Continual Distillation of Teachers from Different Domains
Authors: Nicolas Michel, Maorong Wang, Jiangpeng He, Toshihiko Yamasaki
Organizations: The University of Tokyo · Japanese-French Laboratory for Informatics, CNRS · National Institute of Informatics · Indiana University Bloomington
Deep learning models continue to scale, with some requiring more storage than many large-scale datasets. Thus, we introduce a new paradigm: Continual Distillation (CD), where a student learns sequentially from a stream of teacher models without retaining access to earlier teachers. CD faces two challenges: teacher training data is unavailable, and teachers have varying expertise. We show that external unlabeled data enables Unseen Knowledge Transfer (UKT), allowing the student to acquire information from domains not present in the training data, while known to the teacher. We also show that sequential distillation causes Unseen Knowledge Forgetting (UKF) when transferred knowledge is lost after training on later teachers. To better trade off between UKT and UKF, we propose Self External Data Distillation (SE2D), a method that preserves logits on external data to stabilize learning across heterogeneous teachers. Experiments on multiple benchmarks show that SE2D reduces UKF and improves cross-domain generalization. The code and implementation for this work are publicly available at: https://github.com/Nicolas1203/continual_distillation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the Continual Distillation problem. A student model S learns through distillation from a sequence of teachers {T1,T2,T3} . During distillation, part of the teachers’ training data is unavailable. The objective is for the student to maintain high performance on all domains known to the teachers , but not necessarily introduced to the student.
Figure 2: Visualization De and Di and different teacher training domains in our experimental setting. Di and De are publicly available like ImageNet or Wikipedia. However, some private or restricted data might be included in training, such as medical data.
Figure 3: Illustration of Unseen Knowledge Transfer (UKT) and Unseen Knowledge Forgetting (UKF). When distilling only from T1 on Internal Data Di , only Domain 0 knowledge is transferred. When distilling from the same teacher T1 on De∪Di , Domains 0 and 1 knowledge is transferred, although the student has never seen Domain 1 . However, when continuing the sequence and distilling from T2 , while the student acquires knowledge from Domain 2 , it forgets part of the knowlege from Domain 1 .
Figure 4: Overview of Self External Data Distillation (SE2D). While the distillation from the teacher sequence is done on the entire distillation data, distillation from the checkpoint of the student at the end of the previous task is done only on De .
Domain
0
1
2
3
∣De∣/∣DS∣
After D(T01,D0S)
93.25
37.80
45.30
36.90
0%
After D(T02,D0S)
93.95
31.60
42.20
35.25
0%
After D(T03,D0S)
92.10
32.00
39.05
33.00
0%
After D ( T012 , D014S )
92.70
93.15
68.35
53.80
33%
After D ( T013 , D014S )
92.45
92.95
48.95
72.55
33%
After D ( T01 , D04S )
96.35
77.15
48.95
48.45
50%
Table 1: Accuracy (%) of the student model on test sets, domain-wise, on CIFAR20, for various domain overlaps, after distilling for 1 epoch. The larger the ratio ∣De∣/∣DS∣ , the more the student performs on domains unseen during training (underlined values).
CIFAR20 - Internal Data Only
Method
D0
D1
D2
D3
D4 ✗
Avg. (0-3)
Gain ( ↑ )
Tbest (upper bound)
97.75
95.80
96.70
95.75
-
96.5
0.00
KL-divergence
98.10 ± 0.05
41.40 ± 0.84
53.38 ± 0.35
54.87 ± 3.70
-
61.94 ± 1.24
0.00
DKD [CVPR’22]
95.70 ± 1.55
35.53 ± 1.94
45.42 ± 2.05
41.02 ± 2.55
-
54.42 ± 2.02
0.00
LS [CVPR’24]
96.50 ± 1.52
39.13 ± 2.90
49.77 ± 4.40
49.58 ± 5.78
-
58.75 ± 3.65
0.00
MDS [ICLR’25]
94.20 ± 0.73
34.30 ± 2.80
44.70 ± 1.40
41.00 ± 1.90
-
53.55 ± 1.72
0.00
Table 2: Performances (%, higher is better) of the student at the end of training on CIFAR20 for 4 scenarios. Internal Data Only (D0), Related External Data (D4), CUB as ED, and MNIST as ED. The number of runs is set to 3 . The gain columns shows the gain over using Internal Data Only. Grey : Internal Data; Blue : Domain known by the teacher; Red : External Data (ED); White: Ignored.
