We study multiteacher knowledge distillation for low resource abstractive summarization from a reliability aware perspective. We introduce EWAD (Entropy Weighted Agreement Aware Distillation), a token level mechanism that routes supervision between teacher distillation and gold supervision based on inter teacher agreement, and CPDP (Capacity Proportional Divergence Preservation), a geometric constraint on the student position relative to heterogeneous teachers. Across two Bangla datasets, 13 BanglaT5 ablations, and eight Qwen2.5 experiments, we find that logit level KD provides the most reliable gains, while more complex distillation improves semantic similarity for short summaries but degrades longer outputs. Cross lingual pseudo label KD across ten languages retains 71-122 percent of teacher ROUGE L at 3.2x compression. A human validated multi judge LLM evaluation further reveals calibration bias in single judge pipelines. Overall, our results show that reliability aware distillation helps characterize when multi teacher supervision improves summarization and when data scaling outweighs loss engineering.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: End-to-end framework. Documents are length-routed to the multi-teacher KD branch or MapReduce module. Three teachers provide logit and pseudo-label supervision across five ablation stages.
Figure 2: Standard distillation loss (Eq. 2 ): LKD (softened KL), Linter (projected MSE), and LCE (gold cross-entropy).
Table 1: Teacher and student model configurations.
Config
R-1
R-2
R-L
BLEU
BS F1
Sem
A1 Baseline
.3943
.2321
.3794
15.79
.7863
.8678
A2 +LogitKD
.3945
.2321
.3797
15.49
.7867
.8683
A3 +Pseudo
.3924
.2301
.3777
15.20
.7855
.8689
A4 +Adapt. τ
.3914
.2296
.3767
15.02
.7846
.8693
A5 +InterMatch
.3914
.2299
.3769
15.08
.7848
.8695
Teacher
.4234
.2512
.4058
16.47
.7917
.8722
Table 2: BTS ablation results (BanglaT5-small student, 109.9M). R = Rouge , BS = BERTScore, Sem = Semantic Similarity. Best student scores in bold .
Config
R-1
R-2
R-L
BLEU
BS F1
Sem
A1 Baseline
.2957
.1389
.2314
11.67
.7441
.7538
A2 +LogitKD
.3527
.2034
.2877
12.05
.7486
.7603
A3 +Pseudo
.3014
.1444
.2405
11.84
.7465
.7584
A4 +Adapt. τ
.2866
.1352
.2253
10.88
.7393
.7443
A5 +InterMatch
.2881
.1361
.2268
10.87
.7391
.7466
Teacher
.3663
.2135
.2998
.1254
.7506
.7689
Table 3: BanSum ablation results (BanglaT5-small student, 109.9M). R = Rouge , BS = BERTScore, Sem = Semantic Similarity. Best student scores in bold .
Experiment
R-1
R-2
R-L
B-4
BS F1
Sem
Baseline (no KD)
.2661
.1241
.2160
.0552
.7389
.7175
Single-T 32B
.2614
.1210
.2114
.0535
.7364
.7116
Single-T 14B
.2640
.1165
.2113
.0523
.7377
.7219
Fixed Weights
.2632
.1166
.2104
.0521
.7380
.7220
Confidence Only
.1529
.0519
.1169
.0239
.6657
.6454
Agreement Only
.2270
.0917
.1756
.0410
.7181
.7016
Table 4: Ewad + Cpdp ablation on filtered BanSum (20K subset), Qwen2.5-3B + LoRA student. B-4 = Bleu -4. R = Rouge , BS = BERTScore, Sem = Semantic Similarity. Best student scores in bold .
Scale
R-1
R-2
R-L
B-4
BS F1
Sem
20K subset
.2661
.1241
.2160
.0552
.7389
.7175
141K full
.2815
.1389
.2335
.0590
.7437
.7364
Δ
+.0154
+.0148
+.0175
+.0038
+.0048
+.0189
Table 5: Qwen2.5-3B baseline fine-tuning: 20K subset vs. full 141K BanSum. 14,120 test samples for 141K; 2,000 for 20K.R = Rouge , BS = BERTScore, Sem = Semantic Similarity.
Table 8: Human validation of LLM judges on 200 samples (100 concordant + 100 discordant), evaluated by five annotators. “ ∣Δ∣ ” = mean absolute score difference from human consensus.
