Pith. sign in

REVIEW 35 references

Learning with Less: Knowledge Distillation from Large Language Models via Unlabeled Data

T0 review · 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 LLKD selects unlabeled samples that combine high teacher confidence with high student uncertainty, improving text classification accuracy and data efficiency over existing distillation baselines.

arxiv 2411.08028 v3 pith:BWWCEUZM submitted 2024-11-12 cs.AI

Juanhui Li , Sreyashi Nag , Hui Liu , Xianfeng Tang , Sheikh Sarwar , Limeng Cui , Hansu Gu , Suhang Wang
show 2 more authors
Qi He Jiliang Tang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords datallmsmodelshighknowledgelargelearningless
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

Large language models (LLMs) are powerful but expensive to run. One cheaper option is to train a small model to copy the LLM's behavior. This usually requires labeled data, which is scarce, or unlabeled data with labels generated by the LLM. Those generated labels, called pseudo-labels, are sometimes wrong. This paper proposes a way to choose which unlabeled examples to train on.

The method, called LLKD, looks at two signals. First, it checks how confident the LLM is in its pseudo-label for a sample. Second, it measures how uncertain the small student model is about that same sample. LLKD keeps samples where the LLM is very confident, so the label is probably correct, and where the student is very uncertain, so the sample is probably informative and hard. The thresholds for 'confident' and 'uncertain' adapt over time as the student learns, and they are adjusted per class.

The authors test LLKD on five text classification datasets, using LLaMA as the teacher and RoBERTa as the student. They report that LLKD matches or beats several baselines, including methods that use fixed selection ratios or only one of the two signals. It also uses far fewer training samples, for example only 3.7% of the data on one medical dataset. The improvements are largest on that medical dataset and smaller on others. The paper does not release code, and it does not report statistical significance or measure whether the method actually saves computation, since the student still needs to process all samples to estimate uncertainty.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

LLKD achieves superior performance across various datasets with higher data efficiency, selecting samples based on high teacher confidence and high student uncertainty. If correct, the method lets a small student model learn from LLM pseudo-labels on unlabeled data using a small fraction of the training samples, beating existing distillation baselines on text classification accuracy and Macro-F1.

Load-bearing premise

The method relies on the empirical relationship plotted in Figure 2: teacher confidence monotonically tracks pseudo-label accuracy, and student uncertainty monotonically tracks sample hardness. If this relationship is weak on a new dataset, the selection criteria will not preserve label quality, and the central claim of superior performance collapses. This proxy assumption is a domain assumption, not a proven property of LLM pseudo-labels.

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.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's central claim rests on several tuned hyperparameters (momentums, balance exponents, learning rate, few-shot counts) and on empirical proxy assumptions about teacher confidence and student uncertainty. These are not derived from first principles and may not transfer across tasks. No new physical or class entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Momentum coefficients λS, λT = not reported (tuned over {0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9})
    Control the EMA update of global thresholds in Eqs. (5)-(6); tuned on validation set.
  • Balance exponents βS1, βS2, βT1, βT2 = not reported (tuned over {0, 1})
    Control the contribution of global vs. local threshold components in Eq. (7); tuned on validation set.
  • Student learning rate = not reported (tuned over {1e-4, 1e-5})
    Optimizer learning rate for RoBERTa; tuned on validation set.
  • Few-shot example count for teacher prompt = PubMed: 5, Yahoo: 5, Emotions: 5, Arxiv-10: 3, BiosBias: 10
    Number of validation examples in the teacher prompt; selected as the best among {3, 5, 10} on validation.
  • Batch size = 32
    Fixed batch size for student updates; chosen by hand.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Teacher confidence is a monotonic proxy for pseudo-label correctness
    Used in Section 3.4 to justify selecting high-confidence teacher samples; evidence is the binned correlation in Figure 2 on validation sets, which may not hold on all distributions.
  • domain assumption Student entropy uncertainty is a monotonic proxy for sample informativeness
    Used in Section 3.4 to select high-uncertainty samples; supported by Figure 2 but not theoretically guaranteed.
  • ad hoc to paper The FreeMatch adaptive threshold update rules (Eqs. 5-7) transfer to teacher confidence and student uncertainty
    The threshold formulas are adopted from Wang et al. (2023) with new roles (teacher confidence, student uncertainty); this transfer is an empirical choice not derived.
  • domain assumption LLM pseudo-labels from LLaMA/Gemma are accurate enough to train a student model
    The whole method depends on the teacher generating useful labels; the paper does not measure pseudo-label accuracy on training data.
  • domain assumption The 500-sample validation set is representative and sufficient for hyperparameter and prompt selection
    Used to select few-shot examples, learning rates, and threshold hyperparameters; small validation sets may mislead selection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning with Less: Knowledge Distillation from Large Language Models via Unlabeled Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BWWCEUZM

