Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 54 references

SCOUT: Teaching Pre-trained Language Models to Enhance Reasoning via Flow Chain-of-Thought

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 SCOUT claims that recursive reasoning can be instilled into pretrained LLMs by fine-tuning alone, using capacity-matched teacher distillation and cross-attention to refine latent states step by step.

desk verdict A plausible fine-tuning recipe for recursive latent reasoning, but the headline +1.8-point gain is a single run and drops to about +0.9 against the strongest recursive baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24181 v1 pith:HEODCZD7 submitted 2025-05-30 cs.AI

Guanghao Li , Wenhao Jiang , Mingfeng Chen , Yan Li , Hao Yu , Shuting Dong , Tao Ren , Ming Tang
show 1 more author
Chun Yuan
This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords FlowChain-of-Thoughtrecursivereasoningprogressivedistillationknowledgecross-attentionlatentLLMfine-tuning
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

The paper is trying to establish that recursive reasoning can be taught to an already-pretrained language model by fine-tuning alone, without pretraining and without labeled chain-of-thought traces. It names this paradigm Flow Chain-of-Thought (Flow CoT): each recursive pass over the model's internal latent state is a distinct cognitive stage, so reasoning deepens as the state is refined. SCOUT, the proposed framework, makes this concrete by supervising each pass with a teacher of matching size and by fusing the previous pass's state through cross-attention. On eight benchmarks, a 0.5B student trained with SCOUT reaches 39.03% average accuracy against 37.21% for standard fine-tuning, with more coherent and more granular explanations. If the claim holds, off-the-shelf small LLMs can gain depth-aware reasoning without architectural rewiring or expensive pretraining.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the three-block decomposition of a pretrained LLM: embedding plus first half of layers as the head, the remaining half as the recursive block, and the output projection as the tail. The recursive update uses $H(z^{(0)}, z^{(t-1)})$: self-attention over the original latent state to remain grounded, plus cross-attention over the previous state as external memory. Progressive distillation then supervises each decoded state with a teacher of matching strength, using a KL loss with an optional hard-label term. The cross-attention wrapper is what permits extra passes to reuse earlier reasoning without disturbing the pretrained computation flow.

What would settle it

Run the complete SCOUT pipeline with the retrospective cross-attention module frozen or removed, and with the teacher order reversed; if the average accuracy across the eight benchmarks does not fall well below 39.03%, the two claimed mechanisms—capacity-matched teachers and cross-step attention—are not what carries the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that inference can be organized as a cognitive trajectory $z^{(0)} \to z^{(1)} \to \dots \to z^{(T)}$ in latent space, where each $z^{(t)}$ is a deliberately supervised intermediate state rather than a byproduct of black-box recursion. SCOUT instantiates this by splitting a pretrained model into head, recursive, and tail blocks; at each step it decodes the latent state, matches it against a progressively stronger teacher (Qwen2.5-1.5B, 3B, and 7B for a 0.5B student) via KL distillation, and integrates the previous state through a cross-attention retrospective module while keeping self-attention anchored to the initial encoding. The reported result is monotonic average-accuracy improvement across three iterations (+0.23, +1.05, and +1.81 over standard fine-tuning) and visibly more structured reasoning traces. This is offered as evidence that latent recursive reasoning, the Flow CoT paradigm, is realizable through fine-tuning alone.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands or falls on the assumption that cutting a pretrained language model at its midpoint and adding a small cross-attention wrapper leaves the original computation flow intact enough that repeated passes refine the internal state instead of corrupting it; the paper verifies this only under the simpler hard-label training regime, not under the full progressive-distillation pipeline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SCOUT's result implies that recursive latent reasoning can be added to an existing small LLM by fine-tuning alone, removing the pretraining requirement that blocked earlier recursive approaches.
  • Teacher ordering is load-bearing: reversing the progression (7B then 3B then 1.5B) makes later-step accuracy collapse, so supervision strength should track positional depth.
  • Cross-attention is the only retrospective integration tested that stays stable across all three iterations; additive, gated, concatenation, and initial-state injection alternatives all degrade by iteration 3.
  • If the result transfers to other base models, three-pass recursive fine-tuning could become a standard, low-cost recipe for improving small-model reasoning without curated CoT traces.
  • The final output is not just more accurate; the model's token-level probability mass shifts toward the correct answer across iterations, and its natural-language explanation gets more structured.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors leave implicit is dynamic stopping: choosing the number of passes per query from inter-step consistency or output entropy would turn the fixed $T=3$ cost into a test-time compute budget.
  • The progressive-distillation principle suggests teacher selection should be tied to measured distributional distance or task difficulty, not merely model size; the paper's KL divergence measurements provide a concrete recipe for such calibration.
  • Because Flow CoT refines a latent state rather than generated text, it is orthogonal to explicit CoT prompting and could plausibly be stacked on top of it, using recursive refinement over an already-produced reasoning trace.
  • The optimal head/recursive/tail partition likely depends on model depth and pretraining distribution, so a testable extension is to search the split per layer group or adapt it dynamically.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes Flow Chain-of-Thought, a paradigm in which recursive latent-state refinement is treated as a progressive cognitive trajectory, and SCOUT, a fine-tuning framework that realizes it on a pretrained 0.5B Qwen model. SCOUT partitions the model into head, recursive block, and tail, runs T=3 iterations, supervises each iteration by distilling from progressively larger teachers (1.5B, 3B, 7B), and integrates previous states through a cross-attention retrospective module. The central result is that SCOUT improves average accuracy from 37.21 (SFT) to 39.03 at iteration 3 across eight benchmarks, with a monotonic +0.23, +1.05, +1.81 pattern, while reversed teacher order (R-SCOUT) collapses. The appendix reports ablations over retrospective integration mechanisms and layer-partition choices.

