Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 30 references

Causal Distillation: Transferring Structured Explanations from Large to Compact Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A distillation framework transfers structured causal explanation skills from a large teacher model to compact student models, and a new bidirectional sentence-alignment metric, CEC, measures whether the transfer preserved the causal chain.

desk verdict CEC can't detect the paper's own named failure mode, so the transfer claim is unproven, but the paper is honest enough to earn a revise-and-resubmit rather than a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19511 v1 pith:ECINRRXJ submitted 2025-05-26 cs.CL

Aggrey Muhebwa , Khalid K. Osman This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords causaldistillationexplanationcoherenceknowledgereasoninglanguagemodelexplanationssentenceembeddingsevaluationmetricsClimate-FEVER
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a supervised fine-tuning framework that transfers causal explanation skills from a large proprietary teacher model to compact open-source student models, so that small models can explain in structured cause-and-effect terms whether evidence supports or contradicts a claim. To measure the transfer, the paper introduces Causal Explanation Coherence (CEC), a bidirectional sentence-level semantic alignment score between a generated explanation and the teacher's reference explanation. The authors report that all three distilled student models reach CEC scores above 0.86, with Phi-2 highest at 0.910, and argue that CEC captures causal fidelity better than lexical or token-level metrics. The underlying aim is to show that explanatory structure, not just output probabilities, can be distilled into small models and evaluated automatically.

What carries the argument

Causal Explanation Coherence (CEC) is the central object. For a generated explanation with sentences $g_1,\ldots,g_n$ and a reference explanation with sentences $a_1,\ldots,a_m$, each sentence is embedded, and CEC averages two directional terms: the mean over generated sentences of their maximum cosine similarity to a reference sentence, and the mean over reference sentences of their maximum cosine similarity to a generated sentence. This symmetric average is intended to penalize both missing causal elements and unsupported extra content while tolerating paraphrase and reordering. The training side relies on next-token teacher-forcing over the concatenated claim, evidence, label, and teacher explanation, with low-rank adaptation for efficient fine-tuning.

What would settle it

A concrete test would compute CEC for a pair of explanations that share the same topical sentences but reverse the stated cause-effect order (or negate the causal link); if CEC remains high, the metric is not sensitive to causal direction. A second decisive observation would be a human evaluation in which CEC's correlation with human-rated explanation quality is no better than BERTScore's, which would falsify the claim that CEC is a more consistent measure of explanation quality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that causal knowledge distillation—training a student model to reproduce teacher-generated structured explanations through a divergence-based objective—equips compact models with causal reasoning abilities, and that the CEC metric validates the transfer by measuring how well each sentence of the student explanation aligns semantically with the teacher reference in both directions. Using GPT-4 explanations over Climate-FEVER claim-evidence pairs as the reference "ground truth", the paper fine-tunes TinyLlama-1.1B, Phi-2, and Gemma-2B and reports CEC scores of 0.895, 0.910, and 0.860 respectively, while BLEU and ROUGE remain low. The paper reads this divergence as evidence that surface-form metrics underestimate genuine causal alignment, and it further claims that CEC correlates more consistently with human-judged explanation quality than existing metrics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that GPT-4's explanations are a correct and complete causal ground truth, and that sentence-embedding cosine similarity measures causal coherence rather than just topical similarity; the paper validates neither.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A student explanation with CEC at or above 0.86 can be taken to preserve the teacher's causal chain even when its wording differs.
  • Because lexical metrics like BLEU and ROUGE diverge sharply from CEC, they should not be used alone to judge explanation quality in claim-evidence tasks.
  • Errors and biases in the teacher's explanations are inherited by the students, so distillation can propagate flawed causal reasoning.
  • CEC does not verify factual correctness, so a causally coherent but false explanation can still score high, motivating factuality-augmented evaluation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper asserts but does not report a human evaluation; a direct test would replace GPT-4 references with human causal annotations and compare CEC's rank correlation with human judgments against BERTScore's.
  • Because CEC is built on sentence-embedding similarity, it may reward topical overlap rather than causal direction; an experiment that reverses cause and effect in a student explanation and checks whether CEC drops would test whether the metric truly tracks causality.
  • The same recipe is claimed to be domain-agnostic, but the failure modes observed—simplified temporal details and reversed causal direction—suggest transfer to legal or clinical explanations will need domain-specific auxiliary losses.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a supervised fine-tuning framework, 'causal distillation,' in which compact open-source language models (TinyLlama, Phi-2, Gemma-2B) are trained to reproduce structured causal explanations generated by GPT-4 for Climate-FEVER claim-evidence pairs. It also introduces a new evaluation metric, Causal Explanation Coherence (CEC), defined in Eq. (2) as the order-invariant bidirectional average of maximum cosine similarities between sentence embeddings of the generated and reference explanations. The authors report CEC scores of 0.86--0.91 for the distilled students and argue that these scores confirm successful transfer of causal reasoning capabilities. They also claim that CEC correlates more consistently with human-judged explanation quality than existing metrics, and they provide a statistical comparison of CEC with BERTScore.

