Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Answer-then-Edit: Reasoning Skeleton Editing for Anti-Distillation with Preserved Utility

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that post-hoc editing of a teacher LLM's reasoning traces—extracting, coarsening, and rewording their logical skeleton—can sharply reduce the usefulness of those traces for knowledge distillation, while preserving the teac

desk verdict A genuinely new post-hoc anti-distillation paradigm with a plausible mechanism, but the headline student-degradation numbers rest on an evaluation protocol that may bias against SGRE and needs a straightforward fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20440 v1 pith:DSNNKE23 submitted 2026-05-12 cs.CL cs.AI

Fan Li , Mengting Pan , Sijia Xu , Xiaoyang Wang , Chen Chen , Wenjie Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords anti-distillationknowledgedistillationreasoningtracesintellectualpropertyprotectionCognitiveLoadTheoryskeletongraphanswer-then-edittraceediting
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

To prevent rivals from cheaply copying a proprietary LLM through its public API, this paper proposes editing the model's reasoning traces before they are served. The method first lets the teacher produce a clean answer, then extracts a compressed 'skeleton' of the reasoning, merges and scrambles that skeleton's steps, and rewrites it in dense, indirect language. The resulting traces still lead to the original answer, but students fine-tuned on them pick up far less reasoning ability. Across three benchmarks and several student sizes, the paper reports the largest drops in distilled-student accuracy among compared defenses, with teacher accuracy unchanged and readability close to clean traces.

What carries the argument

The reasoning skeleton graph: a DAG extracted from the teacher's trace whose nodes are abstract steps typed support, reasoning, or conclusion, and whose edges are depends_on relations. Skeleton graph coarsening merges nodes sharing predecessors (parallel coarsening) or along single-predecessor chains (serial coarsening) into blocks of at most Bmax steps, perturbing the granularity of the logic. Skeleton verbalization then re-lexicalizes the blocks subject to content fidelity, structural modulation, information control, and language style. The graph is the vehicle for deliberately injecting 'extraneous load' into the trace.

What would settle it

Take an SGRE-edited trace, append the answer-forcing suffix, and decode additional tokens exactly as the paper's protocol does. If the newly generated boxed content is usually empty or malformed while the original boxed answer is correct, then the reported student accuracy is an artifact. Re-running the distillation evaluation with the original boxed answer stripped before appending the suffix, and checking whether student accuracy rises substantially, would settle whether the anti-distillation effect is genuine.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SGRE shows that an anti-distillation defense does not need to perturb the teacher's internal generation; it can be applied after the fact. The teacher first answers normally, then a pipeline converts the trace into a directed acyclic graph of abstract reasoning steps, coarsens that graph by merging parallel and serial nodes, and verbalizes the coarsened structure using the teacher model under rules that demand dense, non-linear, vague language. Because the final answer is carried verbatim through the pipeline, teacher accuracy is preserved by construction; because the edited trace's logic is fragmented and its wording obfuscated, a student trained with token-level cross-entropy acquires less

Load-bearing premise

The comparison rests on the answer-forcing protocol measuring student accuracy fairly even though SGRE traces already end with a boxed final answer; if that pre-existing box is not stripped before the answer-forcing prompt is appended, the protocol may count a second, empty box as the student's answer and overstate the defense's effectiveness.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Students trained on SGRE-edited traces show larger accuracy drops than those trained on traces from perturbation-based defenses, across all tested datasets and student model sizes.
  • The teacher's answer accuracy on the evaluation sets is unchanged by SGRE, because the final answer is copied from the original trace rather than regenerated.
  • Edited traces score close to clean traces on an LLM-as-a-judge naturalness scale, whereas logit-perturbation defenses degrade naturalness substantially.
  • SGRE runs faster than token-level penalty sampling, since the extra cost is a single pass of skeleton extraction plus verbalization rather than per-token gradient computation.
  • The defense's effectiveness persists when different open-weight models are used as the skeleton extractor, indicating the effect comes from the editing paradigm itself.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If served adaptively—clean traces to trusted users, edited traces to suspects—a determined adversary could probe multiple times or apply their own abstraction and denoising to approximate the original skeleton, so the defense is likely best combined with access control and query monitoring.
  • The Cognitive Load Theory framing suggests the method should hurt students that imitate surface structure more than students already trained to reason from sparse hints; this could be tested by varying student pretraining or using students trained on skeleton-like data.
  • The paper evaluates distillation as unconditional next-token prediction on full traces; a stronger attack that conditions on the final answer, samples several traces per question, or down-weights late tokens might recover more reasoning ability.
  • Because the final answer is preserved verbatim, SGRE offers no protection against answer-only distillation that ignores the trace; its value is specifically for defenses against trace-based reasoning distillation.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SGRE, an "Answer-then-Edit" anti-distillation framework. The teacher first generates clean reasoning traces; a small LM extracts a reasoning-skeleton graph; graph coarsening merges reasoning steps; and the teacher verbalizes the coarsened skeleton with deliberately elevated textual complexity. The final answer from the original trace is preserved and appended verbatim, which guarantees teacher answer accuracy by construction. Experiments on GSM8K, MATH, and MMLU-Pro, with DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B as teacher and four student models, compare SGRE against ADS and DOGe. The paper reports that SGRE achieves the largest student-performance degradation while retaining teacher accuracy and high trace naturalness.