Significance. Should the result hold, SCOUT would provide a practical, pretraining-free way to add recursive depth to small LLMs and would give empirical support to the idea that supervision should be capacity-matched across recursive iterations. The paper has strengths: the R-SCOUT reversal control targets the ordering hypothesis directly; the ablations over integration modules are informative; and no quantity is fitted to the target result, so I do not see circularity. The main weakness is statistical: all conclusions rest on single runs without variance estimates, and the margin over the strongest recursive baseline is small. The explanation-quality claim is also not yet quantified.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Table 1] Each condition is a single training run with no error bars, seeds, or significance test. SCOUT's +1.81 pp over SFT shrinks to +0.95 pp over R-Distill-WT at iteration 3 (38.08) and +0.97 pp over DSFT (38.06); per-benchmark movements such as TruthfulQA 26.44→28.56 and CoQA 45.95→48.75 are modest. Moreover, the monotonic improvement used to argue for progressive distillation is not a robust property of the architecture alone: under R-SFT with XAttn, Table 2 reports 37.49, 37.73, 37.50 across iterations, which is non-monotonic. Multiple seeds, confidence intervals, and a paired test are needed before the teacher-ordering hypothesis is distinguishable from seed noise; the R-SCOUT reversal, while suggestive, is also a single run.
  2. [§4.1, Appendix A.2, Table 3] The instruction corpus includes MathInstruct, which by construction contains GSM8K examples, and Table 1 reports GSM8K exact-match accuracy. The training/evaluation overlap makes the GSM8K column and the eight-benchmark average uninterpretable as held-out accuracy. The authors should either remove GSM8K from the training data or report results on the GSM8K test split after verifying no overlap; because all methods are trained on the same mix, the relative gap may be less affected, but the reported absolute accuracy is not.
  3. [Abstract, §4.4] The paper repeatedly claims consistent improvement in explanation quality, but Section 4.4 provides only two qualitative examples (Figures 4 and 5) and no quantitative metric, rubric, or human evaluation. If explanation quality is a stated contribution, it needs to be measured; otherwise the claim should be softened to 'qualitative improvement in selected examples'.
  4. [§3.4, Appendix A.3, Appendix B.1] The key architectural assumption, that adding cross-attention between iterations and splitting the model at the midpoint preserves the pretrained computation flow, is not directly verified under the full SCOUT objective. The partition ablation (Case 1 vs. Case 2) and the retrospective-module ablations are run under R-SFT, not under progressive distillation, and Appendix B.1 explicitly states that alternative layer-allocation strategies were not explored. The optimality of the half/half split and the compatibility claim are therefore not established for the method as actually trained.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, Table 1] Section 4.1 lists MMLU as an evaluation benchmark, but Table 1 contains a GLUE column and no MMLU column; please reconcile the benchmark list and the table.
  2. [Table 4 caption] The caption has typographical artifacts such as 'first 1 3 layers' and 'middle 1 3 layers' where fractions are missing; please fix the rendering.
  3. [Figure 3] Figure 3 reports KL divergence from a single 100-instruction sample of Dolly; please state whether this is a held-out sample and report the sample size and variance in the caption.
  4. [Figure 4] The token-level probability heatmap is difficult to read at print size; the token labels and color scale should be enlarged.
  5. [§4.1, §3.4] The text says that all recursive variants share the same architecture based on simple layer stacking, but SCOUT's retrospective cross-attention module is an architectural difference; please clarify which baselines use XAttn and which use the simpler shared architecture.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: SCOUT's empirical claims are benchmark-grounded, and its design choices are tested by independent controls.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that progressive distillation with capacity-ordered teachers and a cross-attention retrospective module improves accuracy over standard fine-tuning—is supported by external benchmark evaluations rather than by construction. Teacher sizes (1.5B, 3B, 7B) are set a priori from a KL-divergence measurement on 100 Dolly instructions; this measurement justifies the ordering but does not determine the final eight-benchmark accuracies. The R-SCOUT reversed-order control independently tests the teacher-ordering assumption rather than restating it. No parameter is fitted to the target accuracy: α=0.5 is chosen by validation perplexity, and λt=1/3 is fixed. The self-citation [6] supplies only the conceptual three-part decomposition and the 'dual role' intuition; that decomposition is also attributed to external work [4] and is ablated under the R-SFT regime in Appendix B.1. The reported gains are differences against fixed baselines (SFT, DSFT, R-Distill variants) on public benchmarks, so the result is falsifiable outside the paper's own fitted values. Concerns about missing seeds or significance tests are statistical-correctness risks, not circularity, and do not change this verdict.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on several manually chosen hyperparameters (teacher sizes, T, alpha, partition, loss weights) and on domain assumptions about recursive refinement, teacher-capacity ordering, architectural preservation, and data cleanliness. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced; 'cognitive states' are a conceptual framing.

