Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Group Relative Knowledge Distillation: Learning from Teacher's Relational Inductive Bias

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Distilling a teacher's relative class rankings rather than its exact probabilities gives smaller language models consistent gains across instruction-following and reasoning benchmarks.

desk verdict The core idea is plausible but the central loss is undefined for LLMs as written, so Table 1 cannot be interpreted; this version is not ready for peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20482 v1 pith:JP22D7MQ submitted 2025-04-29 cs.LG cs.AI

Chao Li , Changhua Zhou , Jia Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords knowledgedistillationrelationalinductivebiaspairwiserankinglosspreferenceoptimizationlargelanguagemodelssoftlabelsexposurefine-grainedclassification
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 argues that knowledge distillation wastes useful information when a student is forced to copy a teacher's exact output probabilities, because the teacher's relative ordering of classes carries the fine-grained distinctions that matter. It proposes Group Relative Knowledge Distillation (GRKD), which trains the student with a pairwise ranking loss over class pairs the teacher ranks highest, plus an annealed soft-label term that keeps early training stable. On Gemma-2 and LLaMA-3 teacher-student pairs, the method reports higher scores than standard KD, SeqKD, MiniLLM, DPO, SimPO, and PRO on AlpacaEval 2.0, Arena-Hard, MT-Bench, and GSM8K. A sympathetic reading is that the paper's central claim is that relational structure, not absolute likelihood, is the transferable part of teacher knowledge.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the group relative loss of Eq. (2), a pairwise ranking loss defined over teacher-ordered class pairs: for every pair $(i,j)$ with teacher score $s_i > s_j$, the student is trained so that $\log q_i - \log q_j$ is large, through the logistic term $-\log\sigma((\log q_i - \log q_j)/\tau)$. It is paired with the softened cross-entropy $L_{ST}$ and an annealing schedule for $\lambda$, so the student first imitates the teacher's probability surface and gradually shifts to preserving only its rankings. In the LLM experiments, the same loss is applied by sampling $n=4$ outputs per input and treating the sampled outputs as the items to rank.

What would settle it

Define the student score $q_i$ for sampled responses in a concrete way (for example, per-token log-likelihood) and rerun GRKD; if no reasonable definition reproduces the reported gains, the method as written is not implementable. Alternatively, train the same student with the same teacher but replace the teacher's ordering in $P$ with random pair order: if the win rates stay unchanged, the ranking signal is not what drives the results.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that replacing absolute-probability matching with a ranking-preservation objective yields better student models. For each input, GRKD builds the set $P$ of class pairs $(i,j)$ for which the teacher's score $s_i$ exceeds $s_j$, then minimizes $L_{GR} = -\sum_{(i,j)\in P} \log\sigma((\log q_i - \log q_j)/\tau)$, where $q_i$ and $q_j$ are the student's per-class scores. This forces the student to keep the teacher's pairwise preference order. The full objective is $L_{total} = \lambda L_{GR} + (1-\lambda) L_{ST}$, with $L_{ST}$ the softened cross-entropy and $\lambda$ annealed from 0 to 1, so training begins with probability matching and ends with pure relational alignment. The paper reports that this recipe consistently outperforms six distillation and preference baselines on four benchmarks, with the largest margins on length-controlled win rate and on tasks requiring fine-grained response selection.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the student's output scores are well-defined and comparable for every sampled response, so that the pairwise ranking loss can actually be computed; for the LLM experiments the paper samples responses but never specifies what score each response gets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If GRKD is right, a student trained on teacher rankings should beat the same student trained on teacher probabilities on fine-grained discrimination tasks, and the reported tables claim exactly this.
  • The annealing schedule implies that pure relational alignment is sufficient at the end of training; the soft-label term is a warm start rather than an ongoing requirement.
  • The method's gains over DPO and SimPO suggest that when a teacher is available, distilling its preferences directly can be a cheaper alternative to optimizing the student's own preference objective.
  • Because the paper motivates GRKD as reducing exposure bias and overfitting to spurious teacher outputs, the method is claimed to give students more stable inference behavior.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper does not test is applying the same group-relative loss to hidden representations or feature embeddings, where pairwise distances have a similar relational structure.
  • Whether the gains come from preserving pairwise order or merely from an extra smooth training signal is testable by ablating $P$ down to the teacher's top-1 pair only; the paper includes no such ablation.
  • The undefined mapping from an autoregressive response to a score $q_i$ is the sharpest open question; a reader would need to try definitions such as per-token log-likelihood or reward-model scores to know which version of GRKD the reported numbers describe.
  • The rank-only endpoint of the annealing schedule predicts that starting at $\lambda=1$ would be unstable early in training, a consequence that could be checked directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 proposes Group Relative Knowledge Distillation (GRKD), a distillation framework that trains a student model to preserve pairwise preference orderings from a teacher's outputs rather than matching absolute probability distributions. The method combines a group relative ranking loss (Eq. 2) with an annealed soft-label cross-entropy term (Eq. 3-4). Experiments are reported on Gemma-2 and LLaMA-3 instruction-tuned models trained on UltraFeedback and evaluated on AlpacaEval 2.0, Arena-Hard, MT-Bench, and GSM8K, with claims of consistent improvements over DPO, SimPO, PRO, Standard KD, SeqKD, and MiniLLM.