Significance. The post-hoc editing paradigm is a useful departure from internal-perturbation defenses: it decouples utility preservation from the defense mechanism and makes naturalness more controllable. If the empirical claims are reliable, SGRE offers a practical, efficient anti-distillation defense. The paper is also transparent that final-answer preservation is by design, not an empirical discovery. However, the main evaluation lacks error bars, and the answer-forcing protocol is underspecified in a way that could affect the central student-degradation measurement. The naturalness claim rests on a single LLM judge on a 10% subset. These issues make the significance conditional on additional validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1 / Appendix E.1] The answer-forcing (AF) evaluation protocol is underspecified. The paper states that after generating the reasoning trace the authors append "\n\n**Final Answer**\n[\boxed{ " and extract from the content of "\boxed{...}". SGRE traces already end with a boxed final answer (Appendix E.1 shows "**Final Answer:** \[ \boxed{36} \]"). The paper does not state whether this existing box is stripped before appending the AF prompt. If it is not stripped, the final trace contains two boxed answers, and extracting from the last box could yield an empty or malformed box. This concern applies to clean and DOGe traces as well, but it is load-bearing for the central claim in Table 1 that SGRE achieves the largest student degradation. The authors should specify the extraction rule and, if the existing box is not stripped, run a robustness check (e.g., extracting from the first box or stripping the pre-ex
  2. [Section 4.2 / Table 1] The paper reports "average results over five runs" but Table 1 contains no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Claims such as "consistently achieves the largest degradation" and "outperforming ADS by a margin of 10.41%" cannot be assessed without variance information. For example, the student-accuracy differences between SGRE and ADS on MATH (e.g., Llama-3.2-3B: 8.65 vs. 10.14; gemma-3-1b-it: 7.12 vs. 9.55) could be within run-to-run noise. The authors should report per-run numbers or standard deviations across the five runs, and preferably a paired test across datasets or seeds.
  3. [Section 4.4 / Figure 3] The naturalness evaluation uses a single LLM judge (ChatGPT-5.5-Instant) on a randomly sampled 10% subset of each dataset, with no inter-annotator agreement, no human baseline, and no variance reported. Since "superior trace naturalness" is one of the paper's key advantages over ADS, this evaluation is too thin. At minimum, the authors should report the judge's confidence, run multiple judge models or repeated calls, and provide per-item standard errors or a significance test for the differences between SGRE and the baselines. A small human evaluation would substantially strengthen the claim.
  4. [Section 4.2 / Section 3.3] The statement "SGRE maintains the teacher's answer accuracy without loss" is not an empirical finding but a design guarantee: the final answer is copied verbatim from the skeleton into the edited trace. The paper acknowledges this in Section 3.3, but Section 4.2 and the abstract present it as an experimentally demonstrated advantage. The presentation should be corrected to describe this as a guarantee, and the evaluation should verify that the implemented pipeline indeed preserves the final answer in all edited traces (e.g., by checking that extraction from edited traces reproduces the original answer).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1] The AF prompt string "\n\n**Final Answer**\n[\boxed{ " appears to contain a stray opening square bracket before "\boxed{". This should be checked and fixed if it is a typo, since the extraction rule refers only to "\boxed{...}".
  2. [Section 4.6] The phrase "approximately 1× additional processing cost" is ambiguous. If it means the total runtime doubles, it should say "~2×" or "100% overhead"; as written, "1×" could be read as no additional cost.
  3. [Section 4.5 / Figure 4] The text says SGRE "consistently and significantly" reduces student performance, but the figure does not include error bars or significance tests. Use "substantially" or report statistical significance.
  4. [Section 3.2] Equation (6) uses an undefined operator: the text defines "L" as ordered textual concatenation, but the displayed formula shows "M" before the set union. Please align the notation.
  5. [Section 4.4] The evaluator "ChatGPT-5.5-Instant" [27] should be described more precisely: exact model identifier, access date, and temperature/decoding settings, so the evaluation is reproducible.
  6. [Appendix A.2 / Section 4.2] The number of training runs is five, but it is not stated whether the same five distilled students are used for all methods and datasets, or whether new seeds are drawn per condition. This matters for paired error-bar calculation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