Significance. If the central claims were sound, the paper would make a useful contribution: it targets an important problem (equipping small models with causal reasoning), proposes a simple and cheap evaluation scheme for explanation quality, and demonstrates transparency by listing failure modes and limitations. The use of openly available student models and a public dataset aids reproducibility. However, the main empirical claim and the validity of the CEC metric as a measure of causal coherence are not supported by the evidence presented. The metric is shown, by the paper's own failure analysis, to be insensitive to causal-direction reversal, and the absence of baselines, human evaluation, and external validation makes the transfer claim unsubstantiated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (2), Section 4.5] CEC as defined in Eq. (2) is an order-invariant, bidirectional average of maximum sentence-embedding cosine similarities. It contains no mechanism to represent causal direction, argumentative role, or logical progression. Section 4.5 reports that student models 'reverse the true cause-and-effect relationship,' yet the same models obtain CEC scores of 0.86--0.91 in Table 1. A reversed causal chain (e.g., 'rising temperatures cause increased CO2' instead of the converse) would not be penalized if the sentence embeddings remain topically similar. Therefore, the statement in Section 4.2 that 'These scores confirm that causal distillation effectively transfers complex causal reasoning capabilities' is not supported by the CEC results.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 1] Table 1 reports only post-distillation CEC and lexical/semantic scores for three student models. There is no pre-fine-tuning baseline, no comparison to students fine-tuned on non-causal targets or on the same data without teacher explanations, and no comparison to prior explanation-distillation methods (e.g., Distilling Step-by-Step). Without such baselines, the observed CEC levels cannot be attributed to the proposed causal distillation framework rather than to the SFT procedure or to the inherent similarity of teacher and student text.
  3. [Section 1 and Section 4.3] The Introduction claims that CEC 'correlates more consistently with human-judged explanation quality than existing metrics,' but no human evaluation is reported anywhere in the paper. The paired t-test and Wilcoxon test in Section 4.3 only demonstrate that CEC scores are numerically higher than BERTScore on the same set of explanations; they do not measure correlation with human judgments, nor do they assess causal quality. This contribution claim is therefore unsupported.
  4. [Eq. (1) and Eq. (2)] The evaluation loop is closed: Eq. (1) trains the student to minimize divergence from the teacher's explanations, and Eq. (2) scores the student's output against the same teacher reference. High CEC can thus reflect successful imitation of the teacher's surface text rather than independent causal competence. The Limitations section correctly notes that CEC does not verify factual correctness and that the process depends on the teacher's quality. Combined with the fact that the teacher's explanations are never validated as causal ground truth, the reported results cannot support the strong claim of causal reasoning transfer.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3.2] Typo: 'we introduce thr CEC metric' should be 'the CEC metric'.
  2. [Section 1] Typo: 'superficial assessements' should be 'assessments'.
  3. [Section 2] The phrase 'logically flowed event' appears to be a typo for 'flawed event'.
  4. [Section 4.1] Inconsistent model size: Section 3.1 describes Phi-2 as '1.3B' while Section 4.1 says 'approximately 2B'. Please clarify.
  5. [Section 4.3] The reported effect size (d=5.18) with a standard deviation of 0.017 and t(99)=100.34 for a difference in means of 0.188 seems implausible; please verify the calculation and report the full distribution of paired differences.
  6. [General] The sentence-embedding model used to compute CEC is not specified; this is needed for reproducibility and for interpreting the absolute CEC values.
  7. [Section 4.4] Figure 1 is referenced in the text but the figure itself appears to be missing from the manuscript.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

