Label Smoothing in Disguise? Gated Knowledge Distillation for Low-Resource Bangla Generation
Organizations: BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Abstract
Gated knowledge distillation (KD) weights teacher signals per token or example, aiming to trust an imperfect teacher only where it seems reliable. We test two gates: EWAD (entropy-weighted agreement-aware distillation), which gates tokens by teacher confidence, and CHAD (counterfactual harm-aware distillation), which gates examples by gradient alignment with validation data. Across six Bangla-centric tasks, three student models (60M to about 2B parameters), and two teacher families, no gate significantly improves plain KD in 45 comparisons. KD also fails to beat cross-entropy (CE) fine-tuning on gold outputs in 40 single-seed comparisons or three-seed runs on four tasks; CE leads on every summarisation metric. The main benefit of KD is regularisation: over ten fixed epochs, CE students lose 0.030 to 0.044 token-F1 from their early-stopped checkpoint, versus 0.005 to 0.025 for distilled students. Teacher-free label smoothing closes most of this gap. In one comparison, a teacher 0.29 token-F1 worse yields students at most 0.009 worse. Thus, gating may change regularisation strength but has little teacher knowledge to select. Findings are limited to Bangla-centric tasks and small students. We will release code, data splits, predictions, and scores.
Figures & tables
| method | weight on the KD loss | used in |
|---|---|---|
| CE | none | all students |
| plain KD | constant | all students |
| EWAD-conf | per token, teacher confidence | 5 tasks |
| EWAD-agree | per token, teacher agreement | summ. |
| + CPDP | adds a second-teacher term | all students |
| CHAD | per example, gradient alignment | 5 tasks |
| student | task | CE F1 | plain KD | EWAD-conf | +CPDP | CHAD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | qa | 0.9532 | ||||
| mt | 0.5161 | |||||
| pp | 0.5144 | |||||
| cc | 0.7168 | |||||
| bt | 0.9616 | |||||
| Qwen | qa | 0.9181 |
| task | method | F1 at early stop | vs CE | F1 at epoch 10 | degradation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mt ( , ) | CE | 0.5216 0.0048 | – | – | 0.4774 | 0.0082 |
| plain KD | 0.5114 0.0009 | 0.430 | 0.5013 | 0.0035 | ||
| EWAD-conf | 0.5213 0.0109 | 1.000 | 0.4996 | 0.0089 | ||
| EWAD-conf+CPDP-d | 0.5220 0.0067 | 1.000 | 0.4969 | 0.0062 | ||
| CHAD | 0.5135 0.0038 | 0.505 | 0.5016 | 0.0049 | ||
| pp ( , ) | CE | 0.5147 0.0018 | – | – | 0.4843 | 0.0013 |
| method | ROUGE-L | vs CE | BERTScore | semsim | words | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CE | 0.2787 0.0023 | – | – | 0.8933 | 0.8487 | 69.2 |
| EWAD-agree | 0.2731 0.0020 | 0.095 | 0.8922 | 0.8484 | 75.8 | |
| agreement-harm gate | 0.2679 0.0031 | 0.040 | 0.8919 | 0.8442 | 66.4 | |
| EWAD-agree+CPDP-kl | 0.2621 0.0062 | 0.095 | 0.8929 | 0.8432 | 60.2 | |
| plain KD | 0.2602 0.0030 | 0.008 | 0.8920 | 0.8406 | 56.4 | |
| EWAD-agree, constant gate | 0.2458 0.0033 | 0.002 | 0.8870 | 0.8350 | 61.3 |
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| task | train | val | test | ref. words | type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| qa | 3606 | 488 | 906 | 1.4 | extractive answer |
| mt | 3500 | 500 | 1000 | 11.5 | Bn En translation |
| pp | 3500 | 500 | 1000 | 11.8 | paraphrase |
| cc | 402 | 57 | 115 | 10.1 | conversational reply |
| bt | 2642 | 378 | 755 | 1.0 | 3-way classification |
| summ | 4000 | 500 | 500 | 73.1 | news summarisation |
| BanglaT5 | gemma | Qwen | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| task | T | CE | KD | T | CE | KD | T | CE | KD |
| qa | 0.970 | 0.953 | 0.949 | 0.981 | 0.953 | 0.953 | 0.934 | 0.918 | 0.902 |
| mt | 0.497 | 0.394 | 0.354 | 0.552 | 0.516 | 0.514 | 0.535 | 0.437 | 0.438 |
| pp | 0.543 | 0.472 | 0.468 | 0.539 | 0.514 | 0.520 | 0.500 | 0.443 | 0.447 |
| cc | 0.636 | 0.479 | 0.471 | 0.708 ∗ | 0.717 | 0.728 | 0.723 | 0.672 | 0.684 |
| bt | 0.955 | 0.950 | 0.951 | 0.946 ∗ | 0.962 | 0.956 | 0.963 | 0.947 | 0.959 |
| student | sig. | gains | equiv. .032 | equiv. .020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLM students (gemma, Qwen) | 30 | 1 | 0 | 28 | 26 |