SGRE's teacher-accuracy preservation is a by-construction answer-copy invariant; the central anti-distillation finding is empirical and not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3 'Skeleton Verbalization'; claimed as result in Section 4.2 'Preserved teacher reasoning accuracy']
    "since the final answer is directly extracted from the coarsened skeleton and appended to the edited trace, the verbalization process fully preserves the original teacher's answer ... The final_answer field remains unchanged throughout the coarsening process and is preserved identically to the original skeleton."

    Section 4.2 reports 'SGRE maintains the teacher's answer accuracy without loss' as a finding, but this is guaranteed by design: RSE stores the original final_answer, SGC explicitly leaves it unchanged, and SV appends it verbatim. Therefore the SGRE teacher-accuracy numbers in Table 1, which are identical to Clean, are not an independent empirical prediction; they equal the input answer by construction. This is a by-construction invariant rather than a derived result, and it does not bear on the student-degradation measurements.

full rationale

The central anti-distillation claim—SGRE produces the largest student performance degradation—is an empirical, externally benchmarked result. It is not derived from fitted parameters, does not rename a known pattern, and does not depend on a self-citation chain. The only by-construction element is the teacher-answer preservation guarantee, which the authors explicitly acknowledge: the final answer is extracted into the skeleton, left unchanged during coarsening, and appended verbatim during verbalization. That makes the teacher-accuracy part of the utility claim trivially true, but it does not contaminate the measured anti-distillation effect. The answer-forcing evaluation concern is a potential measurement confound (whether the pre-existing boxed answer is stripped before appending the AF prompt), not a circular derivation, so per the hard rules it is excluded from the circularity score. Aside from the acknowledged answer-copy invariant, the paper's derivation chain is self-contained against its external benchmarks. No author self-citations are load-bearing. Consistent with the rubric, this is a minor by-construction element with an otherwise independent central result.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main tunable free parameter is Bmax; temperature, prompts, and model choices are design decisions, not fitted to data. The reasoning skeleton graph is a representational device, not a new entity with independent evidence. No novel physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Bmax (maximum block size in coarsening) = not reported (tuned from {1,2,3,4})
    Section 4.1 says Bmax is tuned from {1,2,3,4}, but the per-dataset chosen value is not reported, so the final results may depend on this fitted hyperparameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SFT-based black-box text distillation is the relevant threat model.
    The paper explicitly restricts to text-level SFT distillation (Section 2, Section D.2), which excludes logit-based attacks; this is a stated scoping assumption.
  • domain assumption Cognitive Load Theory's extraneous-load concept transfers to LM student training.
    The paper draws an analogy between human learning and LLM distillation (Sections 1, 3.3, Appendix C), but provides no rigorous justification that increasing textual complexity impedes gradient-based learning in the same way.
  • domain assumption The small skeleton extractor (Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct) reliably captures the teacher's reasoning dependencies.
    Section 3.1 relies on an SLM to produce faithful skeletons; no verification of skeleton fidelity is provided beyond downstream task performance.
  • domain assumption The teacher's verbalization of the coarsened skeleton produces traces that are natural but hard for students to learn from.
    This is the core empirical assumption of the method; the paper measures naturalness via one LLM judge and anti-distillation via student accuracy, but the mechanism is not guaranteed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Answer-then-Edit: Reasoning Skeleton Editing for Anti-Distillation with Preserved Utility." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DSNNKE23

