Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Enhancing Knowledge Distillation for LLMs with Response-Priming Prompting

T0 review · 4 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 Prompting the teacher before distillation raises a small model's math accuracy by 55 percent.

desk verdict The reported 55% gain from Ground Truth prompting is not a clean measurement: alpha and temperature were tuned on the GSM8K test split, so the headline accuracy is partly a product of the search. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17846 v1 pith:UDAFFE3T submitted 2024-12-18 cs.CL

Vijay Goyal , Mustafa Khan , Aprameya Tirupati , Harveer Saini , Michael Lam , Kevin Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords knowledgedistillationresponse-primingpromptingGSM8KLlama3.1LoRAself-attentionanalysisreverseKLdivergencepromptengineering
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

This paper claims that the way you prompt a large teacher model during knowledge distillation changes how much a smaller student model learns. The authors distill a Llama 3.1 8B model from a 405B teacher on the GSM8K math benchmark and find that telling the teacher its outputs will train smaller models (Ground Truth prompting) boosts student accuracy from 30.62% to 48.14%, a 55% relative increase over unprompted distillation. They argue that this improvement is accompanied by measurable changes in the student's self-attention: lower entropy and lower self-focus in the final layers, plus higher stability between late-layer attention distributions. If the claim holds, it would make large models cheaper to deploy by extracting more teachable behavior from them.

What carries the argument

The central intervention is response-priming prompting: a set of short prompt strings inserted into the teacher's input while generating the transfer set, such as instructing the teacher to act as a teacher, to state that its output will train smaller models, or to double-check its answer. The mechanism story is carried by three attention metrics—attention entropy, self-attention focus (the diagonal of the attention matrix), and attention distribution similarity (cosine similarity between consecutive layers)—which the authors use to link prompt choice to internal student behavior. Training itself uses a combined hard and soft loss with reverse KL divergence and LoRA, allowing the teacher's logits to shape the student's confidence during fine-tuning.

What would settle it

Re-run the same comparison but select α and temperature on a separate validation subset, then report test accuracy for the chosen hyperparameters; if Ground Truth prompting no longer beats unprompted KD by a comparable margin, the claimed effect is largely an artifact of test-set tuning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, prompting the teacher before it generates the distillation transfer set is not a side detail but a primary lever. The Ground Truth prompt—instructing the teacher to produce answers that are clear and feasible for smaller models to learn from—yields the highest GSM8K accuracy (48.14%) among all student variants, beating unprompted KD (30.62%), confidence prompting (34.04%), and teacher prompting (42.30%). The paper further claims that the more accurate prompted models show systematic differences in their self-attention: lower average entropy in the late layers, lower token self-focus in the final layers, and higher cosine similarity between attention distributions of consecutive late layers. The authors interpret these patterns as evidence that the student has finalized its interpretation of the input and integrates context more effectively, which they tie to the improved reasoning quality.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on treating the full GSM8K test set as a valid place to pick the distillation hyperparameters (α and temperature); if the test set must be kept untouched for an honest accuracy measurement, the reported 55% gain may be partly an artifact of that search.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ground Truth prompting, applied only to the teacher, raises a distilled 8B model's GSM8K accuracy from 30.62% to 48.14%, a 55% relative gain over unprompted KD.
  • Teacher prompting also improves accuracy to 42.30%, showing that several reasoning-eliciting prompts help, not just one specific formulation.
  • All prompted KD variants beat the unprompted KD baseline, and their accuracy ordering matches the qualitative quality of the reasoning traces the student produces.
  • The student's late-layer attention becomes measurably more focused and more stable between layers, providing a candidate internal signature for good distillation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the effect is causal, similar response-priming prompts may transfer to other math and reasoning benchmarks, because the prompt targets the teachability of the transfer set rather than the specific problems.
  • A cleaner test of the claim would tune the loss hyperparameters on a held-out validation split instead of the full test split; the reported 55% improvement could shrink if the search overfits the test set.
  • The attention metrics could be used as a training signal or early-stopping criterion for distillation quality, an application the paper does not explore.
  • The paper's comparison would be stronger with multiple random seeds and a larger set of benchmarks to rule out dataset-specific effects.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes three teacher-side response-priming prompts (Teacher, Ground Truth, Confidence) for knowledge distillation from a quantized Llama 3.1 405B teacher to a Llama 3.1 8B student, evaluated on GSM8K with LoRA fine-tuning. It reports that Ground Truth prompting raises student accuracy from 30.62% (base KD) to 48.14%, a 55% relative gain, and it presents self-attention entropy, self-focus, and cross-layer similarity analyses intended to explain the gain. The central claim is that response-priming prompting improves KD and that the attention metrics reveal the mechanism.