Digits - Internal Data Only
Method
MNIST
SVHN
MNIST-M
USPS
KMNIST ✗
Avg.
Gain ( ↑ )
Tbest (upper bound)
99.2
97.84
99.25
98.8
-
98.77
0.00
KL-divergence
99.17 ± 0.04
35.80 ± 1.49
62.80 ± 2.69
95.81 ± 0.46
-
73.40 ± 1.17
0.00
DKD [CVPR’22]
98.70 ± 0.11
33.35 ± 1.28
54.50 ± 2.45
95.07 ± 0.43
-
70.40 ± 1.07
0.00
LS [CVPR’24]
99.13 ± 0.09
37.60 ± 1.40
64.10 ± 1.73
96.00 ± 0.25
-
74.21 ± 0.87
0.00
MDS [ICLR’25]
98.15 ± 1.13
34.51 ± 4.80
54.97 ± 9.49
93.21 ± 3.01
-
70.21 ± 3.80
0.00
Table 3: Performances (%, higher is better) of the student at the end of training on Digits for 2 scenarios. Internal Data Only (MNIST) and Related External Data (KMNIST). The number of runs is set to 3 . Average and standard deviations are reported.
DomainNet - Internal Data Only
Method
Clipart
Infograph
Painting
Quickdraw
Real
Sketch ✗
Avg.
Gain ( ↑ )
Tbest (upper bound)
74.35
35.83
66.66
66.19
78.90
-
64.39
0.00
KL-divergence
77.08 ± 0.45
18.16 ± 0.24
44.17 ± 0.50
17.19 ± 0.73
67.29 ± 0.24
-
44.78 ± 0.29
0.00
DKD [CVPR’22]
77.32 ± 0.22
18.04 ± 0.09
42.76 ± 0.40
17.43 ± 0.31
63.99 ± 0.14
-
43.91 ± 0.17
0.00
LS [CVPR’24]
77.21 ± 0.37
17.21 ± 0.91
40.95 ± 0.14
16.42 ± 1.01
60.39 ± 0.20
-
42.43 ± 0.44
0.00
MDS [ICLR’25]
76.92 ± 0.42
18.08 ± 0.23
42.14 ± 0.38
17.44 ± 1.03
63.29 ± 0.20
-
43.57 ± 0.34
0.00
Table 4: Performances (%, higher is better) of the student at the end of training on DomainNet for 2 scenarios. Internal Data Only (Clipart) and Related External Data (Sketch). The number of runs is set to 3 . Average and standard deviations are reported.
Figure 5: Average Accuracy of the student across all domains known by teachers at the end of training on CIFAR20.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure B.1 : Entropy distribution of the teacher (ViT-Base) trained on domains 0 and 1 of CIFAR20 for various datasets and domains.
Figure B.2 : Entropy distribution of the teacher (ViT-Base) trained on domains Real and Clipart of Domainnet for various DomainNet domains.
CIFAR20 - Internal Data Only
Method
D0
D1
D2
D3
D4 ✗
Avg. (0-3)
KL-divergence
0
11.95
2.98
0
-
3.73
DKD [CVPR’22]
0
2.38
3.47
0
-
1.46
LS [CVPR’24]
0
10.42
1.88
0
-
3.08
MDS [ICLR’25]
0
11.95
2.98
0
-
3.23
Self-Distillation
0
16.02
2.47
0
-
4.12
Appendix
Table C.1 : Forgetting (%, lower is better) of the student at the end of training on CIFAR20 for 4 scenarios. Internal Data Only (D0), Related External Data (D4), CUB as ED, and MNIST as ED. The number of runs is set to 3 .
Digits - Internal Data Only
Method
MNIST
SVHN
MNIST-M
USPS
KMNIST ✗
Avg.
