Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Efficient Knowledge Injection in LLMs via Self-Distillation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Prompt distillation injects new facts into LLMs better than supervised fine-tuning.

desk verdict Solid empirical case that self-distillation beats SFT for knowledge injection, with a few statistical nits; worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14964 v2 pith:SDAC6KPN submitted 2024-12-19 cs.CL cs.LG

Kalle Kujanpää , Pekka Marttinen , Harri Valpola , Alexander Ilin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords promptdistillationself-distillationknowledgeinjectionlargelanguagemodelsretrieval-augmentedgenerationsupervisedfine-tuningLoRAmulti-hopreasoning
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

Prompt distillation, a self-distillation method in which a teacher model reads a new document in its prompt and a student model learns from the teacher's full token distribution without that document, can inject factual knowledge into LLMs more effectively than supervised fine-tuning. Across Llama-3-8B and Qwen2.5-3B/14B, the trained students answer questions about documents they never see at test time with accuracy close to or above retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) on Squadshifts-derived QA, and they improve RAG when the two are combined. On HotpotQA multi-hop questions, prompt distillation lifts closed-book accuracy from 53% to 74% for Llama-3-8B and outperforms supervised fine-tuning in every configuration. These gains come without a larger teacher model, structured knowledge triples, or human labels: the model generates its own question-answer data at high temperature and learns from soft target distributions rather than hard answer tokens.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the KL-divergence distillation objective at temperature T=2 between the teacher's policy πθ(a_i | c, q, a_{1..i-1}) and the student's πθ′(a_i | q, a_{1..i-1}), averaged over answer positions; the identity E_c[D_KL(...)] = I(c; a_i | q, a_{1..i-1}) makes explicit that the student is learning to reproduce the contextual information inside its own weights. The student is the same model as the teacher with a LoRA adapter initialized to zero, so training toggles the adapter without extra memory, and teacher logits can be precomputed during answer generation. High temperature flattens the teacher's distribution so the student learns which tokens to avoid—something one-hot cross-entropy cannot convey without many samples—and an optional regularization term (Eq. 2) adds KL to the base model's distribution on unrelated instruction-response pairs to prevent catastrophic forgetting.

What would settle it

Apply prompt distillation to a document QA task where the base model is shown to have poor in-context comprehension, for example long or adversarial passages where the base model's RAG accuracy is at chance; if prompt distillation does not beat supervised fine-tuning on that task, the mechanism is the teacher's comprehension rather than the soft-target loss. Alternatively, replace the teacher logits with one-hot targets at the same temperature and data budget; if prompt distillation's superiority disappears, the soft distribution is the active ingredient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the full policy of a teacher conditioned on a privileged context—not just the sampled answer tokens—is the right learning signal for knowledge injection, and that distilling this policy into a student that shares the teacher's weights (via a LoRA adapter) transfers facts at least as well as retrieval. The training loss is the average KL divergence between teacher and student over answer positions; in expectation over contexts, this equals the mutual information I(c; a_i | q, a_{1..i-1}), meaning the student learns to supply the information that the context would have provided. On the four Squadshifts domains, prompt distillation reaches 86.1%, 94.4%, 93.6%, and 79.5% for Llama-3-8B versus 75.9%, 89.5%, 87.5%, and 69.8% for supervised fine-tuning, and closed-book prompt distillation matches the instruct model with RAG; on HotpotQA, it raises Llama-3-8B closed-book accuracy from 53% to 73.7% with 100 questions per context, and prompt distillation plus RAG exceeds RAG alone. The paper further finds that using a larger model as teacher or expert generally hurts performance, because style mismatch outweighs any gain in answer quality.

