Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Distilled Pretraining: A modern lens of Data, In-Context Learning and Test-Time Scaling

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pretraining with a teacher's soft labels lifts reroll scores (pass@16) but dulls copy-from-context, because distillation enriches high-entropy next-token distributions while adding nothing — or noise — to the low-entropy ones induction head

desk verdict Solid empirical finding on distillation's tradeoff; the unifying entropy story doesn't survive its own sandbox. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01649 v1 pith:EW4X6PU7 submitted 2025-09-01 cs.LG

Sachin Goyal , David Lopez-Paz , Kartik Ahuja This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords knowledgedistillationpretrainingin-contextlearninginductionheadstest-timescalingpass@kgenerationdiversitybigrammodel
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

Distilled pretraining — training a model against a larger teacher's soft labels rather than only the hard ground truth — has entered the pipelines of recent LLM families, but its effect on the two capabilities that define modern LLM use, in-context learning and test-time scaling, was largely unexamined. This paper establishes that the same distillation act helps one and hurts the other: distilled models take more diverse rerolls and therefore score higher on pass@k reasoning and coding benchmarks, often matching a standard model trained on twice the data, while their induction heads — the circuits that copy from context — receive no help from soft labels and learn slightly worse under an imperfect teacher. The common cause, isolated in a bigram sandbox, is the entropy of the next-token distribution: high-entropy rows (prompts with many valid completions) are learned faster and better from soft labels, while low-entropy rows (deterministic mappings) are at best unchanged and at worst corrupted by teacher noise. A companion theorem shows why the trade-off is structural, not accidental: the classifier that is optimal for pass@1 (the Bayes classifier) is provably suboptimal for pass@k, so a model that spreads mass across the right support can beat a sharper model at higher k. If the paper is right, distillation is a strategic dial for pretraining: turn it up for verifier-and-reroll evaluation, turn it down when the task demands copying from context.

What carries the argument

Two devices carry the argument. The bigram sandbox is a first-order Markov chain whose transition-matrix rows split into high-entropy rows (many plausible completions, like 'I work at') and low-entropy rows (near-deterministic mappings); small transformers trained on it with and without distillation show that soft labels accelerate high-entropy rows (fewer samples needed) while leaving low-entropy rows unchanged at best and slowed by teacher noise at worst, and induction-style trigger tokens reproduce the in-context-learning deficit. The generalized Bayes-optimal classifier for pass@k assigns to class 1 the probability α*(x) = (p/(1-p))^{1/(k-1)} / (1 + (p/(1-p))^{1/(k-1)}), interpolating be

What would settle it

Measure the next-token entropy at the positions where induction heads copy in real (non-sandbox) language models, and check whether distillation's in-context-learning deficit concentrates on precisely the low-entropy tokens; if real induction heads operate at high entropy, or if a temperature-0 (perfect) teacher still produces the ICL drop, the proposed entropy mechanism is not the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Distilled pretraining reshapes the student's next-token distribution, and this reshaping is offered as the single factor behind both effects. High-entropy positions — prompts with many valid continuations — are where soft labels carry information beyond the single recorded completion; distilled students learn these rows with fewer samples and generate more diverse candidates, lifting pass@k on GSM8K, MATH, and MBPP. Low-entropy, near-deterministic mappings gain nothing from soft labels and lose from an imperfect teacher's noise; induction heads, the copying circuits behind in-context learning, are built on exactly these mappings, which is why distilled models underperform on context-based QA

