafu Li, et al. Spotlight on token perception for multimodal reinforce- ment learning. InICLR,

    2023 doi

  18. [2024]

    v38i16.29776

    doi: 10.1609/aaai. v38i16.29776. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/29776. Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network.arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531,

    arXiv

  19. [2025]

    v39i22.34538

    doi: 10.1609/aaai. v39i22.34538. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/34538. Wojciech M. Czarnecki, Razvan Pascanu, Simon Osindero, Siddhant M. Jayakumar, Grzegorz Swirszcz, and Max Jaderberg. Distilling policy distillation. InAISTATS, volume 89, pages 1331–

    doi

  20. [2026]

    URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/39254

    doi: 10.1609/aaai.v40i25.39254. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/39254. Tommaso Furlanello, Zachary Lipton, Michael Tschannen, Laurent Itti, and Anima Anandkumar. Born again neural networks. InICML, volume 80, pages 1607–1616. PMLR,

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.