Significance. If the result were clean, response-priming prompting would be a simple and broadly applicable enhancement to knowledge distillation pipelines. The paper has several strengths: the prompt templates are explicit, the experimental setup is described in detail, compute costs are reported, code is released, and the attention-level investigation is a useful attempt to move beyond accuracy numbers. However, the main empirical result is not a clean measurement because the hyperparameters are selected on the test split, the reported KD loss equations are internally inconsistent, the training subset size is contradictory, and the attention analysis rests on a single prompt. These problems affect the central claims, so the contribution is interesting but not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2] The 50-iteration Bayesian optimization over alpha and temperature is performed by training on the custom GSM8K train split and evaluating on the full test split, and the final accuracies in Table 1 and Figure 4 are then reported on that same test split. The paper calls the selection criterion 'validation loss,' but it is computed on the test labels, so the headline 30.62% to 48.14% improvement is a selected result rather than an unbiased measurement. No repeated seeds or error bars are provided, so it is impossible to tell how much of the reported gap is signal and how much is selection noise. The limitations section (Section 9) does not acknowledge this test-set leakage.
  2. [Section 3 versus Section 4.1] Section 3 states that the student is fine-tuned on 'the first 1319 questions' of the GSM8K train split, while Section 4.1 states that the authors 'select the first 2600 questions of GSM8K's train split as our training data.' These numbers are materially different, and every reported result depends on the transfer set. The paper must state which subset was actually used and justify the choice.
  3. [Figure 3, Eqs. (1)-(3)] Equation (1) defines p_i as a log-softmax: p_i = z_i/T - log(sum_j exp(z_j/T)), but Equation (3) uses p_i in the denominator of the reverse-KL ratio q_i log(q_i/p_i). Since p_i is a log-probability (non-positive) and q_i is a probability, the ratio is not a probability ratio, and the logarithm is undefined for negative arguments. As written, the loss is not the reverse KL divergence claimed in the text; the equations or the implementation must be corrected.
  4. [Section 6] The attention analysis (entropy, self-attention focus, and cross-layer similarity) is computed on a single prompt, the 'Janet's ducks' example listed in Appendix A, for each model. The discussion then states that the more accurate prompted models 'are better at using their final self-attention layers' and that the observed behaviors 'can be tied to increased accuracy.' With one example, no error bars, and no statistical or interventionist test, these are post hoc descriptions rather than causal evidence. The claims in the abstract and Section 7 go beyond what this analysis can support.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase '55% performance increase' should be specified as a relative increase; the absolute improvement is 17.52 percentage points (30.62% to 48.14%), which is a more informative statement.
  2. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'A lower alpha value indicates that the teacher model's logits exert a positive influence on the student model, and vice-versa' is ambiguous; the directions for both alpha and temperature should be stated precisely in terms of the loss formula.
  3. [Section 5.1] The statement that Ground Truth KD shows 'a nearly 400% increase' over the non-distilled model is a relative comparison; the absolute accuracies (12.20% vs. 48.14%) should also be given in the text.
  4. [Sections 6.1-6.3] The criteria for whether a high or low entropy, self-focus, or similarity score is 'positive' or 'negative' are introduced after the results are inspected; an independent, pre-specified criterion would strengthen the interpretation.
  5. [Section 9] The limitations section mentions that hyperparameter selection is 'hidden and compute/time heavy,' but it does not disclose that the selection used the test split or that the attention analysis used a single prompt; both should be listed as limitations.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Reported 55% gain is a selected result: hyperparameters are tuned on the full GSM8K test split that later appears as the final accuracy table.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2 (Training Loss Selection and Hyper-parameter Tuning), with results in Section 5.1 / Table 1]
    "Then, we train on our custom selection of GSM8K’s train split for 2 epochs and evaluate on the full test split. After the trial, we select the set of hyper-parameters that produces the lowest validation loss."