Load-bearing premise

The explanation assumes that the induction heads of real language models depend on the same near-deterministic, low-entropy token mappings as the bigram sandbox's low-entropy rows, so what happens in the sandbox carries over to the full models; the paper motivates this link but does not verify it in real transformers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the entropy mechanism is right, distillation should remain beneficial in the data-constrained regime (the paper's IsoData setting, where teacher and student see the same 1T tokens) on standard language-modeling tasks — the experiments show it does, in contrast to in-context learning tasks.
  • Distilled diversity survives post-training: the base model's high-entropy advantage persists after reasoning-data post-training, showing up as better pass@k rather than better pass@1.
  • Token routing — skipping the distillation loss on the lowest-entropy tokens and using only ground-truth supervision there — partially restores in-context learning without hurting standard benchmarks, giving a concrete mitigation recipe.
  • Teacher choice matters: students distilled from instruction-tuned or RL-trained teachers outperform students distilled from the base teacher across reasoning, coding, and general benchmarks.
  • Distillation compares favorably to multi-token prediction as a diversity-oriented pretraining upgrade: on GSM8K and MBPP its pass@16 curve lies above MTP's, even in the IsoData setting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the entropy split is the real mechanism, the trade-off is a design dial rather than a defect: teams whose evaluation is verifier-driven rerolling should bias toward distilled pretraining, while deployments that depend on copying from long context (agents, retrieval-based QA) should keep standard pretraining or apply aggressive token routing.
  • The pass@k theorem suggests a testable scaling rule for reroll-based evaluation: as k grows, the optimal checkpoint is the one whose probability support best covers the true solution set, not the one with the best ranking — so pass@k leaderboards could usefully be paired with a support-coverage metric.
  • A natural extension the paper does not run is to route at the data-curation stage rather than in the loss: regenerating or reweighting high-entropy positions could push diversity further without touching low-entropy supervision.
  • The sandbox-to-transformer bridge predicts that distillation's in-context-learning harm should be largest for tasks whose copying targets are most deterministic; tasks with fuzzy or paraphrased copy targets should show less damage — a check that could be run on existing models.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies soft-label knowledge distillation during LLM pretraining (DPT) versus standard pretraining (SPT). It reports three sets of findings: (i) in an IsoData setting where the 1B student and the 8B teacher see the same 1T tokens, distillation still improves standard benchmarks; (ii) distillation impairs in-context learning and induction-head-style tasks; and (iii) distillation substantially improves pass@k/test-time scaling, with DPT-90 matching or exceeding SPT trained on 2x data at pass@16 on GSM8K, MATH, and MBPP. To explain these observations, the paper introduces a bigram-model sandbox and argues that distillation accelerates learning of high-entropy rows while offering no benefit—and possibly harming—low-entropy rows, which it identifies with induction-head behavior. It derives a sample-complexity result for the bigram model and a generalized Bayes-optimal classifier for pass@k. Building on this mechanism, it proposes token routing (drop distillation loss on low-entropy teacher labels), and compares MTP, teacher variants (base/instruct/RL), and top-k sampling distillation.