@misc{pith2026241108028,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning with Less: Knowledge Distillation from Large Language Models via Unlabeled Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BWWCEUZM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08028}
}
read the original abstract

In real-world NLP applications, Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising solutions due to their extensive training on vast datasets. However, the large size and high computation demands of LLMs limit their practicality in many applications, especially when further fine-tuning is required. To address these limitations, smaller models are typically preferred for deployment. However, their training is hindered by the scarcity of labeled data. In contrast, unlabeled data is often readily which can be leveraged by using LLMs to generate pseudo-labels for training smaller models. This enables the smaller models (student) to acquire knowledge from LLMs(teacher) while reducing computational costs. This process introduces challenges, such as potential noisy pseudo-labels. Selecting high-quality and informative data is therefore critical to enhance model performance while improving the efficiency of data utilization. To address this, we propose LLKD that enables Learning with Less computational resources and less data for Knowledge Distillation from LLMs. LLKD is an adaptive sample selection method that incorporates signals from both the teacher and student. Specifically, it prioritizes samples where the teacher demonstrates high confidence in its labeling, indicating reliable labels, and where the student exhibits a high information need, identifying challenging samples that require further learning. Our comprehensive experiments show that LLKD achieves superior performance across various datasets with higher data efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08028 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of the LLKD framework. egorize text without labeled data. A common approach is similarity-based methods (Abdullahi et al., 2024; Schopf et al., 2022; Yin et al., 2019), which generate embeddings for both input texts and labels, and then match texts to labels based on similarity. These methods require no training data or training process. For example, Abdullahi et al. (2024) suggests augmenting input … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The relationship between teacher model ac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ablation study on various datasets. shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Teacher ACC and student ACC before and after data selection on the Arxiv-10 dataset. 4.5 Choice of Teacher Model To evaluate if LLKD is agnostic of the choice of teacher LLM, we try Gemma1 (Team et al., 2024) as the teacher model which has recently demon￾strated strong…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Parameter analysis on the Arxiv-10 dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The relationship between teacher model accuracy and teacher confidence (a)-(d), and the relationship [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Teacher ACC and student ACC before and after data selection on various datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Tassallah Abdullahi, Ritambhara Singh, and Carsten Eickhoff. 2024. Retrieval augmented zero-shot text classification. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval, pages 195--203

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    H Chen, R Tao, Yue Fan, Y Wang, M Savvides, J Wang, B Raj, X Xie, and Bernt Schiele. 2023. Softmatch: Addressing the quantity-quality tradeoff in semi-supervised learning. In Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations. OpenReview. net

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Wallach, Jennifer T

    Maria De - Arteaga, Alexey Romanov, Hanna M. Wallach, Jennifer T. Chayes, Christian Borgs, Alexandra Chouldechova, Sahin Cem Geyik, Krishnaram Kenthapadi, and Adam Tauman Kalai. 2019. Bias in bios: A case study of semantic representation bias in a high-stakes setting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAT* 201...

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    M Dehghani, A Mehrjou, S Gouws, J Kamps, and B Sch \"o lkopf. 2018. Fidelity-weighted learning. In 6th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2018). OpenReview. net

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Franck Dernoncourt and Ji Young Lee. 2017. Pubmed 200k rct: a dataset for sequential sentence classification in medical abstracts. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 308--313

    work page 2017

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Jacob Devlin. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Ashkan Farhangi, Ning Sui, Nan Hua, Haiyan Bai, Arthur Huang, and Zhishan Guo. 2022. Protoformer: Embedding prototypes for transformers. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining: 26th Pacific-Asia Conference, PAKDD 2022, Chengdu, China, May 16--19, 2022, Proceedings,...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Priya Goyal, Dhruv Mahajan, Abhinav Gupta, and Ishan Misra. 2019. Scaling and benchmarking self-supervised visual representation learning. In Proceedings of the ieee/cvf International Conference on computer vision, pages 6391--6400

    2019

  4. [12]

    Shai Gretz, Alon Halfon, Ilya Shnayderman, Orith Toledo-Ronen, Artem Spector, Lena Dankin, Yannis Katsis, Ofir Arviv, Yoav Katz, Noam Slonim, et al. 2023. Zero-shot topical text classification with llms-an experimental study. In Findings of the Association for Computational Li...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Fotis Iliopoulos, Vasilis Kontonis, Cenk Baykal, Gaurav Menghani, Khoa Trinh, and Erik Vee. 2022. Weighted distillation with unlabeled examples. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:7024--7037