Significance. The conceptual premise, that relational structure in teacher outputs is more transferable than absolute likelihoods, is plausible and connects to recent preference-optimization methods such as DPO and GRPO. If the loss were rigorously defined for sequence generation and validated with controlled ablations, the idea could constitute a useful baseline for preference-based distillation. However, as presented, the central loss is not defined for the actual experimental setting, the experimental protocol lacks statistical and ablation support, and the abstract's framing contradicts the evaluation setup. The paper therefore does not yet deliver a testable method or credible evidence for its claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2)] The group relative loss is defined for classification logits q_i over n classes, but Section 3.1 applies it to autoregressive language models by 'sampling n outputs' with n=4. The quantity q_i is never defined for a sampled response: it is unclear whether q_i is a sequence log-likelihood, a length-normalized token log-probability, a reward-model score, or something else. Similarly, the teacher score s_i for a sampled response is not defined. Moreover, Eq. (2) writes log(q_i) - log(q_j) while Section 2.1 states that q_i are logits, which can be negative and thus make the logarithm undefined; Eq. (3) then treats q_i as a probability. These are not presentation issues: without a precise definition of q_i for responses, Eq. (2) cannot be computed, and the results in Table 1 cannot be attributed to the stated loss.
  2. [Section 3.1, Table 1] The hyperparameters τ, the λ annealing schedule, the reward calibration ratio α=0.8, and the number of sampled responses n=4 are introduced without derivations or sensitivity analyses. The claim that λ starts at 0 and gradually increases to 1, thereby fully removing the soft-label term at the end of training, is load-bearing because the method is defined as a weighted combination of two terms; no ablation isolates the contribution of the relative loss, and no evidence justifies the chosen τ, α, or n. Consequently, Section 3.2's assertion that GRKD 'consistently outperforms' baselines is not supported by controlled experiments.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Table 1] All experimental results are reported without error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple independent runs. Several of the reported improvements over the strongest baseline PRO are small (for example, Gemma MT-Bench 7.11 vs 6.96, and LLaMA Arena-Hard 46.92 vs 45.09). Without variance information, the claim of consistent, significant gains is not statistically supported.
  4. [Abstract and Section 1 vs Section 3] The abstract and introduction frame GRKD as a classification method targeting fine-grained class differentiation and state that experiments are conducted on 'classification benchmarks,' but Section 3 evaluates generative language models on conversational benchmarks (AlpacaEval, Arena-Hard, MT-Bench, GSM8K). This mismatch means the motivating scenario, relational structure among classes, is not directly tested, and the conclusion's 'average improvement of 9% across all four datasets' is not computable from Table 1, which reports five evaluation metrics.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'For each input x, we sample n outputs under the temperature is 1' is grammatically incomplete and should be revised; it also does not clarify whether the temperature refers to teacher logits, student logits, or sampling temperature.
  2. [Throughout] The notation is inconsistent: 'GEMMA -2' and 'LL AMA-3' appear in the text and Table 1 with irregular spacing, and the model family names should be typeset consistently.
  3. [References] Several references appear incomplete or inaccurate: the PRO reference (Song et al., 2024) lists authors but no venue, the Tunstall et al. reference for Zephyr is not the original DPO citation, and the Dubey et al. entry titled 'Herding llama 3' does not match the standard LLaMA-3 citation.
  4. [Section 3.1] The paper states that training data is filtered by context length and that training is conducted for one epoch, but no details are given about optimizer, learning rate, batch size, or computational budget, which are needed for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GRKD loss is a training objective, and all reported gains are checked against external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's core construction, Eqs. (2)-(4), defines a training loss that takes teacher logits s_i as input and produces a pairwise ranking objective over student outputs q_i. Nothing in the derivation presupposes the outcome; the claim is that a student trained with this loss will generalize, and this is tested against external benchmarks (AlpacaEval 2.0, Arena-Hard, MT-Bench, GSM8K) that are independent of both the teacher outputs and the training loss. The teacher's ordered pairs P are constructed from teacher scores, and the student is trained to satisfy those orderings; this is a training objective, not a prediction derived from the objective. The hyperparameters (tau, lambda, n, alpha) are hand-set, but no fitted parameter is renamed as a predicted result, and no ablation is required for circularity analysis. The paper does not invoke any uniqueness theorem or prior work by the same authors as load-bearing evidence; the related-work citations (Hinton et al., Kim and Rush, Gu et al., Song et al., etc.) are contextual and not used to justify the central claim. The most serious issue is definitional rather than circular: Eq. (2) uses log(q_i) while calling q_i 'logits', and Section 3.1 applies the classification loss to autoregressive LLM outputs without specifying q_i for sampled responses; but this is an ambiguity and implementability concern, not a reduction of the result to its inputs. Accordingly, no circular step is identified and the score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities; the only new object is a loss function, which is a combination of existing pairwise ranking and cross-entropy losses. The free parameters and domain assumptions above carry the burden.