free parameters (5)
  • teacher model sizes per iteration = 1.5B (iter 1), 3B (iter 2), 7B (iter 3)
    Manually selected to increase capacity with iteration depth; not derived from theory.
  • number of recursive iterations T = 3
    Fixed hyperparameter; the paper acknowledges dynamic T as future work (Section 3.5).
  • hard-label loss weight alpha = 0.5
    Selected via grid search over validation perplexity in Appendix A.1.
  • head/recursive/tail layer split = Case 2: embedding + first 1/2 layers as head, remaining 1/2 as recursive, output projection as tail
    Chosen based on ablations in Appendix B.1; the alternative Case 1 performs substantially worse.
  • per-iteration loss weights lambda_t = 1/3 each (SCOUT); 0.2/0.3/0.5 used in R-Distill-WT
    Set equal by default; the paper does not tune these for SCOUT.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Recursive latent refinement can improve reasoning without explicit step-by-step supervision.
    Foundation of Flow CoT, inherited from prior recursive reasoning works (refs [4,5,7]); not derived here.
  • domain assumption Larger teacher models provide supervision targets better matched to later reasoning iterations.
    Supported only by KL divergence measurements on 100 Dolly instructions (Figure 3), not by theory or downstream validation of the proxy.
  • domain assumption Splitting the model at the layer midpoint and adding cross-attention does not destroy pretrained computation flow.
    Assumed in the retrospective module design (Sections 3.4, A.3); the appendices show several alternative fusion strategies collapse with depth, so this assumption is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Evaluation benchmarks are not contaminated by the training mixture.
    The training set includes MathInstruct, which contains GSM8K data, while GSM8K is an evaluation set; no overlap removal is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SCOUT: Teaching Pre-trained Language Models to Enhance Reasoning via Flow Chain-of-Thought." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HEODCZD7

@misc{pith2026250524181,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SCOUT: Teaching Pre-trained Language Models to Enhance Reasoning via Flow Chain-of-Thought},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HEODCZD7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24181}
}
read the original abstract