@misc{pith2026260720440,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Answer-then-Edit: Reasoning Skeleton Editing for Anti-Distillation with Preserved Utility},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DSNNKE23}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20440}
}
read the original abstract

Proprietary large language models (LLMs) entail substantial intellectual and financial investment, making them valuable intellectual property (IP). However, even when deployed via black-box APIs, these models remain vulnerable to unauthorized knowledge distillation, which allows adversaries to cheaply extract and replicate model capabilities. To address this issue, anti-distillation (AD) has been proposed to generate defensive outputs that hinder distillation effectiveness, overcoming the limitation of watermarking-based approaches that rely on post-hoc verification. However, existing AD methods based on internal model perturbations struggle to balance anti-distillability and utility (e.g., answer accuracy and naturalness) of reasoning traces, with stronger defenses often causing significant utility loss. To fill this gap, we propose \textbf{\underline{S}}keleton-\textbf{\underline{G}}uided \textbf{\underline{R}}easoning \textbf{\underline{E}}diting (SGRE), an \textit{Answer-then-Edit} framework that performs post-hoc trace modification for anti-distillation. In the answer stage, the teacher model first generates clean reasoning traces, preserving the original reasoning accuracy while enabling more flexible control over trace naturalness. In the editing stage, we draw inspiration from Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) and introduce a three-stage strategy consisting of reasoning skeleton extraction, skeleton graph coarsening, and skeleton verbalization. These operations jointly perturb reasoning structures and augment textual complexity to amplify extraneous load on student models, hindering their acquisition of underlying reasoning patterns. Extensive experiments across diverse LLMs demonstrate that SGRE achieves state-of-the-art performance in reducing distillation effectiveness, while maintaining lossless reasoning accuracy and superior trace naturalness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20440 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Naturalness of anti-distilled traces. To fill this gap, anti-distillation (AD) [26, 21] has attracted increasing attention as a technique for generating defensive rea￾soning traces that hinder effective distilla￾tion. Antidistillation Sampling (ADS) [26] pioneers AD by perturbing the teacher’s next-token distribution with a gradient￾based penalty, which increases the loss of student models trained on the generated t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall framework of SGRE. skeleton graph by compressing informative textual content and obscuring explicit logical dependen￾cies. Then, skeleton graph coarsening (SGC) progressively merges reasoning steps in the skeleton graph to reduce the granularity of the reasoning process, making the underlying reasoning structure more difficult to reconstruct. Finally, skeleton verbalization (SV) transforms the coarsened skel… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Runtime comparison. notable performance drop, indicating that the skeleton extraction stage alone, by compressing the content of reasoning traces, can effectively hinder distillation. 4.4 Naturalness Evaluation In this section, we use the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm [24, 20, 44] to evaluate the naturalness of reasoning traces generated by the defensive teacher. Here, naturalness mainly reflects human-centered qualities … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The prompt template for skeleton extraction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The prompt template for skeleton verbalization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Naturalness scoring prompt. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 13 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

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

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    On-policy distillation of language models: Learning from self-generated mistakes

    Rishabh Agarwal, Nino Vieillard, Yongchao Zhou, Piotr Stanczyk, Sabela Ramos Garea, Matthieu Geist, and Olivier Bachem. On-policy distillation of language models: Learning from self-generated mistakes. InICLR, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    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, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Knowledge distillation: A survey.IJCV, 129(6):1789–1819, 2021

    Jianping Gou, Baosheng Yu, Stephen J Maybank, and Dacheng Tao. Knowledge distillation: A survey.IJCV, 129(6):1789–1819, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Wa- termarking pre-trained language models with backdooring.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07543, 2022

    Chenxi Gu, Chengsong Huang, Xiaoqing Zheng, Kai-Wei Chang, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. Wa- termarking pre-trained language models with backdooring.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07543, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Minillm: Knowledge distillation of large language models