KL-divergence
0.23
3.34
16.20
0
-
4.94
DKD [CVPR’22]
0.47
0.53
11.73
0
-
3.12
LS [CVPR’24]
0.10
4.09
12.88
0
-
4.40
MDS [ICLR’25]
0.23
3.34
16.20
0
-
4.94
Self-Distillation
0.13
4.06
7.46
0
-
3.54
Appendix
Table C.2 : Forgetting (%, lower is better) of the student at the end of training on Digits for 2 scenarios. Internal Data Only (D0), Related External Data (D4). The number of runs is set to 3.
DomainNet - Internal Data Only
Method
Clipart
Infograph
Painting
Quickdraw
Real
Sketch ✗
Avg.
KL-divergence
4.63
9.91
13.70
20.31
0
-
12.14
DKD [CVPR’22]
3.85
10.34
13.89
22.38
0
-
12.61
LS [CVPR’24]
3.50
11.48
15.39
23.73
0
-
13.52
MDS [ICLR’25]
5.20
10.70
15.69
21.46
0
-
13.26
Checkpoint
1.27
5.86
11.30
20.68
0
-
9.78
Appendix
Table C.3 : Forgetting (%, lower is better) on DomainNet for 2 scenarios: Internal Data Only (Seq -1) and Related External Data (Seq 0). Averaged across 3 runs.
CIFAR20 - Internal Data Only
Method
D0
D1
D2
D3
D4 ✗
Avg. (0-3)
Tbest (upper bound)
97.75
95.80
96.70
95.75
-
96.5
KL-divergence
96.27 ± 0.21
37.85 ± 0.78
52.28 ± 0.42
49.48 ± 1.28
-
58.97 ± 0.67
DKD [CVPR’22]
95.40 ± 1.05
33.27 ± 1.60
45.38 ± 0.90
40.45 ± 1.34
-
53.62 ± 1.22
LS [CVPR’24]
96.25 ± 0.85
38.95 ± 2.17
51.58 ± 2.47
50.15 ± 4.40
-
59.23 ± 2.47
MDS [ICLR’25]
94.45 ± 0.44
35.08 ± 0.88
45.35 ± 0.41
41.98 ± 3.10
-
54.22 ± 1.21
Appendix
Table C.4 : Performances (%, higher is better) of the student at the end of training on CIFAR20 for 2 scenarios with a ViT-tiny. Internal Data Only (D0), Related External Data (D4). The number of runs is set to 3. Average and standard deviations are reported.
DomainNet - Internal Data Only
Method
Clipart
Infograph
Painting
Quickdraw
Real
Sketch ✗
Avg.
Tbest (upper bound)
86.33
53.89
79.74
69.62
89.86
-
76.23
KL-divergence
78.33 ± 0.23
19.00 ± 0.30
39.25 ± 0.81
35.36 ± 0.49
51.51 ± 0.74
-
44.69 ± 0.32
DKD [CVPR’22]
78.55 ± 0.03
18.89 ± 0.41
39.69 ± 0.19
34.77 ± 0.38
52.45 ± 0.49
-
44.87 ± 0.06
LS [CVPR’24]
74.39 ± 0.39
15.54 ± 0.66
33.92 ± 0.56
20.09 ± 1.11
46.62 ± 0.76
-
38.11 ± 0.64
MDS [ICLR’25]
75.51 ± 0.10
17.52 ± 0.20
35.67 ± 1.39
26.22 ± 0.70
47.71 ± 0.69
-
40.53 ± 0.27
Appendix
Table C.5 : Domain Accuracy (%, higher is better) on DomainNet with CLIP-based teachers. Mean and standard deviation are reported.
DomainNet - Sequence 1 (Quickdraw is used as ED and Infograph is ignored)
Method
Clipart
Infograph
Painting
Quickdraw
Real
Sketch
Avg.
KL-divergence
74.66 ± 0.14
-
33.01 ± 0.21
-
46.17 ± 0.62
48.68 ± 0.15
50.63
DKD [CVPR’22]
76.18 ± 0.20
-
36.20 ± 0.49
-
49.70 ± 0.62
54.85 ± 0.32
54.23
MDS [ICLR’25]
70.76 ± 0.40
-
30.01 ± 0.78
-
43.52 ± 1.09
51.56 ± 0.68
48.96
Self-Distillation
80.43 ± 0.10
-
47.47 ± 0.71
-
61.10 ± 0.59
58.15 ± 0.31
61.79
SE2D (ours)
76.89 ± 0.25
-
38.72 ± 0.49
-
52.83 ± 0.20
58.84 ± 0.25
56.82
Appendix
Table C.6 : Accuracy per domain (%). Grey : Internal Data; Blue : Domain known by the teacher (active); Red : External Data (ED); White : Ignored. Avg computed on Internal Data + Active domains.