Significance. The empirical contributions are timely and valuable. The IsoData control is a fair experimental design, and the pass@1-vs-pass@16 temperature sweeps cleanly separate raw accuracy from generation diversity. The pass@k diversity gains, the ICL trade-off, and the practitioner comparisons (MTP, teacher selection, top-k sampling) are concrete and falsifiable. The bigram sample-complexity analysis is a useful toy-theory contribution. If the unified mechanistic story were supported, the token-routing guidance would be particularly significant. However, as detailed below, the central mechanism as stated is not currently established: the induction-head sandbox does not instantiate the low-entropy-row setting it claims to test, and the bridge to real LLM induction heads is asserted rather than demonstrated. The empirical findings can stand independently, but the explanatory claims and the recommended remedy require revision.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2, Fig. 5(c)] The induction-head sandbox does not actually instantiate a low-entropy row. In the generation process, a copy target c is resampled per sequence before the sequence is generated, so the marginal transition distribution from the trigger token t is essentially uniform (or at least not low-entropy) across sequences. The deterministic mapping is context-conditional, not a property of the bigram row. Consequently, the observed slowdown in Fig. 5(c) cannot distinguish between "distillation provides no benefit on low-entropy rows" and "teacher noise hurts learning of context-dependent copying regardless of row entropy." This distinction is load-bearing for the unified mechanism claimed in §3.1 and for the token-routing remedy in §5.1. Either construct an induction task whose relevant mapping is a genuinely low-entropy bigram row, supply real-LLM mechanistic evidence, or explicitly reframe the s
  2. [§3.1 and §5.1] The bridge from the sandbox to real transformers is asserted rather than demonstrated. The paper claims induction heads are built on low-entropy mappings, but induction heads in actual LLMs perform context-dependent copying; the next-token distribution after the trigger/copy token is typically broad at the token level, with determinism arising from attending to a prior occurrence. Thus token-level row entropy is not established as the controlling variable. The token-routing result is also consistent with a simpler explanation: dropping noisy teacher supervision on near-deterministic tokens helps regardless of their entropy. Please provide direct evidence (e.g., entropy of teacher/student next-token distributions at positions where induction heads fire, or a real-model ablation) or soften the causal claim to a conjecture.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1] The bigram transition matrix is defined with π_ij as the probability from token i to token j, but the induction construction in §4.2 writes π̃_ji. Please make the row/column convention consistent.
  2. [§4.3 and throughout] Typos: "Demistifying" should be "Demystifying"; also "sandox", "slighlty", and the irregular spacing around §5.2 need proofreading.
  3. [§4.1/Appendix A.2] The informal statement S_standard ≈ (p/ε²) S_distill omits the 1/δ factor and the log-log terms present in the formal Proposition. Please state the relation as asymptotic or up to logarithmic factors to avoid overstating the shortcut.
  4. [Introduction/Contributions] The abstract says "three main contributions," but the introduction lists four bullets. Align the counts.
  5. [Figures 3, 7, 12] The IsoData ICL comparisons appear to be single-run at each data scale. Please state the number of seeds and report error bars or seed-level numbers, since some gaps are small.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical trade-off is directly measured, and the bigram analysis, while containing an explanatory gap, does not reduce any prediction to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claims—DPT improves pass@16 and impairs in-context learning—are direct measurements from independently trained 1B models; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Theorem 1 is a self-contained convexity calculation: it derives the pass@k-optimal classifier without assuming distillation, and its conclusion about diverse classifiers is independent of the paper's experimental results. Proposition 1's sample-complexity comparison is formally a statement about matching the teacher's soft labels, and the proof states this transparency (π_distill = π_teacher once each token is seen); this is a limitation of the explanatory analogy, not a circular derivation, because the empirical pass@k and ICL findings do not depend on the proposition. The weakest passage is §4.2: the induction-head sandbox resamples the copy target per sequence, so the trigger row's marginal entropy is high, meaning the 'low-entropy row' mechanism is not actually instantiated; however, this is a missing-support/validity concern about the real-LLM bridge, not an equation reducing to itself. Self-citations (Goyal et al. 2025 for counterfactual QA; Gloeckle et al. 2024 for MTP comparison) are used as benchmarks and baselines, not as load-bearing evidence for a uniqueness or necessity claim. Overall, the direct measurements stand on their own, and the explanatory story, while imperfect, is not circular by the paper's own equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central empirical claim depends on the operational assumption that induction heads are the right mechanistic proxy for ICL and that the bigram sandbox transfers to LLMs. Its main derivation (Theorem 1) is a clean mathematical result with no fitted constants. The diversity 2x claim depends on a specific baseline construction (SPT-2x on 250B tokens) that the paper discloses, but it is a comparison design choice rather than a fitted parameter.

free parameters (3)
  • Temperature T for distillation = T = 1
    Grid searched over {0.5, 1, 2, 3} and selected by best standard benchmark performance; a chosen hyperparameter, not a fitted physical constant.
  • Mixing coefficient alpha = 50% or 90% distillation weight
    Set per experiment (DPT-50, DPT-90); the paper does not derive an optimal alpha from first principles.
  • Token routing fraction = 15% (main), 30% (ablation)
    Chosen as the value that improves ICL without hurting standard benchmarks; not predicted from the theory.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Induction heads are the key mechanism behind in-context learning, citing Olsson et al. (2022).
    The paper uses induction-head performance as the proxy for ICL and uses the counterfactual QA benchmark to measure it. If induction heads are not the dominant mechanism, the ICL conclusion would be weakened.
  • domain assumption The bigram model with trigger tokens faithfully models induction head learning in real transformers, following Bietti et al. (2023).
    Used to draw the conclusion that distillation hurts ICL by slowing low-entropy row learning. The sandbox uses 2-4 layer transformers and 64-token vocab; it is treated as a faithful analog rather than as a verified hypothesis about real LLM circuits.
  • domain assumption The teacher is able to provide better supervision on high-entropy rows, captured as the teacher being sufficiently good.
    In the bigram proof, the teacher is assumed to provide perfect supervision after each token is observed; in practice teachers are imperfect. The paper discusses the imperfect case qualitatively but its Proposition 1 relies on the perfect-teacher formalization.
invented entities (1)
  • None introduced
    purpose: The paper does not postulate new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities.
    No invented entities in the physics sense; the only new mathematical object is Theorem 1's generalized Bayes optimal classifier, which is derived from first principles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distilled Pretraining: A modern lens of Data, In-Context Learning and Test-Time Scaling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EW4X6PU7