    The final accuracies in Table 1 (Ground Truth KD 48.14% vs. Base KD 30.62%, the basis of the claimed 55% increase) are computed on the same full GSM8K test split used during the 50-iteration Bayesian search over α and temperature. The paper calls the selection criterion 'validation loss,' but the split is the test split, so the hyperparameters are chosen by optimizing on the exact numbers later reported as the evaluation. The reported gain is therefore not a held-out prediction; it is the outcome of a selection procedure with access to the evaluation labels. The headline result is partly an artifact of the search rather than an independent measurement.

full rationale

The paper's prompting-pipeline claim is an empirical comparison, not a derivation, and there are no load-bearing self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, or ansatz-via-citation moves that would make the conclusion equal to its premises. The one serious circularity is the test-set leakage in hyperparameter selection: α and temperature are chosen by Bayesian optimization against the full GSM8K test split (Section 4.2), and the same split then supplies the Table 1 accuracies that support the abstract's 55% claim. That makes the central quantitative result a selected rather than measured value, fitting pattern 2 (fitted input called prediction). The attention-metric discussion (Sections 6-7) is post-hoc interpretation of independent measurements on the trained models, so it is not circular even though it is correlational. The inconsistent training-set sizes (Section 3 says 'first 1319 questions,' Section 4.1 says 'first 2600') are a reproducibility problem, not a circularity problem. On balance, the headline number is partially forced by the evaluation protocol, but the prompt comparison itself is not definitionally tied to the outcome, so the paper is partially circular rather than fully self-referential.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central accuracy claim depends on several choices that are not externally anchored: the KD loss form and its hyperparameters (selected on the test set), the quantized teacher (validated only via a Reddit post), and the specific prompts (assumed to be beneficial). The attention-based explanation adds further assumptions about a single-example analysis.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha = 0.61
    Weight for hard vs soft loss in Eq. 4; selected by Bayesian optimization evaluating on the GSM8K test split (Section 4.2).
  • temperature T = 5.9
    Softmax temperature in Eqs. 1-3; selected by Bayesian optimization on the test split (Section 4.2).
  • LoRA rank = 4
    Rank of LoRA adaptation; chosen by hand in Section 4.1.
  • LoRA alpha = 8
    Scaling factor for LoRA; chosen by hand in Section 4.1.
  • training epochs = 2
    Number of fine-tuning epochs; chosen in Section 3 and Section 4.1.
  • training subset size = 1319 or 2600
    Sections 3 and 4.1 give inconsistent values for the number of GSM8K train questions used.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Reverse KL divergence is mode-seeking and beneficial for knowledge distillation in LLMs
    Invoked in Section 4.2 to justify the soft loss; based on a personal blog note (Le, 2017), not a rigorous derivation.
  • domain assumption The EXL2-quantized 6-bit Llama 3.1 405B teacher preserves sufficient reasoning quality to serve as distillation target
    Section 4.1 cites a Reddit post (Kim, 2024) claiming perplexity equivalence up to 100k context; no direct reasoning evaluation of the quantized model is given.
  • domain assumption The first 1319/2600 questions of GSM8K's train split constitute a valid, unbiased training subset
    Section 3 and Section 4.1 state different subset sizes; no stratification or analysis of the subset is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The three response-priming prompts elicit teacher outputs that are better learning material than unprompted outputs
    This is the core hypothesis of the paper, presented in Section 3.1 without independent validation of the prompts' effect.
  • ad hoc to paper Attention entropy, self-attention focus, and cross-layer similarity computed on a single prompt are representative indicators of model reasoning quality
    Section 6 uses one prompt (the Janet's ducks example in Appendix A) and interprets the resulting metrics as causal explanations of accuracy.
  • domain assumption Zero-shot evaluation without output modifiers is a fair and sufficient evaluation for all models
    Section 4.1 and Section 5 state the evaluation protocol but do not validate that this protocol is reliable for the models compared.
  • ad hoc to paper Using the GSM8K test split to select alpha and temperature does not compromise the reported accuracy
    Section 4.2 uses the test split as the selection criterion; this assumes no leak, which conflicts with standard evaluation practice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Knowledge Distillation for LLMs with Response-Priming Prompting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UDAFFE3T