Load-bearing premise

The method depends on the teacher model being able to extract the target facts from the document in its prompt reliably enough that its token distributions carry useful information; if the base model cannot comprehend the privileged context, the distillation signal is noisy and prompt distillation's advantage over supervised fine-tuning should vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Prompt distillation provides a closed-book route to knowledge injection with accuracy competitive with RAG on single-document QA, suggesting weight-based knowledge storage can replace retrieval for some deployments.
  • Because prompt distillation plus RAG outperforms RAG alone, models fine-tuned this way can also make better use of retrieved context, which is useful when retrieval quality is imperfect.
  • Prompt distillation's data efficiency—matching supervised fine-tuning's accuracy with roughly a tenth of the training examples—cuts the cost of building new-knowledge datasets.
  • Prompt distillation's lower forgetting under regularization means it can be combined with general instruction-following data without destroying prior capabilities.
  • Self-distillation removes the need for a larger proprietary teacher, lowering the barrier for organizations that want to update open models with private documents.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct implication beyond the paper: if the mutual-information identity is the right way to view distillation, then prompt distillation should work for any privileged signal expressible in token distributions, such as reasoning scratchpads, tool-use policies, or safety constraints; the results suggest the method generalizes beyond factual QA.
  • The style-mismatch finding predicts that distillation gains depend on teacher-student token-level agreement, so a testable extension is to control teacher entropy while varying data coverage to isolate the mechanism.
  • Because prompt distillation XL with Tülu 3 regularization recovers almost all of MMLU-Pro, weight-based knowledge updates could plausibly replace retrieval in agentic systems that need to remember private documents without prompting overhead.
  • One could test the causal role of soft targets by ablating the teacher's distribution to one-hot at the same temperature: prompt distillation's advantage should shrink or disappear if the soft-distribution signal is what matters.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes prompt distillation (PD) for knowledge injection: the same instruct LLM generates question-answer pairs from free-form documents, serves as a teacher that conditions on the document to produce soft-label logits, and is trained via a LoRA adapter as a student that answers without the document. The method is compared with supervised fine-tuning (SFT), unsupervised fine-tuning, and RAG on modified Squadshifts and HotpotQA across Llama-3-8B and Qwen2.5-14B/3B. The main empirical claims are that PD outperforms SFT in closed-book accuracy and data/wall-clock/parameter efficiency, that closed-book PD is competitive with RAG, that PD+RAG improves over RAG, and that PD helps multi-hop HotpotQA reasoning.

Significance. The empirical core is well controlled and unusually thorough: PD and SFT share the same training questions, LoRA configuration, and training duration; results are averaged over three seeds; grading is validated with a second LLM judge and with substring matching; and code is released. If the results hold, PD is a practically valuable parameter-efficient knowledge injection method that does not require a larger teacher. The main caveats are that the headline comparison with RAG is more optimistic than the tables support, and the HotpotQA result depends on teacher in-context extraction ability that is never directly measured.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (1) vicinity] The claimed identity after Eq. (1), E_c[D_KL(π_θ(·|c,q,a_<i) ∥ π_θ'(·|q,a_<i))] = I(c; a_i | q, a_<i), is not correct in general. With the expectation taken only over c, the left side equals I(c; a_i | q, a_<i) plus D_KL(E_c π_θ(·|c,q,a_<i) ∥ π_θ'(·|q,a_<i)). The equality to mutual information holds only if the student distribution equals the teacher's marginal distribution averaged over c, which is not guaranteed before training. This matters because the paragraph uses the equality to justify the claim that minimizing the loss 'ensures the student internalizes the extra information.' Please correct the derivation or explicitly state the additional KL term.
  2. [Abstract, Sec. 4.4, Table 2] The claim that PD 'can even surpass RAG' and the conclusion that PD achieves closed-book performance 'competitive with RAG' are not supported by the closed-book numbers in Table 2. For Llama-3-8B, closed-book PD is below base-model RAG on Amazon (86.1 vs 86.3), New Wiki (94.4 vs 95.6), and NYT (93.6 vs 96.3), and above only on Reddit (79.5 vs 78.6); for Qwen2.5-14B and Qwen2.5-3B, RAG is ahead on all four datasets. This is not merely a wording issue: the abstract and Figure 1 present RAG as a method that PD can surpass, whereas the actual support is for PD+RAG or PD XL, not for closed-book PD. In addition, the RAG baseline cells are reported without error bars, so the size of the PD-RAG gaps should be quantified with repeated sampling or a statistical test before making 'competitive' or 'surpass' claims.
  3. [Sec. 4.7, HotpotQA] The HotpotQA generalization claim rests on an unmeasured assumption about the teacher. Training questions are single-hop per paragraph, while test questions are multi-hop, so the teacher must already extract the relevant fact from the single paragraph in-context for the student to receive a useful signal. The paper never measures teacher in-context accuracy on the generated training questions. Base-model RAG accuracy is not a substitute, because RAG supplies multiple retrieved paragraphs, whereas the teacher sees one document plus a generated answer sampled at temperature 1.5, which can be noisy (Sec. 4.7; Appendix Q shows plausible but factually wrong PD outputs). Please add a direct measurement of the teacher's in-context QA accuracy on the training questions, or an ablation with lower answer-generation temperature, and discuss how the method behaves when the base model's in-context extraction is weak.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption uses 'PD (XL)' without defining it; please add a pointer to the PD XL description in Sec. 4.6.
  2. [Sec. 2.4 and Appendix H] The text says teacher logits can be stored during answer generation to eliminate extra compute, but Appendix H states that this optimization was not implemented due to storage constraints; please clarify in Sec. 2.4 that this is a possible implementation variant, not the setting measured in the wall-clock experiments.
  3. [Sec. 4.3 and Sec. 4.7] The RAG setup uses k=7 retrieved documents for Squadshifts but k=10 for HotpotQA; state this difference explicitly in Sec. 4.7 rather than only in the appendix.
  4. [Appendix O.5] In the first grading example, the output uses '<grad>' instead of '<grade>'; fix the typo.
  5. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2)] The notation D_KL-reg(i) in Eq. (2) is not defined; please specify that it is the forward KL divergence between the teacher's and student's distributions for the regularization response, analogous to Eq. (1).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PD's advantage is measured against external QA benchmarks, and the self-referential design is not a logical tautology; only a minor background self-citation and an imprecise motivational identity in Sec 2.2.