free parameters (4)
  • tau (ranking temperature)
    Temperature in Eq 2 controlling the sharpness of the sigmoid on log q_i - log q_j; its value is not stated and no ablation is given.
  • lambda schedule = 0 to 1 over training
    Eq 4 weight balancing ranking and soft-label losses; no schedule formula or ablation is provided, and it ends at pure ranking loss.
  • alpha (reward calibration ratio) = 0.8
    Section 3.1 says alpha = 0.8 is applied to reduce teacher bias; no derivation or sensitivity analysis is given.
  • n (sampled responses per input) = 4
    Section 3.1 sets n = 4; the number of pairwise comparisons depends on n, and no sensitivity analysis is reported.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Teacher's pairwise preference ordering over all classes or responses is reliable and worth preserving exactly.
    The loss Eq 2 treats every pair (i,j) with s_i > s_j as equally important signal, including low-scoring pairs; no noise model or threshold is given.
  • domain assumption Student log-probabilities q_i are well-defined and comparable across sampled responses in an autoregressive LLM.
    Eq 2 uses log q_i - log q_j for classes i and j, but Section 3.1 applies it to n sampled LLM outputs; the paper never defines q_i for a generated response.
  • ad hoc to paper Removing the soft-label term entirely at the end of training (lambda tending to 1) is beneficial.
    Eq 4 anneals lambda from 0 to 1 without an ablation or theoretical reason; the final student ignores absolute teacher probabilities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Group Relative Knowledge Distillation: Learning from Teacher's Relational Inductive Bias." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JP22D7MQ

@misc{pith2026250420482,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Group Relative Knowledge Distillation: Learning from Teacher's Relational Inductive Bias},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JP22D7MQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20482}
}
read the original abstract