Knowledge distillation (KD) is a standard approach for compressing sequence-to-sequence models, but its per-sample effects are rarely examined. On the BanSum Bangla summarization benchmark, we find that standard KD improves ROUGE-L by only +0.0003 over a cross-entropy baseline, and that approximately 51.3% of training samples are estimated to actively harm student validation loss under standard KD. We propose two complementary reliability-aware distillation methods. CHAD (Counterfactual Harm-Aware Distillation) measures per-sample KD usefulness via gradient alignment with the validation loss direction and trains a lightweight gate that generalizes this counterfactual judgment to the full training set. EWAD+CPDP combines token-level entropy-weighted adaptive distillation with a capacity-proportional geometric constraint from a second, vocabulary-incompatible teacher. On BanSum, both methods substantially outperform standard KD: CHAD by +0.0173 ROUGE-L and EWAD+CPDP by +0.0219 ROUGE-L, where standard KD itself improves ROUGE-L by only +0.0003; despite using only 60M parameters, both outperform a fine-tuned Qwen 2.5-3B model (50x larger). We further evaluate the stronger method, EWAD+CPDP, across 15 typologically diverse XL-Sum languages organised into three sets, beating the CE-only baseline on 10/15 languages; gains are most reliable where the two teachers contribute complementary signal, and weakest where they have saturated or jointly weak target-language coverage. We release code and trained models to support reproducibility and further research on selective distillation.
Dipto Sumit, Ankan Kumar Roy Srizon, Sadia Khair Rodela +4
Small language models (SLMs), such as BART, can achieve summarization performance comparable to large language models (LLMs) via distillation. However, existing LLM-based ranking strategies for summary candidates suffer from instability, while classical metrics (e.g., ROUGE) are insufficient to rank high-quality summaries. To address these issues, we introduce SCURank, a framework that enhances summarization by leveraging Summary Content Units (SCUs). Instead of relying on unstable comparisons or surface-level overlap, SCURank evaluates summaries based on the richness and semantic importance of information content. We investigate the effectiveness of SCURank in distilling summaries from multiple diverse LLMs. Experimental results demonstrate that SCURank outperforms traditional metrics and LLM-based ranking methods across evaluation measures and datasets. Furthermore, our findings show that incorporating diverse LLM summaries enhances model abstractiveness and overall distilled model performance, validating the benefits of information-centric ranking in multi-LLM distillation. The code for SCURank is available at https://github.com/IKMLab/SCURank.
Bo-Jyun Wang, Ying-Jia Lin, Hung-Yu Kao
Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Cheng Kung University · Department of Artificial Intelligence, Chang Gung University · Artificial Intelligence Research Center, Chang Gung University +1
High-volume structured extraction pays a large model's latency on every item, so distilling the task into a small on-device model is attractive: comparable output at a fraction of the time and cost. We measure what that distillation actually delivers, per sub-task. Each news article is mapped to one JSON object with a short summary and five categorical labels. We distill an 8B reasoning teacher (deepseek-r1:8b) into a 0.6B student (Qwen3-0.6B; QLoRA, three seeds), and add two teacher controls: a same-size non-reasoning teacher and a larger managed pipeline. A blinded, reference-free, three-judge panel scores every arm against the full article, alongside two non-distillation baselines, few-shot prompting and constrained decoding. The student runs at about 0.8 s per article against the teacher's 39 s, and recovers 58% of the base-to-teacher gap on summary quality, beating its primary baseline (constrained decoding) by +16.8 points and few-shot prompting by a secondary +4.9. A same-size non-reasoning teacher trains a student no better than the untuned base, so the summary gain follows from the teacher's reasoning nature rather than its scale. Capabilities then split by teacher: the reasoning teacher transfers writing quality and the managed pipeline transfers label diversity, while a same-size instruction teacher's students stay more grounded on the 22 short, thin-source articles in the 93-item test set (74 versus 55 faithful), where the reasoning-lineage student fabricates. That grounding difference is a consistent ordering rather than a significant aggregate effect, and the subgroup is small, so we report it as a direction. Because no single engine wins every field, the deliverable is a per-field routing map for on-device enrichment.