High CEC scores reflect self-agreement with the training target, not independently verified causal transfer; the CEC metric is defined as teacher-similarity and cannot detect the paper's own direction-reversal failure mode.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.1 Eq. (1), Section 3.2 Eq. (2), Section 4.2 Table 1]
    "θ∗ = arg min θ EX∼p(X) [D(M teacher(X), Mstudent(X, θ))] ... The GPT-4 explanation serves as the reference “ground truth” for that instance. ... These scores confirm that causal distillation effectively transfers complex causal reasoning capabilities from the larger teacher model to the compact student models."

    Equation (1) trains the student to minimize divergence from the teacher explanation, and CEC (Eq. 2) is scored against the same GPT-4 teacher explanation used as the training target. High CEC is therefore a self-consistency check with the supervision signal, forced by the optimization objective; it does not independently establish that causal reasoning was transferred. The Section 4.2 conclusion relies on this closed loop rather than on any external causal ground truth or human evaluation.

  2. renaming known result [Section 3.2 Eq. (2) and Section 4.5]
    "CECsym(Egen, Eref) = 1/2 (1/n Σ_i max_j g_i^T a_j / (||g_i|| ||a_j||) + 1/m Σ_j max_i a_j^T g_i / (||a_j|| ||g_i||)) ... Importantly, this metric is order-invariant and robust to paraphrasing ... Another common error involves misinterpreting causal directionality, where the student model reverses the true cause-and-effect relationship."

    Equation (2) is an order-invariant bidirectional max-cosine sentence-overlap score: it has no representation of cause→effect direction or of which sentence plays the causal role. Despite this, the paper renames the score “Causal Explanation Coherence” and treats high values as evidence of causal-structure preservation. Section 4.5 reports that students reverse causal directionality, while Section 4.2 reports CEC scores of 0.86–0.91 for the same models, so the metric cannot detect the paper's own named failure mode; the causal interpretation is asserted by definition, not measured.

full rationale

The central validation loop is closed by construction: Eq. (1) minimizes divergence between student and teacher explanations, and Eq. (2) scores the student explanation against that same teacher explanation. The Section 4.2 headline that CEC ≥ 0.86 “confirms” causal reasoning transfer is therefore a fidelity-to-training-target statement, not an independent measure of causal correctness. The circularity is compounded by the metric's definition: CEC is an order-invariant bidirectional max-cosine sentence-overlap score, which cannot represent cause→effect direction; the paper's own Section 4.5 documents direction-reversal errors in exactly the models that score 0.86–0.91. No external benchmark, human evaluation, or pre-distillation baseline breaks the loop; the claimed human-correlation result in Section 1 is asserted but not reported. There are no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. Because the training and evaluation references coincide and the metric name imports causal content that the equation does not contain, the central transfer claim is partially circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central evaluation rests on three unverified assumptions: teacher explanations are causal ground truth, embedding cosine similarity tracks causal structure, and imitation of the teacher constitutes causal reasoning. No external human or factual benchmark is used, so the ledger contains no fitted free parameters but contains these domain assumptions.

assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper GPT-4 explanations are correct, complete causal ground truth for claim-evidence pairs.
    Section 3.1: 'These teacher-generated explanations provide consistent causal rationales...' The paper does not validate the teacher's factual accuracy and Section 5 concedes errors would be replicated.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity between sentence embeddings preserves causal structure.
    Section 3.2 defines CEC as bidirectional maximum cosine similarity alone; no evidence links embedding geometry to causal directionality or completeness.
  • domain assumption Student imitation of teacher explanations constitutes transferred causal reasoning.
    Section 4.2 interprets high CEC as causal transfer; no independent reasoning benchmark or counterfactual test is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Causal Distillation: Transferring Structured Explanations from Large to Compact Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ECINRRXJ

@misc{pith2026250519511,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Causal Distillation: Transferring Structured Explanations from Large to Compact Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ECINRRXJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19511}
}
read the original abstract