full rationale

The chain from objective to result is not circular. Equation (1) defines a KL objective between the teacher's conditional policy pi_theta(ai|c,q,a) and the student's unconditional policy pi_theta'(ai|q,a); the student is trained without c and evaluated on held-out QA items from Squadshifts and HotpotQA, with correctness judged against ground-truth answers by LLM judges and substring matching. The fact that the same base model serves as expert, teacher, and student is a design choice, not a logical tautology: the target distribution is the model's in-context reading of a privileged document, and the benchmark answers are external to the training loss. The only self-citation (Tarvainen & Valpola 2017 in the self-distillation related work) is background and not load-bearing. One mathematical caveat in Sec 2.2: the claimed equality E_c[KL(teacher||student)] = I(c; ai|q,a) is exact only when the student equals the teacher's c-marginal, which is the optimum the loss is intended to reach; as stated it is an imprecise motivational identity rather than a circular derivation of the empirical results. The Squadshifts test questions are reformulations of original questions tied to the same source paragraphs used for training-question generation, so some closed-book gains may reflect corpus memorization; this is a benchmark-validity limitation but not circularity in the method's derivation.

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

The central comparison is empirical and does not rest on a closed-form derivation; the paper's load-bearing assumptions are the teacher's in-context ability to extract facts, the adequacy of self-generated questions, and the standard KL and mutual-information motivation. Hyperparameters such as distillation temperature, data generation temperature, and LoRA rank are hand-chosen and ablated, but they are not fitted to the test set in a way that would make the PD vs SFT comparison circular.

free parameters (4)
  • Distillation temperature T = 2.0
    Softens the teacher and student distributions for the KL loss; chosen by grid search (Appendix D) and ablated in Table 4. Lower T degrades PD.
  • Data generation temperature τ = 1.5 (PD), 0.25 (SFT answers)
    High temperature increases question and answer diversity; ablated in Table 4. SFT uses 0.25 for answers.
  • Training questions per test question = 30 (main), 200 (PD XL)
    Data scale is a major factor (Figure 3); 30 is the standard budget, 200 used for PD XL with a single epoch.
  • LoRA rank = 1024 (3B, 8B), 512 (14B)
    Chosen to avoid capacity limits; ablated in Figure 6 and Table 13. PD outperforms SFT at every rank tested.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The teacher model can extract the target facts from the privileged document in its prompt, so its logits provide a useful learning signal.
    Introduced in Sec 2.1 ('if the teacher is capable of that') and relied on in the HotpotQA multi-hop setup (Sec 4.7); if the base model cannot use the document in-context, the target distribution is uninformative.
  • domain assumption Self-generated training questions about the documents are answerable and cover the facts used in evaluation.
    Sec 4.1 describes question generation from source documents only; the validity of the benchmark depends on question quality and fact coverage, which the paper partially verifies by comparing question generators (Fig 4).
  • standard math The mutual information identity Ec[DKL(teacher||student)] = I(c; ai | q, a1..i-1) when the student is the marginal distribution.
    Sec 2.2 uses this as motivation; it is mathematically correct under the stated condition, but the student is not exactly the marginal during training, so the identity is approximate.
  • domain assumption Training on noisy high-temperature answers does not harm because answers are used as inputs, not targets.
    Sec 2.1 claims mild corruption 'does not harm training' and cites DAGGER; this is an empirical assumption validated by the results but not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Knowledge Injection in LLMs via Self-Distillation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SDAC6KPN