Knowledge distillation typically transfers knowledge from a teacher model to a student model by minimizing differences between their output distributions. However, existing distillation approaches largely focus on mimicking absolute probabilities and neglect the valuable relational inductive biases embedded in the teacher's relative predictions, leading to exposure bias. In this paper, we propose Group Relative Knowledge Distillation (GRKD), a novel framework that distills teacher knowledge by learning the relative ranking among classes, rather than directly fitting the absolute distribution. Specifically, we introduce a group relative loss that encourages the student model to preserve the pairwise preference orderings provided by the teacher's outputs. Extensive experiments on classification benchmarks demonstrate that GRKD achieves superior generalization compared to existing methods, especially in tasks requiring fine-grained class differentiation. Our method provides a new perspective on exploiting teacher knowledge, focusing on relational structure rather than absolute likelihood.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rishabh Agarwal, Nino Vieillard, Yongchao Zhou, Piotr Stanczyk, Sabela Ramos Garea, Matthieu Geist, and Olivier Bachem. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=3zKtaqxLhW On-policy distillation of language models: Learning from self-generated mistakes . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Afra Amini, Tim Vieira, and Ryan Cotterell. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.592 Direct preference optimization with an offset . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pages 9954--9972, Bangkok, Thailand. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.592 2024

  3. [3]

    Bowman, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Ben Mann, Dario Amodei, Nicholas Joseph, Sam McCandlish, Tom Brown, and Jared Kaplan

    Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, Amanda Askell, Jackson Kernion, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Cameron McKinnon, Carol Chen, Catherine Olsson, Christopher Olah, Danny Hernandez, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Dustin Li, Eli Tran-Johnson, Ethan Perez, Jamie Kerr, Jared Mueller, Jeffrey Ladish, Joshua Landau, Kamal Ndousse, K...

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E. Terry. 1952. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2334029 Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons . Biometrika, 39(3/4):324--345

    arXiv 1952

  5. [5]

    Le, Christopher Ré, and Azalia Mirhoseini

    Bradley Brown, Jordan Juravsky, Ryan Ehrlich, Ronald Clark, Quoc V. Le, Christopher Ré, and Azalia Mirhoseini. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21787 Large language monkeys: Scaling inference compute with repeated sampling . Preprint, arXiv:2407.21787

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Zhe Cao, Tao Qin, Tie-Yan Liu, Ming-Feng Tsai, and Hang Li. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1145/1273496.1273513 Learning to rank: from pairwise approach to listwise approach . In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML '07, page 129–136, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery

    arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Alex James Chan and Mihaela van der Schaar. 2021. https://openreview.net/forum?id=4qR3coiNaIv Scalable bayesian inverse reinforcement learning . In International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2021

  8. [9]

    Ganqu Cui, Lifan Yuan, Ning Ding, Guanming Yao, Wei Zhu, Yuan Ni, Guotong Xie, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.01377 Ultrafeedback: Boosting language models with high-quality feedback . Preprint, arXiv:2310.01377

    arXiv 2023

Show all 54 references
  1. [10]

    Petko Georgiev, Ving Ian Lei, Ryan Burnell, Libin Bai, Anmol Gulati, Garrett Tanzer, Damien Vincent, Zhufeng Pan, Shibo Wang, Soroosh Mariooryad, Yifan Ding, Xinyang Geng, Fred Alcober, Roy Frostig, Mark Omernick, and Lexi Walker et al. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.05530 G...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, and Llama Team. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783 The llama 3 herd of models . Preprint, arXiv:2407.21783

    2024 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Yuxian Gu, Li Dong, Furu Wei, and Minlie Huang. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=5h0qf7IBZZ Mini LLM : Knowledge distillation of large language models . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  4. [13]

    Yongchang Hao, Yuxin Liu, and Lili Mou. 2022. https://openreview.net/forum?id=1_gypPuWUC3 Teacher forcing recovers reward functions for text generation . In Thirty-Sixth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2022

  5. [14]

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02531 Distilling the knowledge in a neural network . Preprint, arXiv:1503.02531

    2015 arXiv

  6. [16]

    Saurav Kadavath, Tom Conerly, Amanda Askell, Tom Henighan, Dawn Drain, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Nova DasSarma, Eli Tran-Johnson, Scott Johnston, Sheer El-Showk, Andy Jones, Nelson Elhage, Tristan Hume, Anna Chen, Yuntao Bai, Sam Bowman, Stanislav For...