Chain of Thought (CoT) prompting improves the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs) by encouraging step by step thinking. However, CoT-based methods depend on intermediate reasoning steps, which limits scalability and generalization. Recent work explores recursive reasoning, where LLMs reuse internal layers across iterations to refine latent representations without explicit CoT supervision. While promising, these approaches often require costly pretraining and lack a principled framework for how reasoning should evolve across iterations. We address this gap by introducing Flow Chain of Thought (Flow CoT), a reasoning paradigm that models recursive inference as a progressive trajectory of latent cognitive states. Flow CoT frames each iteration as a distinct cognitive stage deepening reasoning across iterations without relying on manual supervision. To realize this, we propose SCOUT (Stepwise Cognitive Optimization Using Teachers), a lightweight fine tuning framework that enables Flow CoT style reasoning without the need for pretraining. SCOUT uses progressive distillation to align each iteration with a teacher of appropriate capacity, and a cross attention based retrospective module that integrates outputs from previous iterations while preserving the models original computation flow. Experiments across eight reasoning benchmarks show that SCOUT consistently improves both accuracy and explanation quality, achieving up to 1.8% gains under fine tuning. Qualitative analyses further reveal that SCOUT enables progressively deeper reasoning across iterations refining both belief formation and explanation granularity. These results not only validate the effectiveness of SCOUT, but also demonstrate the practical viability of Flow CoT as a scalable framework for enhancing reasoning in LLMs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24181 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Motivation comparison between progressive and uniform supervision training. Pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SCOUT Architecture. (a) Overall pipeline: a pretrained LLM is decomposed into a head block fhead, a recursive block fθ, and a tail block ftail. The model performs T reasoning steps, each producing a latent state z (t) , which is decoded by tail block and supervised by a capacity-matched teacher. Teacher strength increases with t (i.e., Teachert > Teachert−1), enabling progressive learning. (b) The retrospective modu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. KL divergence on Dolly dataset. Flow CoT assumes that different reasoning steps reflect dif￾ferent levels of abstraction and cognitive complexity. Early steps may produce tentative or exploratory reasoning, while later steps are expected to perform more precise inference. To support this progression, we propose progressive distillation, a supervision strategy that aligns each step with a teacher model of matching ca… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reasoning trace across SCOUT iterations for a book-counting question. The model transitions from incorrect shallow reasoning to accurate multi￾step explanations. Refining belief through iteration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models

    Zhuosheng Zhang, Aston Zhang, Mu Li, and Alex Smola. Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03493, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Active prompting with chain-of-thought for large language models

    Shizhe Diao, Pengcheng Wang, Yong Lin, Rui Pan, Xiang Liu, and Tong Zhang. Active prompting with chain-of-thought for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12246, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Scaling up test-time compute with latent reasoning: A recurrent depth approach

    Jonas Geiping, Sean McLeish, Neel Jain, John Kirchenbauer, Siddharth Singh, Brian R Bartold- son, Bhavya Kailkhura, Abhinav Bhatele, and Tom Goldstein. Scaling up test-time compute with latent reasoning: A recurrent depth approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05171, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    On the inductive bias of stacking towards improving reasoning

    Nikunj Saunshi, Stefani Karp, Shankar Krishnan, Sobhan Miryoosefi, Sashank Jakkam Reddi, and Sanjiv Kumar. On the inductive bias of stacking towards improving reasoning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:71437–71464, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Zero token-driven deep thinking in llms: Unlocking the full potential of existing parameters via cyclic refinement

    Guanghao Li, Wenhao Jiang, Li Shen, Ming Tang, and Chun Yuan. Zero token-driven deep thinking in llms: Unlocking the full potential of existing parameters via cyclic refinement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12214, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Reasoning with latent thoughts: On the power of looped transformers

    Nikunj Saunshi, Nishanth Dikkala, Zhiyuan Li, Sanjiv Kumar, and Sashank J Reddi. Reasoning with latent thoughts: On the power of looped transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.17416, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Relaxed recursive transformers: Effective parameter sharing with layer-wise lora.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.20672, 2024

    Sangmin Bae, Adam Fisch, Hrayr Harutyunyan, Ziwei Ji, Seungyeon Kim, and Tal Schuster. Relaxed recursive transformers: Effective parameter sharing with layer-wise lora.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.20672, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Decomposed prompting: A modular approach for solving complex tasks

    Tushar Khot, Harsh Trivedi, Matthew Finlayson, Yao Fu, Kyle Richardson, Peter Clark, and Ashish Sabharwal. Decomposed prompting: A modular approach for solving complex tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02406, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models

    Denny Zhou, Nathanael Schärli, Le Hou, Jason Wei, Nathan Scales, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Claire Cui, Olivier Bousquet, Quoc Le, et al. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10625, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Mammoth: Building math generalist models through hybrid instruction tuning

    Xiang Yue, Xingwei Qu, Ge Zhang, Yao Fu, Wenhao Huang, Huan Sun, Yu Su, and Wenhu Chen. Mammoth: Building math generalist models through hybrid instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05653, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Metamath: Bootstrap your own mathematical questions for large language models