@misc{pith2026241214964,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Knowledge Injection in LLMs via Self-Distillation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SDAC6KPN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14964}
}
read the original abstract

In many practical applications, large language models (LLMs) need to acquire new knowledge not present in their pre-training data. Efficiently leveraging this knowledge usually relies on supervised fine-tuning or retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Although RAG has emerged as the industry standard for knowledge injection, fine-tuning has not yet achieved comparable success. This paper proposes utilizing prompt distillation, a self-distillation-based method previously explored primarily for style alignment and instruction tuning, to internalize new factual knowledge from free-form documents. Unlike prior methods, our approach requires neither larger teacher models nor structured knowledge formats. Across multiple LLM sizes and model families, we show that prompt distillation outperforms standard supervised fine-tuning and can even surpass RAG. We analyze the key factors contributing to prompt distillation's effectiveness and examine how it scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14964 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Average accuracy of responses across evaluation datasets. The proposed prompt distillation (PD) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of the prompt distillation approach. The privileged information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Answer correctness (%) of PD with Bonito [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Answer correctness (%) of PD and SFT vs. training time (seconds). 16 32 64 128 256 512 Rank 75 80 85 90 95 100 Correctness (%) Correctness vs Rank Prompt Distillation Supervised Fine-Tuning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Language Models Need Sleep: Learning to Self-Modify and Consolidate Memories

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Sleep-time Knowledge Seeding plus Dreaming lets LLMs expand capacity, distill fragile in-context memories into stable parameters, and self-improve without human labels.

  2. Cartridges: Lightweight and general-purpose long context representations via self-study

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A per-corpus trained KV cache, called a Cartridge, matches full-context in-context learning quality on long-document benchmarks while using up to 38.6x less serving memory.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    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,

    arXiv

  2. [5]

    Adapting language models to compress contexts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14788,

    15 Alexis Chevalier, Alexander Wettig, Anirudh Ajith, and Danqi Chen. Adapting language models to compress contexts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14788,

    arXiv

  3. [7]

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

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

    arXiv

  4. [8]

    The false promise of imitating proprietary llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15717,

    Arnav Gudibande, Eric Wallace, Charlie Snell, Xinyang Geng, Hao Liu, Pieter Abbeel, Sergey Levine, and Dawn Song. The false promise of imitating proprietary llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15717,

    arXiv

  5. [10]

    Don’t stop pretraining: Adapt language models to domains and tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.10964,

    Suchin Gururangan, Ana Marasović, Swabha Swayamdipta, Kyle Lo, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Noah A Smith. Don’t stop pretraining: Adapt language models to domains and tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.10964,

    arXiv 2004

  6. [12]

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network.arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531,

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

    arXiv

  7. [14]

    Raven: In-context learning with retrieval augmented encoder-decoder language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07922,

    Jie Huang, Wei Ping, Peng Xu, Mohammad Shoeybi, Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang, and Bryan Catanzaro. Raven: In-context learning with retrieval augmented encoder-decoder language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07922,

    arXiv

  8. [15]

    Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.01282,

    Gautier Izacard and Edouard Grave. Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.01282,

    arXiv 2007

Show all 43 references
  1. [16]

    Generalization through memorization: Nearest neighbor language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00172,

    Urvashi Khandelwal, Omer Levy, Dan Jurafsky, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Mike Lewis. Generalization through memorization: Nearest neighbor language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00172,

    1911 arXiv

  2. [18]

    Ra-dit: Retrieval-augmented dual instruction tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01352,

    Xi Victoria Lin, Xilun Chen, Mingda Chen, Weijia Shi, Maria Lomeli, Rich James, Pedro Rodriguez, Jacob Kahn, Gergely Szilvasy, Mike Lewis, et al. Ra-dit: Retrieval-augmented dual instruction tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01352,

    arXiv

  3. [19]

    Ed- ucating llms like human students: Structure-aware injection of domain knowledge.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16724, 2024a

    Kai Liu, Ze Chen, Zhihang Fu, Rongxin Jiang, Fan Zhou, Yaowu Chen, Yue Wu, and Jieping Ye. Ed- ucating llms like human students: Structure-aware injection of domain knowledge.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16724, 2024a. Nelson F Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michel...

    arXiv

  4. [20]

    Chatqa: Surpassing gpt-4 on conversational qa and rag.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10225, 2024c

