arXiv AI

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

The paper investigates correctness‑gated multi‑teacher distillation, comparing a weighted arm to unfiltered distillation across eight experimental arms. While the weighted arm shows modest gains in accuracy (+0.1660) and macro‑F1 (+0.1323) and a reduction in unsafe action rate (−0.4979), it also exhibits lost label functionality, such as zero Refuted recall and over‑assignment of NotEnoughInfo. A subsequent grounding audit was inconclusive, failing to demonstrate a clear improvement in evidence grounding or overall system performance.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 22

A Shared Learning Rate Is Not a Neutral Control in Selective On-Policy Distillation

The paper investigates selective on‑policy distillation, where a student model is trained only on token positions chosen by a selector. It demonstrates that the commonly used shared learning rate is not neutral: performance varies significantly with the learning rate for different selectors, leading to inconsistent comparisons. The authors attribute this selector‑rate entanglement to the selection process itself and recommend reporting the full arm‑by‑rate matrix for fair evaluation.

By Chencheng Zhu
arXiv AI
Aug 20

Beyond Teacher Likelihood: Group-Calibrated On-Policy Distillation for Long-Context Reasoning

The paper introduces Group‑Calibrated On‑Policy Distillation (GC‑OPD), a method that aligns token‑level teacher guidance with trajectory‑level verifier rewards for long‑context reasoning tasks. GC‑OPD normalizes rewards within rollout groups, uses the signed teacher‑verifier disagreement as a residual, and distributes this residual across tokens via Relative‑Advantage‑Based Credit Assignment (RACA). Experiments on five long‑context benchmarks show that GC‑OPD improves Qwen3‑4B and Qwen3‑8B checkpoints from 29.08/35.12 to 40.47/44.65, outperforming vanilla OPD and demonstrating the effectiveness of group‑relative residual calibration.

By Zhu Zhang, Jixun Wang, Xiaoang Xu, Xiaorong Wang, Zihan Zhou, Zhiyuan Wang, Shuo Wang, Chaojun Xiao, Yuezhi Zhou
arXiv Machine Learning
4d ago

Frozen Judges, Moving Agents: Version-Dependent LLM-Judge Error and the Limits of Judge-Assisted Agent Evaluation

The paper investigates how language‑model judges can make version‑dependent errors when evaluating upgraded agents. Using 35 public coding‑agent submissions, two customer‑service agents, and over a thousand expert‑labeled trajectories, the authors show that fixed judges often reject task‑conditioned error invariance and can incorrectly approve failed patches, especially as agent capability increases. Paired audits of current outputs reduce interval width only marginally, and the study concludes that independent human patch review is still necessary.

By Jiapeng Li