@misc{pith2026241217846,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Knowledge Distillation for LLMs with Response-Priming Prompting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UDAFFE3T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17846}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across a wide range of natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, these models are often difficult to deploy due to significant computational requirements and resource constraints. Knowledge distillation (KD) is an effective technique for transferring the performance of larger LLMs to smaller models. Traditional KD methods primarily focus on the direct output of the teacher model, with little emphasis on the role of prompting during knowledge transfer. In this paper, we propose a set of novel response-priming prompting strategies applied in the knowledge distillation pipeline to enhance the performance of student models. Our approach fine-tunes a smaller Llama 3.1 8B Instruct model by distilling knowledge from a quantized Llama 3.1 405B Instruct teacher model. We apply LoRA optimization and evaluate on the GSM8K benchmark. Experimental results demonstrate that integrating reasoning-eliciting prompting into the proposed KD pipeline significantly improves student model performance, offering an efficient way to deploy powerful models in resource-constrained environments. We find that Ground Truth prompting results in a 55\% performance increase on GSM8K for a distilled Llama 3.1 8B Instruct compared to the same model distilled without prompting. A thorough investigation into the self-attention layers of the student models indicates that the more successful prompted models tend to exhibit certain positive behaviors inside their attention heads which can be tied to their increased accuracy. Our implementation can be found at https://github.com/alonso130r/knowledge-distillation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17846 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visual representation of the knowledge distil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of the differences between prompted and unprompted model outputs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Equations representing the combination of soft [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evaluation performance of all models based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visual comparison between the average entropy across all self-attention heads in a layer of the stu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Equations for entropy calculation in attention [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visual comparison between the average self-attention (how much a token focuses on itself) per head per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Equations for calculating self-attention focus, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visual comparison of the cosine similarity of an attention head in consecutive layers of the student/evaluated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Equations for measuring attention distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    Preprint, arXiv:2309.11495

    Chain-of-verification reduces hallucination in large language models. Preprint, arXiv:2309.11495. Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, Anirudh Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Aobo Yang, Archi Mitra, Archie Sravankumar, Artem Korenev, Arthur Hinsvark, A...

    arXiv

  2. [5]

    Preprint, arXiv:2407.21783

    The llama 3 herd of models. Preprint, arXiv:2407.21783. Yuxian Gu, Li Dong, Furu Wei, and Minlie Huang

    arXiv

  3. [6]

    Preprint, arXiv:2306.08543

    Minillm: Knowledge distillation of large language mod- els. Preprint, arXiv:2306.08543. Hangfeng He and Weijie J. Su

    arXiv

  4. [7]

    Preprint, arXiv:2408.13442

    A law of next- token prediction in large language models. Preprint, arXiv:2408.13442. Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    arXiv

  5. [8]

    Preprint, arXiv:2106.09685

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. Preprint, arXiv:2106.09685. Edward Kim

    arXiv

  6. [9]

    https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/ 9 comments/1efg2wv/llama_31_405b_exl2_quant_ results/