@misc{pith2026250901649,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distilled Pretraining: A modern lens of Data, In-Context Learning and Test-Time Scaling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EW4X6PU7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01649}
}
read the original abstract

In the past year, distillation has seen a renewed prominence in large language model (LLM) pretraining, exemplified by the Llama-3.2 and Gemma model families. While distillation has historically been shown to improve statistical modeling, its effects on new paradigms that are key to modern LLMs, such as test-time scaling and in-context learning, remain underexplored. In this work, we make three main contributions. First, we show that pretraining with distillation yields models that exhibit remarkably better test-time scaling. Second, we observe that this benefit comes with a trade-off: distillation impairs in-context learning capabilities, particularly the one modeled via induction heads. Third, to demystify these findings, we study distilled pretraining in a sandbox of a bigram model, which helps us isolate the common principal factor behind our observations. Finally, using these insights, we shed light on various design choices for pretraining that should help practitioners going forward.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01649 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distilled pretraining in modern LLM regime (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. IsoData Distillation (§ 2): Will distilled pretraining remain effective when the student and teacher are trained on the same data? To explore this, we use an 8B model trained on 1T tokens as a teacher. Using this teacher, we train various student models, with and without distillation, scaling up the data to the exact same 1T tokens. We observe that even in the IsoData case where both teacher and student have seen th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distilled pretraining impairs in-context learning, especially in the IsoData setting (§ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distilled pretraining improves generation diversity and enables superior test-time scaling(§ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Understanding distillation through the lens of a bigrammodel (§ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Bayes optimal for pass@1 is not optimal for pass@k. A diverse classi￾fier with correct coverage (C2) outper￾forms the Bayes optimal classifier (C1) at higher k, while incorrect coverage (C3) remains suboptimal. Coverage—not just pass@1—is key to improving pass@k. Inter…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Token Routing: Mitigating the Drop in In-Context Learning(§ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: NTP vs MTP vs Distillation: We compare 1B models trained on 1T tokens via (1) standard next-token prediction (NTP), (2) multi-token prediction (MTP), and (3) distillation from an 8B teacher trained on the same 1T tokens (IsoData setting). We plot pass@1 vs pass@16 curv…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: What makes a better teacher: Base vs Instruct vs RL model(§ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top-k sampling distillation(§ 5.4): We compare using sparse soft target label by sampling k-logits per token. k = 1 corresponds to a token level synthetic data albeit without any soft labels, and outperforms standard pretraining. Using richer soft labels (k = 128, 256…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Token Routing: Mitigating the Drop in In-Context Learning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distilled pretraining consistently outperforms standard pretraining even in IsoData setting()§ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Distillation pretraining diversity leads to better post-training test-time scaling as well: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Bridging Compute- and Data-Optimal Pretraining

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Pretraining loss obeys a single law in which repeated or paraphrased tokens count as η(N, data-per-parameter, expansion-ratio) fresh tokens, with total effective data saturating as derived tokens grow.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  3. [3]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command n...

  4. [4]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@first@sw \@firstoftwo \@ifundefined NAT@b*@#2 \@firstoftwo @num @NAT@ctr \@secondoft...