Large proprietary language models exhibit strong causal reasoning abilities that smaller open-source models struggle to replicate. We introduce a novel framework for distilling causal explanations that transfers causal reasoning skills from a powerful teacher model to a compact open-source model. The key idea is to train the smaller model to develop causal reasoning abilities by generating structured cause-and-effect explanations consistent with those of the teacher model. To evaluate the quality of the student-generated explanations, we introduce a new metric called Causal Explanation Coherence (CEC) to assess the structural and logical consistency of causal reasoning. This metric uses sentence-level semantic alignment to measure how well each part of the generated explanation corresponds to the teacher's reference, capturing both faithfulness and coverage of the underlying causal chain. Our framework and the CEC metric provide a principled foundation for training smaller models to perform robust causal reasoning and for systematically assessing the coherence of explanations in language model outputs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19511 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The student model’s explanation preserves the causal structure of the teacher’s output and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Phi-4- reasoning technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21318, 2025

    Marah Abdin, Sahaj Agarwal, Ahmed Awadallah, Vidhisha Balachandran, Harkirat Behl, Lingjiao Chen, Gustavo de Rosa, Suriya Gunasekar, Mojan Javaheripi, Neel Joshi, et al. Phi-4- reasoning technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21318, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Claude 3.7 sonnet, 2025

    Anthropic. Claude 3.7 sonnet, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Cause and effect: can large language models truly understand causality? InProceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series, volume 4, pages 2–9, 2024

    Swagata Ashwani, Kshiteesh Hegde, Nishith Reddy Mannuru, Dushyant Singh Sengar, Mayank Jindal, Krishna Chaitanya Rao Kathala, Dishant Banga, Vinija Jain, and Aman Chadha. Cause and effect: can large language models truly understand causality? InProceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series, volume 4, pages 2–9, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Is knowledge all large language models needed for causal reasoning?arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00139, 2023

    Hengrui Cai, Shengjie Liu, and Rui Song. Is knowledge all large language models needed for causal reasoning?arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00139, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Causal evaluation of language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00622, 2024

    Sirui Chen, Bo Peng, Meiqi Chen, Ruiqi Wang, Mengying Xu, Xingyu Zeng, Rui Zhao, Shengjie Zhao, Yu Qiao, and Chaochao Lu. Causal evaluation of language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00622, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Counterbench: A benchmark for counterfactuals reasoning in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11008, 2025

    Yuefei Chen, Vivek K Singh, Jing Ma, and Ruxiang Tang. Counterbench: A benchmark for counterfactuals reasoning in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11008, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Unveiling causal reasoning in large language models: Reality or mirage?Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:96640–96670, 2024

    Haoang Chi, He Li, Wenjing Yang, Feng Liu, Long Lan, Xiaoguang Ren, Tongliang Liu, and Bo Han. Unveiling causal reasoning in large language models: Reality or mirage?Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:96640–96670, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Climate-fever: A dataset for verification of real-world climate claims.arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.00614, 2020

    Thomas Diggelmann, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Jannis Bulian, Massimiliano Ciaramita, and Markus Leippold. Climate-fever: A dataset for verification of real-world climate claims.arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.00614, 2020

    arXiv 2012

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Causal inference in natural language processing: Estimation, prediction, interpretation and beyond

    Amir Feder, Katherine A Keith, Emaad Manzoor, Reid Pryzant, Dhanya Sridhar, Zach Wood- Doughty, Jacob Eisenstein, Justin Grimmer, Roi Reichart, Margaret E Roberts, et al. Causal inference in natural language processing: Estimation, prediction, interpretation and beyond. Transa...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Efficient knowledge distillation from an ensemble of teachers

    Takashi Fukuda, Masayuki Suzuki, Gakuto Kurata, Samuel Thomas, Jia Cui, and Bhuvana Ramabhadran. Efficient knowledge distillation from an ensemble of teachers. InInterspeech, pages 3697–3701, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Gemini flash: Efficient and capable, 2025

    Google DeepMind. Gemini flash: Efficient and capable, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Leakage-adjusted simulatability: Can models generate non-trivial explanations of their behavior in natural language?arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04119, 2020

    Peter Hase, Shiyue Zhang, Harry Xie, and Mohit Bansal. Leakage-adjusted simulatability: Can models generate non-trivial explanations of their behavior in natural language?arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04119, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Distilling step-by-step! outperform- ing larger language models with less training data and smaller model sizes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02301, 2023

    Cheng-Yu Hsieh, Chun-Liang Li, Chih-Kuan Yeh, Hootan Nakhost, Yasuhisa Fujii, Alexander Ratner, Ranjay Krishna, Chen-Yu Lee, and Tomas Pfister. Distilling step-by-step! outperform- ing larger language models with less training data and smaller model sizes.arXiv preprint arXiv:...