    Yuxian Gu, Li Dong, Furu Wei, and Minlie Huang. Minillm: Knowledge distillation of large language models. InICLR, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Accelerate: training and inference at scale made simple, efficient and adaptable.URL: https://github

    Sylvain Gugger, Lysandre Debut, Thomas Wolf, Philipp Schmid, Zachary Mueller, Sourab Mangrulkar, Marc Sun, and Benjamin Bossan. Accelerate: training and inference at scale made simple, efficient and adaptable.URL: https://github. com/huggingface/accelerate, 2022

    2022

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Ruoyu Zhang, Shirong Ma, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Protecting intellectual property of language generation apis with lexical watermark

    Xuanli He, Qiongkai Xu, Lingjuan Lyu, Fangzhao Wu, and Chenguang Wang. Protecting intellectual property of language generation apis with lexical watermark. InAAAI, volume 36, pages 10758–10766, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    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, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Large language models are reasoning teachers

    Namgyu Ho, Laura Schmid, and Se-Young Yun. Large language models are reasoning teachers. InACL, pages 14852–14882, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

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

    Cheng-Yu Hsieh, Chun-Liang Li, Chih-Kuan Yeh, Hootan Nakhost, Yasuhisa Fujii, Alex Ratner, Ranjay Krishna, Chen-Yu Lee, and Tomas Pfister. Distilling step-by-step! outperforming larger language models with less training data and smaller model sizes. InACL Findings, pages 8003–...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. InICLR, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Gemma 3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19786, 2025

    Gemma Team Aishwarya Kamath, Johan Ferret, et al. Gemma 3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19786, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Sequence-level knowledge distillation

    Yoon Kim and Alexander M Rush. Sequence-level knowledge distillation. InEMNLP, pages 1317–1327, 2016. 10

    2016

  10. [18]

    A watermark for large language models

    John Kirchenbauer, Jonas Geiping, Yuxin Wen, Jonathan Katz, Ian Miers, and Tom Goldstein. A watermark for large language models. InICML, pages 17061–17084. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning, 2002

    Paul A Kirschner. Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning, 2002

    2002

  12. [20]

    From generation to judgment: Opportunities and challenges of llm-as-a-judge

    Dawei Li, Bohan Jiang, Liangjie Huang, Alimohammad Beigi, Chengshuai Zhao, Zhen Tan, Amrita Bhattacharjee, Yuxuan Jiang, Canyu Chen, Tianhao Wu, et al. From generation to judgment: Opportunities and challenges of llm-as-a-judge. InEMNLP, pages 2757–2791, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Doge: Defensive output generation for llm protection against knowledge distillation

    Pingzhi Li, Zhen Tan, Yu-Chao Huang, Huaizhi Qu, Tianlong Chen, et al. Doge: Defensive output generation for llm protection against knowledge distillation. InNeurIPS Lock-LLM Workshop: Prevent Unauthorized Knowledge Use from Large Language Models, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Graykd: Distilling better knowledge from black-box llm via multi-rationale injection

    Hyeongsoo Lim, Hyung Yong Kim, Jin Young Kim, Min Ho Jang, Eun Seo Seo, Youshin Lim, Shukjae Choi, Jihwan Park, Yunkyu Lim, Hanbin Lee, et al. Graykd: Distilling better knowledge from black-box llm via multi-rationale injection. InAAAI, volume 40, pages 31997–32005, 2026

    2026

  15. [23]

    Deepseek-v3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437, 2024

    Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, et al. Deepseek-v3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    G-eval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment

    Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. G-eval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment. InEMNLP, pages 2511–2522, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments.Educational psychologist, 38(1):1–4, 2003

    Fred Paas, Alexander Renkl, and John Sweller. Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments.Educational psychologist, 38(1):1–4, 2003

    2003

  18. [26]

    Antidistillation sampling

    Yash Savani, Asher Trockman, Zhili Feng, Yixuan Even Xu, Avi Schwarzschild, Alexander Robey, Marc Anton Finzi, and J Zico Kolter. Antidistillation sampling. InNeurIPS, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Openai gpt-5 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03267, 2025