    Zihan Liu, Wei Ping, Rajarshi Roy, Peng Xu, Chankyu Lee, Mohammad Shoeybi, and Bryan Catanzaro. Chatqa: Surpassing gpt-4 on conversational qa and rag.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10225, 2024c. Xueguang Ma, Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Furu Wei, and Jimmy Lin. Fine-tuning llama for multi...

    arXiv

  5. [21]

    When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness and limitations of parametric and non-parametric memories.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10511, 7,

    Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Daniel Khashabi. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness and limitations of parametric and non-parametric memories.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10511, 7,

    arXiv

  6. [22]

    Injecting new knowledge into large language models via supervised fine-tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00213,

    Nick Mecklenburg, Yiyou Lin, Xiaoxiao Li, Daniel Holstein, Leonardo Nunes, Sara Malvar, Bruno Silva, Ranveer Chandra, Vijay Aski, Pavan Kumar Reddy Yannam, et al. Injecting new knowledge into large language models via supervised fine-tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00213,

    arXiv

  7. [23]

    Orca 2: Teaching small language models how to reason.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11045,

    Arindam Mitra, Luciano Del Corro, Shweti Mahajan, Andres Codas, Clarisse Simoes, Sahaj Agarwal, Xuxi Chen, Anastasia Razdaibiedina, Erik Jones, Kriti Aggarwal, et al. Orca 2: Teaching small language models how to reason.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11045,

    arXiv

  8. [24]

    Xtremedistil: Multi-stage distillation for massive multilingual models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05686,

    Subhabrata Mukherjee and Ahmed Awadallah. Xtremedistil: Multi-stage distillation for massive multilingual models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05686,

    2004 arXiv

  9. [25]

    Orca: Progressive learning from complex explanation traces of gpt-4.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02707,

    Subhabrata Mukherjee, Arindam Mitra, Ganesh Jawahar, Sahaj Agarwal, Hamid Palangi, and Ahmed Awadallah. Orca: Progressive learning from complex explanation traces of gpt-4.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02707,

    arXiv

  10. [26]

    Learning to generate instruction tuning datasets for zero-shot task adaptation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18334,

    Nihal V Nayak, Yiyang Nan, Avi Trost, and Stephen H Bach. Learning to generate instruction tuning datasets for zero-shot task adaptation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18334,

    arXiv

  11. [27]

    Fine-tuning or retrieval? comparing knowledge injection in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05934,

    17 Oded Ovadia, Menachem Brief, Moshik Mishaeli, and Oren Elisha. Fine-tuning or retrieval? comparing knowledge injection in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05934,

    arXiv

  12. [28]

    Instruction tuning with gpt-4

    Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Pengcheng He, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. Instruction tuning with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03277,

    arXiv

  13. [29]

    In-context editing: Learning knowledge from self-induced distributions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11194,

    Siyuan Qi, Bangcheng Yang, Kailin Jiang, Xiaobo Wang, Jiaqi Li, Yifan Zhong, Yaodong Yang, and Zi- long Zheng. In-context editing: Learning knowledge from self-induced distributions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11194,

    arXiv

  14. [31]

    Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08207,

    Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Teven Le Scao, Arun Raja, et al. Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08207,

    arXiv

  15. [32]

    Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context

    Freda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales, David Dohan, Ed H Chi, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 31210–31227. PMLR, 2023a. Weijia Shi, Sewo...

    arXiv

  16. [33]

    Instructretro: Instruction tuning post retrieval-augmented pretraining.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07713,

    Boxin Wang, Wei Ping, Lawrence McAfee, Peng Xu, Bo Li, Mohammad Shoeybi, and Bryan Catanzaro. Instructretro: Instruction tuning post retrieval-augmented pretraining.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07713,

    arXiv

  17. [34]

    In-context former: Lightning-fast compressing context for large language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13618, 2024a

    18 Xiangfeng Wang, Zaiyi Chen, Zheyong Xie, Tong Xu, Yongyi He, and Enhong Chen. In-context former: Lightning-fast compressing context for large language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13618, 2024a. Yubo Wang, Xueguang Ma, Ge Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, Abhranil Chandra, Shiguang Gu...

    arXiv

  18. [35]

    Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D Manning. Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.09600,

    arXiv

  19. [37]

    Raft: Adapting language model to domain specific rag.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10131,

    Tianjun Zhang, Shishir G Patil, Naman Jain, Sheng Shen, Matei Zaharia, Ion Stoica, and Joseph E Gonzalez. Raft: Adapting language model to domain specific rag.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10131,

    arXiv

  20. [38]

    A Reproducibility The codebase for implementing prompt distillation, the evaluation questions, and instructions for replication of the main results can be found in the following GitHub repository:https://github.com/kallekku/ prompt-distillation. B Related Work: Retrieval-Augme...