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Phi-2: The surprising power of small language models.Microsoft Research Blog, 1(3):3, 2023

    Mojan Javaheripi, Sébastien Bubeck, Marah Abdin, Jyoti Aneja, Sebastien Bubeck, Caio César Teodoro Mendes, Weizhu Chen, Allie Del Giorno, Ronen Eldan, Sivakanth Gopi, et al. Phi-2: The surprising power of small language models.Microsoft Research Blog, 1(3):3, 2023. 10

    2023

  10. [18]

    Cladder: Assessing causal reasoning in language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:31038–31065, 2023

    Zhijing Jin, Yuen Chen, Felix Leeb, Luigi Gresele, Ojasv Kamal, Zhiheng Lyu, Kevin Blin, Fernando Gonzalez Adauto, Max Kleiman-Weiner, Mrinmaya Sachan, et al. Cladder: Assessing causal reasoning in language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:31038–31065, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Can large language models infer causation from correlation? arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05836, 2023

    Zhijing Jin, Jiarui Liu, Zhiheng Lyu, Spencer Poff, Mrinmaya Sachan, Rada Mihalcea, Mona Diab, and Bernhard Schölkopf. Can large language models infer causation from correlation? arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05836, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A survey on enhancing causal reasoning ability of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09326, 2025

    Xin Li, Zhuo Cai, Shoujin Wang, Kun Yu, and Fang Chen. A survey on enhancing causal reasoning ability of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09326, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Teaching small language models to reason.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08410, 2022

    Lucie Charlotte Magister, Jonathan Mallinson, Jakub Adamek, Eric Malmi, and Aliaksei Severyn. Teaching small language models to reason.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08410, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Openai o3-mini system card, 2025

    OpenAI. Openai o3-mini system card, 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    MIT press, 2000

    Peter Spirtes, Clark N Glymour, and Richard Scheines.Causation, prediction, and search. MIT press, 2000

    2000

  16. [24]

    Gemma Team. Gemma. 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Explanatory coherence.Behavioral and brain sciences, 12(3):435–467, 1989

    Paul Thagard. Explanatory coherence.Behavioral and brain sciences, 12(3):435–467, 1989

    1989

  18. [26]

    Fali Wang, Zhiwei Zhang, Xianren Zhang, Zongyu Wu, Tzuhao Mo, Qiuhao Lu, Wanjing Wang, Rui Li, Junjie Xu, Xianfeng Tang, et al. A comprehensive survey of small language models in the era of large language models: Techniques, enhancements, applications, collaboration with llms,...

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Causal distillation for language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.02505, 2021

    Zhengxuan Wu, Atticus Geiger, Josh Rozner, Elisa Kreiss, Hanson Lu, Thomas Icard, Christo- pher Potts, and Noah D Goodman. Causal distillation for language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.02505, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Are human ex- planations always helpful? towards objective evaluation of human natural language explanations

    Bingsheng Yao, Prithviraj Sen, Lucian Popa, James Hendler, and Dakuo Wang. Are human ex- planations always helpful? towards objective evaluation of human natural language explanations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03117, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Understanding causality with large language models: Feasibility and opportunities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05524, 2023

    Cheng Zhang, Stefan Bauer, Paul Bennett, Jiangfeng Gao, Wenbo Gong, Agrin Hilmkil, Joel Jennings, Chao Ma, Tom Minka, Nick Pawlowski, et al. Understanding causality with large language models: Feasibility and opportunities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05524, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Tinyllama: An open-source small language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02385, 2024

    Peiyuan Zhang, Guangtao Zeng, Tianduo Wang, and Wei Lu. Tinyllama: An open-source small language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02385, 2024. 11

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.