    Llama 3.1 405B EXL2 quant results. https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/ 9 comments/1efg2wv/llama_31_405b_exl2_quant_ results/. [Accessed 12-09-2024]. Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa

    work page 2024

  7. [10]

    Preprint, arXiv:2205.11916

    Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Preprint, arXiv:2205.11916. Tuan Anh Le

    arXiv

  8. [12]

    Preprint, arXiv:2305.13269

    Chain-of-knowledge: Grounding large language models via dynamic knowledge adapting over heteroge- neous sources. Preprint, arXiv:2305.13269. Lucie Charlotte Magister, Jonathan Mallinson, Jakub Adamek, Eric Malmi, and Aliaksei Severyn

    arXiv

Show all 18 references
  1. [13]

    Preprint, arXiv:2212.08410

    Teaching small language models to reason. Preprint, arXiv:2212.08410. Tyler McDonald and Ali Emami

    arXiv

  2. [14]

    Preprint, arXiv:2402.06196

    Large language models: A survey. Preprint, arXiv:2402.06196. Humza Naveed, Asad Ullah Khan, Shi Qiu, Muham- mad Saqib, Saeed Anwar, Muhammad Usman, Naveed Akhtar, Nick Barnes, and Ajmal Mian

    arXiv

  3. [15]

    Preprint, arXiv:2307.06435

    A compre- hensive overview of large language models. Preprint, arXiv:2307.06435. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou

    arXiv

  4. [16]

    Preprint, arXiv:2201.11903

    Chain-of-thought prompting elic- its reasoning in large language models. Preprint, arXiv:2201.11903. Zhiheng Xi, Senjie Jin, Yuhao Zhou, Rui Zheng, Songyang Gao, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, and Xuanjing Huang

    arXiv

  5. [17]

    As a teacher, guide your student through solving the question below. Pro- vide a clear, simple explanation for someone unfa- miliar with the problem

    Self-polish: Enhance reasoning in large language models via problem refinement. Preprint, arXiv:2305.14497. A Prompts In this section, we list the exact prompts we use in experimentation: Teacher prompting "As a teacher, guide your student through solving the question below. P...

    arXiv

  6. [18]

    Llama 3.1 is available under the Llama 3.1 Community Licensing Agree- ment (Dubey et al., 2024)

    is avail- able under the MIT license. Llama 3.1 is available under the Llama 3.1 Community Licensing Agree- ment (Dubey et al., 2024). F Data Integrity We took steps to ensure our data was well-tested and was verified not to contain personally iden- tifying information. Futher...

    2024

  7. [2017]

    https://www.tuananhle.co.uk/ notes/reverse-forward-kl.html

    Tuan Anh Le — tu- ananhle.co.uk. https://www.tuananhle.co.uk/ notes/reverse-forward-kl.html. [Accessed 17-09- 2024]. Xingxuan Li, Ruochen Zhao, Yew Ken Chia, Bosheng Ding, Shafiq Joty, Soujanya Poria, and Lidong Bing

    2024

  8. [2021]

    Preprint, arXiv:2110.14168

    Train- ing verifiers to solve math word problems. Preprint, arXiv:2110.14168. Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Mojtaba Komeili, Jing Xu, Roberta Raileanu, Xian Li, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Jason Weston

    arXiv

  9. [2023]

    Preprint, arXiv:2311.17311

    Universal self-consistency for large language model generation. Preprint, arXiv:2311.17311. Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plap- pert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman

    arXiv

  10. [2024]

    Preprint, arXiv:2402.01799

    Faster and lighter llms: A survey on current challenges and way forward. Preprint, arXiv:2402.01799. Xinyun Chen, Renat Aksitov, Uri Alon, Jie Ren, Kefan Xiao, Pengcheng Yin, Sushant Prakash, Charles Sut- ton, Xuezhi Wang, and Denny Zhou

    arXiv

Pith tools

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