cs.AISep 9, 2026

Decision Shifts, Lost Label Functionality, and an Inconclusive Grounding Audit in Correctness-Gated Multi-Teacher Distillation

Authors: Xiaofei Feng

Abstract

Candidate decision correctness and rationale grounding are different objectives. We examine correctness-gated multi-teacher distillation in a fixed experiment. Eight arms share 4,330 sources, a 63.9M-parameter student, 12,990 optimization rows, 406 updates, evidence inputs, and a decoder; seven teacher-based arms use one fixed three-response pool. Three seeds are evaluated on 267 held-out examples. Relative to unfiltered distillation, the correctness-weighted arm differed in accuracy by +0.1660 (95% observed-matrix interval [0.0670, 0.2455]), five-label macro-F1 by +0.1323 ([0.0916, 0.1731]), and task-defined conditional unsafe-action rate by -0.4979 ([-0.5926, -0.3686]). These shifts do not imply uniformly better behavior. Source-label SFT had the highest mean macro-F1 (0.586). The weighted arm had zero Refuted recall in every seed, and two seeds assigned NotEnoughInfo to all 167 claim examples. In an availability-amended audit at one reference seed, weighted and unfiltered outputs had 0/20 versus 1/20 evidence-supported positives and 20/20 versus 19/20 positives containing unsupported material. Samples were non-paired, source overlap was not serialized, and the amendment followed automatic summarization but preceded annotation. The audit therefore cannot estimate a common-source grounding effect and is inconclusive about system-level improvement or harm. Hard filtering already achieved 0.660 accuracy, 0.530 macro-F1, and 0.135 conditional unsafe rate. The implemented weighted arm showed no demonstrated incremental decision benefit over hard filtering. This fixed-matrix failure analysis shows decision redistribution with lost label functionality; the available human audit does not establish a grounding gain.

Explore similar work

Sep 20, 2026cs.CL

Distill What You Trust: Reliability-Aware Multi-Teacher On-Policy Distillation

Multi-teacher on-policy distillation allows a student to learn from complementary specialists on its own trajectories. Domain-routed approaches, however, select one teacher per example and keep it fixed throughout the response. This design both depends on labels that mixed training corpora often lack and cannot adapt teacher selection when the expertise required changes within a trajectory. We propose \textbf{TrustMOPD}, which replaces example-level teacher selection with label-free, token-level supervision allocation. At each student-generated prefix, TrustMOPD uses each specialist's RL-induced displacement from a shared pre-RL reference as a proxy for local reliability, calibrates these scores across teachers, and constructs a weighted distillation target. Across mathematics, code, and instruction following, TrustMOPD outperforms the strongest label-free baseline, increasing the recovery ratio from 54.4%54.4\% to 91.5%91.5\% on \textsc{SingleCap} and from 54.5%54.5\% to 98.0%98.0\% on \textsc{MultiCap}, while approaching label-based MOPD on \textsc{SingleCap}. Randomizing token-level weights independently of the student-generated prefix performs no better than uniform weighting, supporting the importance of conditioning supervision on the evolving generation context.
Jie Sun, Mao Zheng, Mingyang Song +8
Sep 2, 2026cs.LG

Verify Before You Distill: Prompt-Level Teacher Gating for On-Policy Distillation

On-policy distillation (OPD) accelerates post-training by providing dense token-level supervision from a frozen teacher on the student's own rollouts. Vanilla OPD applies this supervision uniformly across prompts, without checking whether the teacher is reliable for each prompt. Because reverse KL is mode-seeking, a confidently wrong teacher can induce a strong yet misleading update. Distributional proxies, such as entropy or teacher-student likelihood agreement, measure uncertainty or agreement but do not directly verify outcome correctness. We introduce Teacher-Gated On-Policy Distillation (TGOPD), built on the principle that teacher reliability should be verified at the prompt level before dense supervision is admitted. TGOPD estimates reliability from a small set of verifier-scored teacher probes and routes each prompt exclusively to dense OPD when the reliability check passes or to verifier-grounded GRPO otherwise. Across 4B and 35B students in mathematics, code, and instruction following, TGOPD outperforms Vanilla OPD in all six single-domain settings and achieves higher seven-benchmark averages at both scales under multi-domain training. By using otherwise-idle teacher capacity for reliability estimation, TGOPD also reduces teacher-side compute waste in asynchronous OPD, increasing teacher-node GPU utilization from 9.8% to 78.9% in the measured 4B single-domain run.
Zhiwei Zhang, Zechen Sun, Fei Zhao +6
Apr 28, 2026cs.LG

Knowledge Distillation Must Account for What It Loses

This position paper argues that knowledge distillation must account for what it loses: student models should be judged not only by retained task scores, but by whether they preserve the teacher capabilities that make those scores reliable. This matters because distillation is increasingly used to turn large teacher models into deployable students, yet headline metrics can obscure losses in the capabilities that make teacher behavior reliable. Conceptually, we show that current evaluation often assumes retained task scores imply retained teacher capabilities. Reframing distillation as a lossy projection exposes this flaw: students may match selected teacher observables without preserving the capabilities that make them reliable. We then synthesize existing evidence into a taxonomy of off-metric distillation losses, showing that such losses are concrete, recurring, and measurable, yet often unaccounted for when studies report what students retain rather than what they lose. To make the position actionable, we propose scenario-specific preservation targets and a Distillation Loss Statement that reports what was preserved, what was lost, and why the remaining losses are acceptable. The goal is not lossless distillation, but accountable distillation.
Wenshuo Wang