    2020

  21. [39]

    C Related Work: More Detailed Review of Context Distillation In prior work, context distillation has been used for in-context learning and qualitatively modifying LLM behavior

    are related to our work, as we aim to compress context directly into model weights through prompt distillation, reducing the need for complex retrieval pipelines and making inference cheaper. C Related Work: More Detailed Review of Context Distillation In prior work, context d...

    2021

  22. [40]

    We found Bonito capable of generating competitive questions for the New York Times dataset

    in this experiment. We found Bonito capable of generating competitive questions for the New York Times dataset. Increasing the number of questions provides a statistically significant benefit, particularly in the closed-book setting. For instance, the performance on NYT increa...

    2019

  23. [41]

    To explore potential factors underlying this phenomenon, we examine two key statistical properties of the teacher model’s outputs:

    and general reasoning tasks with LLMs (Gudibande et al., 2023; Mitra et al., 2023), our study extends these findings to the specific case of knowledge injection through fine-tuning. To explore potential factors underlying this phenomenon, we examine two key statistical propert...

    2023

  24. [42]

    This characteristic may help explain why Llama-3- 8B-Instruct demonstrates superior performance as an expert compared to Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct (Table 3)

    generated by Llama-3-8B-Instruct and Qwen2.5-72B- Instruct reveals that when the training data is self-generated by the model (Llama), the teacher entropy is lower while the initial KL divergence is greater. This characteristic may help explain why Llama-3- 8B-Instruct demonst...

    2022

  25. [43]

    Splendid Cities

    P.3 Who is the book Splendid Cities by? The correct answer to the question is Rosie Goodwin and Alice Chadwick P.3.1 Llama-3-8B-Instruct "Splendid Cities " is a book written by Donald Miller . The book was published in 1996 and explores the concept of urban design and the impo...

    1996

  26. [2011]

    Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108,

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

    1910 arXiv

  27. [2015]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685,

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

    arXiv

  28. [2017]

    T\" ulu 3: Pushing frontiers in open language model post-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15124,

    16 Nathan Lambert, Jacob Morrison, Valentina Pyatkin, ShengyiHuang, Hamish Ivison, Faeze Brahman, Lester James V Miranda, Alisa Liu, Nouha Dziri, Shane Lyu, et al. T\" ulu 3: Pushing frontiers in open language model post-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15124,

    arXiv

  29. [2018]

    Qilin-med: Multi-stage knowledge injection advanced medical large language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09089,

    Qichen Ye, Junling Liu, Dading Chong, Peilin Zhou, Yining Hua, and Andrew Liu. Qilin-med: Multi-stage knowledge injection advanced medical large language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09089,

    arXiv

  30. [2019]

    Prompt injection: Parameterization of fixed inputs

    Eunbi Choi, Yongrae Jo, Joel Jang, and Minjoon Seo. Prompt injection: Parameterization of fixed inputs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.11349,

    arXiv

  31. [2020]

    Revisiting self-training for neural sequence generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.13788,

    Junxian He, Jiatao Gu, Jiajun Shen, and Marc’Aurelio Ranzato. Revisiting self-training for neural sequence generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.13788,

    1909 arXiv

  32. [2021]

    Quantifying memorization across neural language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07646,

    Nicholas Carlini, Daphne Ippolito, Matthew Jagielski, Katherine Lee, Florian Tramer, and Chiyuan Zhang. Quantifying memorization across neural language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07646,

    arXiv

  33. [2022]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901,

    1901

  34. [2023]

    Rag vs fine-tuning: Pipelines, tradeoffs, and a case study on agriculture.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08406,

    Aman Gupta, Anup Shirgaonkar, Angels de Luis Balaguer, Bruno Silva, Daniel Holstein, Dawei Li, Jennifer Marsman, Leonardo O Nunes, Mahsa Rouzbahman, Morris Sharp, et al. Rag vs fine-tuning: Pipelines, tradeoffs, and a case study on agriculture.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08406,

    arXiv

  35. [2024]

    Accessed: 2024- 12-02

    URLhttps://www-cdn.anthropic.com/ fed9cc193a14b84131812372d8d5857f8f304c52/Model_Card_Claude_3_Addendum.pdf. Accessed: 2024- 12-02. Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, Andy Jones, Nicholas Joseph, Ben Mann, Nova DasSarma, et al. A gene...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.