    Longhui Yu, Weisen Jiang, Han Shi, Jincheng Yu, Zhengying Liu, Yu Zhang, James T Kwok, Zhenguo Li, Adrian Weller, and Weiyang Liu. Metamath: Bootstrap your own mathematical questions for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12284, 2023. 10

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce llms step-by-step without human annotations

    Peiyi Wang, Lei Li, Zhihong Shao, RX Xu, Damai Dai, Yifei Li, Deli Chen, Yu Wu, and Zhifang Sui. Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce llms step-by-step without human annotations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08935, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Flow of reasoning: Efficient training of llm policy with divergent thinking

    Fangxu Yu, Lai Jiang, Haoqiang Kang, Shibo Hao, and Lianhui Qin. Flow of reasoning: Efficient training of llm policy with divergent thinking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05673, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Teaching large language models to reason with reinforcement learning

    Alex Havrilla, Yuqing Du, Sharath Chandra Raparthy, Christoforos Nalmpantis, Jane Dwivedi- Yu, Maksym Zhuravinskyi, Eric Hambro, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, and Roberta Raileanu. Teaching large language models to reason with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04642, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Towards revealing the mystery behind chain of thought: a theoretical perspective

    Guhao Feng, Bohang Zhang, Yuntian Gu, Haotian Ye, Di He, and Liwei Wang. Towards revealing the mystery behind chain of thought: a theoretical perspective. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:70757–70798, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Text and patterns: For effective chain of thought, it takes two to tango

    Aman Madaan and Amir Yazdanbakhsh. Text and patterns: For effective chain of thought, it takes two to tango. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07686, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Quiet-star: Language models can teach themselves to think before speaking

    Eric Zelikman, Georges Harik, Yijia Shao, Varuna Jayasiri, Nick Haber, and Noah D Goodman. Quiet-star: Language models can teach themselves to think before speaking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09629, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Implicit chain of thought reasoning via knowledge distillation

    Yuntian Deng, Kiran Prasad, Roland Fernandez, Paul Smolensky, Vishrav Chaudhary, and Stuart Shieber. Implicit chain of thought reasoning via knowledge distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01460, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Training large language models to reason in a continuous latent space

    Shibo Hao, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, DiJia Su, Xian Li, Zhiting Hu, Jason Weston, and Yuandong Tian. Training large language models to reason in a continuous latent space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06769, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Uni- versal transformers

    Mostafa Dehghani, Stephan Gouws, Oriol Vinyals, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Łukasz Kaiser. Uni- versal transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03819, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Looped transformers as programmable computers

    Angeliki Giannou, Shashank Rajput, Jy-yong Sohn, Kangwook Lee, Jason D Lee, and Dimitris Papailiopoulos. Looped transformers as programmable computers. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11398–11442. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Looped transformers for length generalization

    Ying Fan, Yilun Du, Kannan Ramchandran, and Kangwook Lee. Looped transformers for length generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15647, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Sparse universal transformer

    Shawn Tan, Yikang Shen, Zhenfang Chen, Aaron Courville, and Chuang Gan. Sparse universal transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07096, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Solar 10.7 b: Scaling large language models with simple yet effective depth up-scaling

    Dahyun Kim, Chanjun Park, Sanghoon Kim, Wonsung Lee, Wonho Song, Yunsu Kim, Hyeon- woo Kim, Yungi Kim, Hyeonju Lee, Jihoo Kim, et al. Solar 10.7 b: Scaling large language models with simple yet effective depth up-scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.15166, 2023

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    Knowledge distillation: A survey

    Jianping Gou, Baosheng Yu, Stephen J Maybank, and Dacheng Tao. Knowledge distillation: A survey. International Journal of Computer Vision, 129(6):1789–1819, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Distilling knowledge via knowledge review

    Pengguang Chen, Shu Liu, Hengshuang Zhao, and Jiaya Jia. Distilling knowledge via knowledge review. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5008–5017, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Sequence-level knowledge distillation

    Yoon Kim and Alexander M Rush. Sequence-level knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the 2016 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 1317–1327, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter

    Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108, 2019. 11

    1910 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Knowledge distillation for closed-source language models

    Hongzhan Chen, Xiaojun Quan, Hehong Chen, Ming Yan, and Ji Zhang. Knowledge distillation for closed-source language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07013, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Baby llama: knowledge distillation from an en- semble of teachers trained on a small dataset with no performance penalty