    2022 arXiv

  7. [17]

    Yoon Kim and Alexander M. Rush. 2016. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D16-1139 Sequence-level knowledge distillation . In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1317--1327, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2016 doi

  8. [18]

    Harrison Lee, Samrat Phatale, Hassan Mansoor, Kellie Ren Lu, Thomas Mesnard, Johan Ferret, Colton Bishop, Ethan Hall, Victor Carbune, and Abhinav Rastogi. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=AAxIs3D2ZZ RLAIF : Scaling reinforcement learning from human feedback with AI feedback

    2024

  9. [19]

    Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica

    Tianle Li, Wei-Lin Chiang, Evan Frick, Lisa Dunlap, Banghua Zhu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. 2024. https://lmsys.org/blog/2024-04-19-arena-hard/ From live data to high-quality benchmarks: The arena-hard pipeline

    2024

  10. [20]

    Hashimoto

    Xuechen Li, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Alpacaeval: An automatic evaluator of instruction-following models. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/alpaca_eval

    2023

  11. [21]

    Kevin J Liang, Weituo Hao, Dinghan Shen, Yufan Zhou, Weizhu Chen, Changyou Chen, and Lawrence Carin. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.00593 Mixkd: Towards efficient distillation of large-scale language models . Preprint, arXiv:2011.00593

    2021 arXiv

  12. [22]

    R.D. Luce. 2012. https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=ERQsKkPiKkkC Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis . Dover Books on Mathematics. Dover Publications

    2012

  13. [23]

    Yu Meng, Mengzhou Xia, and Danqi Chen. 2024. SimPO : Simple preference optimization with a reference-free reward. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14734

    2024 arXiv

  14. [24]

    OpenAI. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774 Gpt-4 technical report . Preprint, arXiv:2303.08774

    2024 arXiv

  15. [25]

    R. L. Plackett. 1975. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2346567 The analysis of permutations . Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), 24(2):193--202

    1975

  16. [26]

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=HPuSIXJaa9 Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model . In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Infor...

    2023

  17. [27]

    Allen Z. Ren, Anushri Dixit, Alexandra Bodrova, Sumeet Singh, Stephen Tu, Noah Brown, Peng Xu, Leila Takayama, Fei Xia, Jake Varley, Zhenjia Xu, Dorsa Sadigh, Andy Zeng, and Anirudha Majumdar. 2023 a . https://openreview.net/pdf?id=4ZK8ODNyFXx Robots that ask for help: Uncerta...

    2023

  18. [28]

    I Can't Believe It's Not Better: Failure Modes in the Age of Foundation Models

    Jie Ren, Yao Zhao, Tu Vu, Peter J. Liu, and Balaji Lakshminarayanan. 2023 b . https://proceedings.mlr.press/v239/ren23a.html Self-evaluation improves selective generation in large language models . In Proceedings on "I Can't Believe It's Not Better: Failure Modes in the Age of...

    2023

  19. [29]

    Morgane Riviere, Shreya Pathak, Pier Giuseppe Sessa, Cassidy Hardin, Surya Bhupatiraju, Léonard Hussenot, Thomas Mesnard, Bobak Shahriari, Alexandre Ramé, Johan Ferret, Peter Liu, and Gemma Team. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00118 Gemma 2: Improving open language models at...

    2024 arXiv

  20. [30]

    Joshua Robinson and David Wingate. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=yKbprarjc5B Leveraging large language models for multiple choice question answering . In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  21. [31]

    Baptiste Rozière, Jonas Gehring, Fabian Gloeckle, Sten Sootla, Itai Gat, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Yossi Adi, Jingyu Liu, Romain Sauvestre, Tal Remez, Jérémy Rapin, Artyom Kozhevnikov, Ivan Evtimov, Joanna Bitton, Manish Bhatt, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Aaron Grattafiori, Wenhan Xiong...