Figure D.1 : Accuracy of the student on all domains at all steps for the considered methods on CIFAR20, training with Internal Data only.
Figure D.2 : Accuracy of the student on all domains at all steps for the considered methods on CIFAR20, training with External Data.
Figure D.3 : Accuracy of the student on all domains at all steps for the considered methods on Digits, training with Internal Data only.
Figure D.4 : Accuracy of the student on all domains at all steps for the considered methods on Digits, training with External Data.
On-policy distillation (OPD) is a promising approach for transferring knowledge between language models, where a student receives dense token-level supervision along its own generated trajectories. However, teacher supervision can be unreliable when conditioned on incomplete or low-quality student prefixes. We identify Teacher Uncertainty Contraction (TUC), a systematic phenomenon whereby the teacher's predictive uncertainty decreases as it continues from a student-generated prefix. We theoretically characterize this trade-off through a variance-bias decomposition of teacher-branch gradients, showing that uncertainty contraction reduces variance while teacher-student path divergence increases bias, thereby favoring a finite continuation. Guided by this insight, we propose Adaptive-Continuations On-Policy Distillation (AC-OPD), which augments informative states along student rollouts with teacher continuations and adaptively selects their effective supervision horizons. Experiments on mathematical reasoning and code generation across model scales demonstrate that AC-OPD consistently improves over standard OPD. Controlled-continuations and matched-budget analyses further validate the adaptive-continuations design, highlighting adaptive teacher continuations as an effective principle for reliable on-policy distillation.The code will be made publicly available upon publication.
Jingang Zhou, Yuyi Zhou, Haiyang Guo +6
School of Advanced Interdisciplinary Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Science · Ant Group
Continual post-training enables foundation models to acquire new knowledge while preserving existing capabilities. Recent work suggests that on-policy learning can mitigate forgetting, with on-policy self-distillation emerging as a particularly attractive approach. In this work, we revisit this optimistic view through self-distillation policy optimization (SDPO). Our experiments show that SDPO can accelerate in-domain specialization when teacher signals are stable and well aligned, but it struggles to generalize to out-of-distribution scenarios. In continual post-training, SDPO exhibits stronger forgetting and can even collapse, whereas on-policy reinforcement learning methods such as GRPO adapt more conservatively and better preserve prior capabilities. Further analyses reveal that denser self-distillation induces larger drift in both parameter space and response space, and can amplify high-frequency formatting artifacts through a self-reinforcing teacher--student loop. These findings suggest that on-policy data alone is insufficient for continual learning. Dense self-distillation can accelerate specialization when teacher targets are stable and token-level supervision is reliable, but it should not be treated as a default stabilizer for continual post-training. Our code is available at https://github.com/Moenupa/SDPO-CL.
Meng Wang, Haohan Zhao, Wenzhuo Liu +7
Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, HKISI, CAS · Institute of Automation, CAS · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences +1
Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance across many tasks, but their high computational cost limits deployment in resource-constrained environments. Knowledge Distillation (KD) offers a practical solution by transferring knowledge from a teacher model of a larger size to a smaller student model. While prior work has mainly examined task-specific or small-scale settings, the post-training stage for building general instruction-following models has received limited attention. In this paper, we conduct a systematic study of KD in post-training using the large-scale Tulu 3 dataset. We find that KD outperforms supervised fine-tuning (SFT) in low-data regimes, but its advantage diminishes as more training data is added. Distilling from a stronger instruction-tuned teacher restores substantial gains even with abundant data, indicating that KD remains effective when the teacher provides knowledge that the student cannot easily acquire from the training data alone. We further study domain-specific, low-resource scenarios and propose a two-stage KD strategy that leverages synthetic teacher-labeled data followed by refinement on human annotations. This method consistently improves student performance, providing practical guidance for building compact models in data-scarce environments.
Xin Liu, Simin Ma, Shujian Liu +5
University of Michigan · 2Zoom Video Communications