Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

SCOTT: Self-Consistent Chain-of-Thought Distillation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2305.01879 v4 pith:CW2DRDYU submitted 2023-05-03 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords rationalesdistillationfaithfullargemodelperformancepredictionsteacher
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LMs) beyond a certain scale, demonstrate the emergent capability of generating free-text rationales for their predictions via chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting. While CoT can yield dramatically improved performance, such gains are only observed for sufficiently large LMs. Even more concerning, there is little guarantee that the generated rationales are consistent with LM's predictions or faithfully justify the decisions. In this work, we propose a faithful knowledge distillation method to learn a small, self-consistent CoT model from a teacher model that is orders of magnitude larger. To form better supervision, we elicit rationales supporting the gold answers from a large LM (teacher) by contrastive decoding, which encourages the teacher to generate tokens that become more plausible only when the answer is considered. To ensure faithful distillation, we use the teacher-generated rationales to learn a student LM with a counterfactual reasoning objective, which prevents the student from ignoring the rationales to make inconsistent predictions. Experiments show that, while yielding comparable end-task performance, our method can generate CoT rationales that are more faithful than baselines do. Further analysis suggests that such a model respects the rationales more when making decisions; thus, we can improve its performance more by refining its rationales.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Addressing Benchmarking Gaps in Large Language Models for Health and Medicine with Dynamic Red-Teaming

    cs.LG 2025-07 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    A dynamic red-teaming audit reports that 94% of MedQA-correct answers fail under adversarial mutation, with 86% privacy leak rates, 81% bias shift rates, and 66-74% hallucination rates across 15 medical LLMs.

  2. Not All Errors Are Created Equal: ASCoT Addresses Late-Stage Fragility in Efficient LLM Reasoning

    cs.CL 2025-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    ASCoT claims later reasoning errors are more harmful than early ones and uses a position-weighted verifier to prune and correct CoT steps, but its key evidence is internally inconsistent.

  3. AgentDistill: Training-Free Agent Distillation with Generalizable MCP Boxes

    cs.AI 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    AgentDistill distills agent capabilities without any training by having a teacher generate reusable MCP tool boxes that small-model students invoke at inference time.

  4. Introspection of Thought Helps AI Agents

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    INoT wraps prompts in XML-defined pseudo-code so an LLM simulates two debating agents internally, reporting better scores and lower tokens than seven baselines.

Pith tools