    Inar Timiryasov and Jean-Loup Tastet. Baby llama: knowledge distillation from an en- semble of teachers trained on a small dataset with no performance penalty. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02019, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Less is more: Task-aware layer-wise distillation for language model compression

    Chen Liang, Simiao Zuo, Qingru Zhang, Pengcheng He, Weizhu Chen, and Tuo Zhao. Less is more: Task-aware layer-wise distillation for language model compression. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 20852–20867. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    On the efficacy of knowledge distillation

    Jang Hyun Cho and Bharath Hariharan. On the efficacy of knowledge distillation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 4794–4802, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Improved knowledge distillation via teacher assistant

    Seyed Iman Mirzadeh, Mehrdad Farajtabar, Ang Li, Nir Levine, Akihiro Matsukawa, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Improved knowledge distillation via teacher assistant. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 5191–5198, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Distillation scaling laws

    Dan Busbridge, Amitis Shidani, Floris Weers, Jason Ramapuram, Etai Littwin, and Russ Webb. Distillation scaling laws. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08606, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Qwen2.5: A party of foundation models, September 2024

    Qwen Team. Qwen2.5: A party of foundation models, September 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Free dolly: Introducing the world’s first truly open instruction-tuned llm, 2023

    Mike Conover, Matt Hayes, Ankit Mathur, Jianwei Xie, Jun Wan, Sam Shah, Ali Ghodsi, Patrick Wendell, Matei Zaharia, and Reynold Xin. Free dolly: Introducing the world’s first truly open instruction-tuned llm, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Qwen2 technical report

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, Chengpeng Li, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Guanting Dong, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jialin Wang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Ma, Jin Xu, Jingren Zhou, Jinze Bai, Jinzheng...

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Llamafactory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models

    Yaowei Zheng, Richong Zhang, Junhao Zhang, Yanhan Ye, Zheyan Luo, Zhangchi Feng, and Yongqiang Ma. Llamafactory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 3: System ...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Instruction tuning with gpt-4

    Baolin Peng, Chunyuan Li, Pengcheng He, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. Instruction tuning with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03277, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Alpaca-cot: An instruction fine-tuning platform with instruction data collection and unified large language models interface

    Zheng Lin Qingyi Si. Alpaca-cot: An instruction fine-tuning platform with instruction data collection and unified large language models interface. https://github.com/PhoebusSi/ alpaca-CoT, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    WikiQA: A challenge dataset for open-domain question answering

    Yi Yang, Wen-tau Yih, and Christopher Meek. WikiQA: A challenge dataset for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2013–2018, Lisbon, Portugal, September 2015. Association for Computation...

    2015

  36. [44]

    Code alpaca: An instruction-following llama model for code generation

    Sahil Chaudhary. Code alpaca: An instruction-following llama model for code generation. https://github.com/sahil280114/codealpaca, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Rethinking kullback-leibler divergence in knowledge distillation for large language models

    Taiqiang Wu, Chaofan Tao, Jiahao Wang, Runming Yang, Zhe Zhao, and Ngai Wong. Rethinking kullback-leibler divergence in knowledge distillation for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02657, 2024. 12

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    The language model evaluation harness, 07 2024

    Leo Gao, Jonathan Tow, Baber Abbasi, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Anthony DiPofi, Charles Foster, Laurence Golding, Jeffrey Hsu, Alain Le Noac’h, Haonan Li, Kyle McDonell, Niklas Muennighoff, Chris Ociepa, Jason Phang, Laria Reynolds, Hailey Schoelkopf, Aviya Skowron, Lintang S...

    2024

  39. [47]

    Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge

    Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge. ArXiv, abs/1803.05457, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering

    Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering. In EMNLP, 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    TruthfulQA: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods

    Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. TruthfulQA: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3214–3252, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association ...

    2022

  42. [50]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems, 2021

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christo- pher Hesse, and John Schulman. Training verifiers to solve math word problems, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Measuring massive multitask language understanding

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021

    2021

  44. [52]

    Coqa: A conversational question answering challenge

    Siva Reddy, Danqi Chen, and Christopher D Manning. Coqa: A conversational question answering challenge. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:249–266, 2019

    2019

  45. [53]

    Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding

    Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.07461, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    half–half–0

    Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, et al. Program synthesis with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732, 2021. 13 Appendix This appendix provides full imple...

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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