    2022

  6. [14]

    Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Vasilis Kontonis, Fotis Iliopoulos, Khoa Trinh, Cenk Baykal, Gaurav Menghani, and Erik Vee. 2024. Slam: Student-label mixing for distillation with unlabeled examples. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  8. [16]

    Hunter Lang, Aravindan Vijayaraghavan, and David Sontag. 2022. Training subset selection for weak supervision. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:16023--16036

    2022

  9. [17]

    Lei Li, Yankai Lin, Shuhuai Ren, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, and Xu Sun. 2021. Dynamic knowledge distillation for pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 379--389

    2021

  10. [18]

    Yinhan Liu. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Sourav Mishra and Suresh Sundaram. 2021. Confidence conditioned knowledge distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.06993

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Elvis Saravia, Hsien-Chi Toby Liu, Yen-Hao Huang, Junlin Wu, and Yi-Shin Chen. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1404 CARER : Contextualized affect representations for emotion recognition . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Proc...

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Tim Schopf, Daniel Braun, and Florian Matthes. 2022. Evaluating unsupervised text classification: zero-shot and similarity-based approaches. In Proceedings of the 2022 6th International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Information Retrieval, pages 6--15

    2022

  14. [22]

    Mohammad Shoeybi, Mostofa Patwary, Raul Puri, Patrick LeGresley, Jared Casper, and Bryan Catanzaro. 2019. Megatron-lm: Training multi-billion parameter language models using model parallelism. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08053

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Kihyuk Sohn, David Berthelot, Nicholas Carlini, Zizhao Zhang, Han Zhang, Colin A Raffel, Ekin Dogus Cubuk, Alexey Kurakin, and Chun-Liang Li. 2020. Fixmatch: Simplifying semi-supervised learning with consistency and confidence. Advances in neural information processing systems...

    2020

  16. [24]

    Gemma Team, Thomas Mesnard, Cassidy Hardin, Robert Dadashi, Surya Bhupatiraju, Shreya Pathak, Laurent Sifre, Morgane Rivi \`e re, Mihir Sanjay Kale, Juliette Love, et al. 2024. Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08295

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Arun James Thirunavukarasu, Darren Shu Jeng Ting, Kabilan Elangovan, Laura Gutierrez, Ting Fang Tan, and Daniel Shu Wei Ting. 2023. Large language models in medicine. Nature medicine, 29(8):1930--1940

    2023

  18. [26]

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timoth \'e e Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi \`e re, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Fali Wang, Zhiwei Zhang, Xianren Zhang, Zongyu Wu, Tzuhao Mo, Qiuhao Lu, Wanjing Wang, Rui Li, Junjie Xu, Xianfeng Tang, et al. 2024. A comprehensive survey of small language models in the era of large language models: Techniques, enhancements, applications, collaboration with...

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Yidong Wang, Hao Chen, Qiang Heng, Wenxin Hou, Yue Fan, Zhen Wu, Jindong Wang, Marios Savvides, Takahiro Shinozaki, Bhiksha Raj, et al. 2023. Freematch: Self-adaptive thresholding for semi-supervised learning. In Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations. O...

    2023

  21. [29]

    Guodong Xu, Ziwei Liu, and Chen Change Loy. 2023. Computation-efficient knowledge distillation via uncertainty-aware mixup. Pattern Recognition, 138:109338

    2023

  22. [30]

    Wenpeng Yin, Jamaal Hay, and Dan Roth. 2019. Benchmarking zero-shot text classification: Datasets, evaluation and entailment approach. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natura...

    2019

  23. [31]

    Yue Yu, Rongzhi Zhang, Ran Xu, Jieyu Zhang, Jiaming Shen, and Chao Zhang. 2023. Cold-start data selection for better few-shot language model fine-tuning: A prompt-based uncertainty propagation approach. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computati...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Bowen Zhang, Yidong Wang, Wenxin Hou, Hao Wu, Jindong Wang, Manabu Okumura, and Takahiro Shinozaki. 2021. Flexmatch: Boosting semi-supervised learning with curriculum pseudo labeling. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:18408--18419

    2021

  25. [33]

    Xiang Zhang, Junbo Zhao, and Yann LeCun. 2015. Character-level convolutional networks for text classification. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28

    2015

  26. [34]

    Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. 2023. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Qinhong Zhou, Peng Li, Yang Liu, Yuyang Guan, Qizhou Xing, Ming Chen, and Maosong Sun. 2023. Adads: Adaptive data selection for accelerating pre-trained language model knowledge distillation. AI Open, 4

    2023

Pith tools

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