| BanglaT5 student | 15 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 13 |
| total | 45 | 1 | 0 | 42 | 39 |
| student | task | gate | F1 | 95% CI | equiv. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BanglaT5 | qa | entropy gate | 0.841 | 1.000 | ✓ | ||
| BanglaT5 | qa | semantic gate | 0.037 | 0.552 | ✓ | ||
| BanglaT5 | qa | CHAD | 0.104 | 1.000 | ✓ | ||
| BanglaT5 | mt | entropy gate | 0.470 | 1.000 | ✓ | ||
| BanglaT5 | mt | semantic gate | 0.742 | 1.000 | ✓ | ||
| BanglaT5 | mt | CHAD | 0.605 | 1.000 | ✓ |
| task | model | vs own CE | 95% CI | vs other CE | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| qa | EWAD-conf | 0.625 | ||||
| qa | +CPDP-geo | 1.000 | ||||
| mt | EWAD-conf | 0.248 | ||||
| mt | +CPDP-geo | |||||
| pp | EWAD-conf | 0.060 | ||||
| pp | +CPDP-geo | 0.018 |
| F1 at early stop | F1 at epoch 10 | |||||||
| task | method | s42 | s7 | s13 | s42 | s7 | s13 | ES epochs |
| mt | CE | 0.5161 | 0.5236 | 0.5251 | 0.4808 | 0.4722 | 0.4791 | 0,0,0 |
| mt | plain KD | 0.5124 | 0.5110 | 0.5106 | 0.4987 | 0.5012 | 0.5039 | 1,0,0 |
| mt | EWAD-conf | 0.5088 | 0.5272 | 0.5280 | 0.4967 | 0.5036 | 0.4984 | 0,0,0 |
| mt | EWAD-conf+CPDP-d | 0.5145 | 0.5274 | 0.5241 | 0.4962 | 0.5007 | 0.4938 | 0,0,0 |
| mt | CHAD | 0.5172 | 0.5097 | 0.5137 | 0.5004 | 0.5027 | 0.5016 | 1,3,1 |
| ROUGE-L | BERTScore | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| method | s42 | s7 | s13 | s42 | s7 | s13 |
| CE | 0.2777 | 0.2814 | 0.2771 | 0.8931 | 0.8939 | 0.8930 |
| EWAD-agree | 0.2751 | 0.2731 | 0.2711 | 0.8920 | 0.8925 | 0.8923 |
| agreement-harm gate | 0.2681 | 0.2709 | 0.2647 | 0.8921 | 0.8924 | 0.8911 |
| EWAD-agree+CPDP-kl | 0.2634 | 0.2676 | 0.2553 | 0.8931 | 0.8932 | 0.8924 |
| plain KD | 0.2595 | 0.2576 | 0.2635 | 0.8919 | 0.8917 | 0.8924 |
| task | method | final vs CE | degr. vs plain KD | ||
| mt | plain KD | 0.019 | – | – | |
| mt | EWAD-conf | 0.019 | 0.560 | ||
| mt | EWAD-conf+CPDP-d | 0.019 | 0.192 | ||
| mt | CHAD | 0.019 | 1.000 | ||
| mt | CE | – | – | 0.067 | |
| pp | plain KD | 0.004 | – | – |
| method | degradation | per seed | on means | early-stop vs CE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CE | 0.0082 | – | – | – | – |
| CE + LS 0.05 | 0.0146 | 1.14, 0.40, 0.96 | 0.77 | 0.449 | |
| CE + LS 0.10 | 0.0035 | 0.95, 0.74, 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.252 | |
| CE + LS 0.20 | 0.0095 | 1.58, 1.09, 0.68 | 1.03 | 0.084 | |
| plain KD | 0.0035 | – | – | – | – |
| qa | mt | pp | cc | bt | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| helpful share | .93 | .66 | .21 | .73 | .71 |
| held-out | .12 | .19 | .03 | .24 | .00 |
| held-out AUC | .47 | .65 | .64 | .59 | .63 |
| gemma: rank corr. across seeds | – | 0.52–0.70 | 0.74–0.81 | 0.50–0.65 | 0.69–0.78 |
| model | F1 | 95% CI | BERTScore | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| teacher | – | |||
| CE (no teacher) | – | |||
| plain KD | 0.353 | |||
| entropy gate | 0.533 | |||
| semantic gate | 0.034 | |||
| CHAD | 0.220 |
| metric | contrast | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| rougeL | EWAD-agree, constant gate CE | 0.002 | ||
| rougeL | plain KD CE | 0.008 | ||
| rougeL | EWAD-agree+CPDP-kl CE | 0.095 | ||
| rougeL | EWAD-agree EWAD-agree, constant gate | 0.005 | ||
| rougeL | agreement-harm gate CE | 0.040 | ||
| rougeL | EWAD-agree plain KD | 0.027 |
| task | method | F1 | BERTScore | semsim | same sign | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bt | plain KD | yes | no | |||
| bt | EWAD-conf | yes | yes | |||
| bt | CHAD | yes | yes | |||
| cc | plain KD | yes | yes | |||
| cc | EWAD-conf | yes | yes | |||
| cc | CHAD | yes | yes |
| setting | LLM students | BanglaT5 student |
|---|---|---|
| adaptation | LoRA , bf16 | full fine-tuning |
| optimiser | AdamW | AdamW |
| learning rate | ||
| effective batch | ||
| epochs / patience | 10 / 3 | 15 / 6 evaluations |
| KD / | 0.5 / 2.0 | 0.5 / 2.0 |
Language Model Distillation
Language model distillation transfers a larger model’s capabilities to smaller or specialized models using outputs, probabilities, or internal representations.
See all 548 papers