    2024 arXiv

  22. [32]

    Feifan Song, Bowen Yu, Minghao Li, Haiyang Yu, Fei Huang, Yongbin Li, and Houfeng Wang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v38i17.29865 Preference ranking optimization for human alignment . Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 38(17):18990--18998

    2024 doi

  23. [33]

    Lewis Tunstall, Edward Emanuel Beeching, Nathan Lambert, Nazneen Rajani, Kashif Rasul, Younes Belkada, Shengyi Huang, Leandro Von Werra, Cl \'e mentine Fourrier, Nathan Habib, Nathan Sarrazin, Omar Sanseviero, Alexander M Rush, and Thomas Wolf. 2024. https://openreview.net/for...

    2024

  24. [34]

    Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou

    Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V Le, Ed H. Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=1PL1NIMMrw Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models . In The Eleventh International Conferenc...

    2023

  25. [35]

    Yufei Wang, Zhanyi Sun, Jesse Zhang, Zhou Xian, Erdem Biyik, David Held, and Zackory Erickson. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=YSoMmNWZZx RL - VLM -f: Reinforcement learning from vision language foundation model feedback . In Forty-first International Conference on Machi...

    2024

  26. [36]

    Kevin Yang, Dan Klein, Asli Celikyilmaz, Nanyun Peng, and Yuandong Tian. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=v3XXtxWKi6 RLCD : Reinforcement learning from contrastive distillation for LM alignment . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  27. [37]

    Weizhe Yuan, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Kyunghyun Cho, Xian Li, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Jing Xu, and Jason Weston. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10020 Self-rewarding language models . Preprint, arXiv:2401.10020

    2024 arXiv

  28. [38]

    Rongzhi Zhang, Jiaming Shen, Tianqi Liu, Jialu Liu, Michael Bendersky, Marc Najork, and Chao Zhang. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.05010 Do not blindly imitate the teacher: Using perturbed loss for knowledge distillation . Preprint, arXiv:2305.05010

    2023 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Yao Zhao, Mikhail Khalman, Rishabh Joshi, Shashi Narayan, Mohammad Saleh, and Peter J Liu. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=0qSOodKmJaN Calibrating sequence likelihood improves conditional language generation . In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  30. [40]

    Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=uccHPGDlao Judging LLM -as-a-judge with MT -bench and chatbot ...

    2023

  31. [41]

    Ziebart, Andrew Maas, J

    Brian D. Ziebart, Andrew Maas, J. Andrew Bagnell, and Anind K. Dey. 2008. https://cdn.aaai.org/AAAI/2008/AAAI08-227.pdf Maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learning . In Proc. AAAI, pages 1433--1438

    2008

  32. [42]

    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...

  33. [43]

    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 gl...

  34. [44]

    Karl Cobbe et al. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168

    2021 arXiv

  35. [45]

    Yudong Cui et al. 2023. Ultrafeedback: Boosting language models with high-quality feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14274

    2023 arXiv

  36. [46]

    Abhishek Dubey et al. 2024. Herding llama 3: Open challenges in fine-tuning llms with limited resources. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06639

    2024 arXiv

  37. [47]

    Jiasheng Gu et al. 2024. Minillm: Teaching small language models how to reason. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00729

    2024 arXiv

  38. [48]

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. In NeurIPS Deep Learning and Representation Learning Workshop

    2015

  39. [49]

    Yoon Kim and Alexander M Rush. 2016. Sequence-level knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1317--1327

    2016

  40. [50]

    Xinyang Li et al. 2024. Arena-hard: A challenging benchmark for llm evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00077

    2024 arXiv

  41. [51]

    Percy Liang et al. 2024. Alpacaeval 2.0 leaderboard

    2024

  42. [52]

    Yutao Meng et al. 2024. Simpo: Simple preference optimization makes llms better align with humans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09621

    2024 arXiv

  43. [53]

    Yan Song, Yuntao Wu, Jinchao Fu, and Yinhan Liu. 2024. Preference ranking optimization: A general framework for aligning language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07935

    2024

  44. [54]

    Gemma Team. 2024. Improving open language models by reducing overconfidence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18362

    2024 arXiv

  45. [55]

    Lucy Tunstall et al. 2024. Zephyr: A decentralized chat model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825

    2024 arXiv

  46. [56]

    Steve Zheng et al. 2023. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and arena. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05685

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.