    Aaditya Singh, Adam Fry, Adam Perelman, Adam Tart, Adi Ganesh, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aidan McLaughlin, Aiden Low, AJ Ostrow, Akhila Ananthram, et al. Openai gpt-5 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03267, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.Cognitive science, 12(2):257–285, 1988

    John Sweller. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.Cognitive science, 12(2):257–285, 1988

    1988

  21. [29]

    Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design.Learning and instruction, 4(4):295–312, 1994

    John Sweller. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design.Learning and instruction, 4(4):295–312, 1994

    1994

  22. [30]

    Cognitive load theory

    John Sweller. Cognitive load theory. InPsychology of learning and motivation, volume 55, pages 37–76. Elsevier, 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    Cognitive architecture and instructional design.Educational psychology review, 10(3):251–296, 1998

    John Sweller, Jeroen JG Van Merrienboer, and Fred GWC Paas. Cognitive architecture and instructional design.Educational psychology review, 10(3):251–296, 1998

    1998

  24. [32]

    Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model, 2023

    Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B Hashimoto. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Do large language model benchmarks test reliability?arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03461, 2025

    Joshua Vendrow, Edward Vendrow, Sara Beery, and Aleksander Madry. Do large language model benchmarks test reliability?arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03461, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Poisoning language models during instruction tuning

    Alexander Wan, Eric Wallace, Sheng Shen, and Dan Klein. Poisoning language models during instruction tuning. InICML, pages 35413–35425. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Abkd: Pursuing a proper allocation of the probability mass in knowledge distillation via α-β-divergence

    Guanghui Wang, Zhiyong Yang, Zitai Wang, Shi Wang, Qianqian Xu, and Qingming Huang. Abkd: Pursuing a proper allocation of the probability mass in knowledge distillation via α-β-divergence. InICML, pages 65167–65212. PMLR, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    Mmlu-pro: A more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark.NeurIPS, 37:95266–95290, 2024

    Yubo Wang, Xueguang Ma, Ge Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, Abhranil Chandra, Shiguang Guo, Weiming Ren, Aaran Arulraj, Xuan He, Ziyan Jiang, et al. Mmlu-pro: A more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark.NeurIPS, 37:95266–95290, 2024. 11

    2024

  29. [37]

    F-divergence minimization for sequence-level knowledge distillation

    Yuqiao Wen, Zichao Li, Wenyu Du, and Lili Mou. F-divergence minimization for sequence-level knowledge distillation. InACL, pages 10817–10834, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Trl: transformer reinforcement learning.GitHub

    Leandro von Werra, Younes Belkada, Lewis Tunstall, Edward Beeching, Tristan Thrush, Nathan Lambert, Shengyi Huang, Kashif Rasul, and Quentin Gallouédec. Trl: transformer reinforcement learning.GitHub. URL: https://github. com/huggingface/trl, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Transformers: State-of- the-art natural language processing

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. Transformers: State-of- the-art natural language processing. InNeurIPS, pages 38–45, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Instructional fingerprinting of large language models

    Jiashu Xu, Fei Wang, Mingyu Ma, Pang Wei Koh, Chaowei Xiao, and Muhao Chen. Instructional fingerprinting of large language models. InNAACL, pages 3277–3306, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, et al. Qwen2. 5 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Securing large language models: A survey of watermarking and fingerprinting techniques

    Peigen Ye, Huali Ren, Zhengdao Li, Anli Yan, Hongyang Yan, Shaowei Wang, and Jin Li. Securing large language models: A survey of watermarking and fingerprinting techniques. CSUR, 58(7):1–35, 2026

    2026

  36. [44]

    Improve llm-as-a-judge ability as a general ability

    Jiachen Yu, Shaoning Sun, Xiaohui Hu, Jiaxu Yan, Kaidong Yu, and Xuelong Li. Improve llm-as-a-judge ability as a general ability. InEMNLP, pages 14110–14126, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    steps": [ {

    Xuandong Zhao, Lei Li, and Yu-Xiang Wang. Distillation-resistant watermarking for model protection in nlp. InEMNLP Findings, pages 5044–5055, 2022. 12 A Additional Experimental Details A.1 Dataset Descriptions The detailed dataset descriptions are as follows: GSM8K.The GSM8K [...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.