  5. [5]

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibsetup #1 @NAT@ctr @ @openbib .11em \@plus.33em \@minus.07em 4000 4000 `\.\@m @bibit...

    work page

  6. [6]

    On-policy distillation of language models: Learning from self-generated mistakes, 2024

    Rishabh Agarwal, Nino Vieillard, Yongchao Zhou, Piotr Stanczyk, Sabela Ramos, Matthieu Geist, and Olivier Bachem. On-policy distillation of language models: Learning from self-generated mistakes, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.13649

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Alphaevolve: A gemini-powered coding agent for designing advanced algorithms, 2025

    AlphaEvolve . Alphaevolve: A gemini-powered coding agent for designing advanced algorithms, 2025. https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/alphaevolve-a-gemini-powered-coding-agent-for-designing-advanced-algorithms

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Program synthesis with large language models

    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

    arXiv 2021

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Jiang, Jia Deng, Stella Biderman, and Sean Welleck

    Zhangir Azerbayev, Hailey Schoelkopf, Keiran Paster, Marco Dos Santos, Stephen McAleer, Albert Q. Jiang, Jia Deng, Stella Biderman, and Sean Welleck. Llemma: An open language model for mathematics, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Do deep nets really need to be deep? Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014

    Jimmy Ba and Rich Caruana. Do deep nets really need to be deep? Advances in neural information processing systems, 27, 2014

    2014

  3. [11]

    Scaling test-time compute with open models, 2024

    Edward Beeching, Lewis Tunstall, and Sasha Rush. Scaling test-time compute with open models, 2024. URL https://huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/blogpost-scaling-test-time-compute

    2024

  4. [12]

    Knowledge distillation: A good teacher is patient and consistent, 2022

    Lucas Beyer, Xiaohua Zhai, Amélie Royer, Larisa Markeeva, Rohan Anil, and Alexander Kolesnikov. Knowledge distillation: A good teacher is patient and consistent, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.05237

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Birth of a transformer: A memory viewpoint

    Alberto Bietti, Vivien Cabannes, Diane Bouchacourt, Herve Jegou, and Leon Bottou. Birth of a transformer: A memory viewpoint. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 0 1560--1588, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Model compression

    Cristian Buciluǎ, Rich Caruana, and Alexandru Niculescu-Mizil. Model compression. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pp.\ 535--541, 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    Distillation scaling laws, 2025

    Dan Busbridge, Amitis Shidani, Floris Weers, Jason Ramapuram, Etai Littwin, and Russ Webb. Distillation scaling laws, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08606

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Why knowledge distillation works in generative models: A minimal working explanation

    Sungmin Cha and Kyunghyun Cho. Why knowledge distillation works in generative models: A minimal working explanation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13111, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Rethinking fine-tuning when scaling test-time compute: Limiting confidence improves mathematical reasoning, 2025

    Feng Chen, Allan Raventos, Nan Cheng, Surya Ganguli, and Shaul Druckmann. Rethinking fine-tuning when scaling test-time compute: Limiting confidence improves mathematical reasoning, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.07154

    2025

  10. [18]

    Alphamath almost zero: Process supervision without process, 2024

    Guoxin Chen, Minpeng Liao, Chengxi Li, and Kai Fan. Alphamath almost zero: Process supervision without process, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.03553

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    On the efficacy of knowledge distillation, 2019

    Jang Hyun Cho and Bharath Hariharan. On the efficacy of knowledge distillation, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.01348

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Inference-aware fine-tuning for best-of-n sampling in large language models, 2024

    Yinlam Chow, Guy Tennenholtz, Izzeddin Gur, Vincent Zhuang, Bo Dai, Sridhar Thiagarajan, Craig Boutilier, Rishabh Agarwal, Aviral Kumar, and Aleksandra Faust. Inference-aware fine-tuning for best-of-n sampling in large language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15287

    2024

  13. [21]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems, 2021

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. Training verifiers to solve math word problems, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.14168

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Weight ensembling improves reasoning in language models, 2025

    Xingyu Dang, Christina Baek, Kaiyue Wen, Zico Kolter, and Aditi Raghunathan. Weight ensembling improves reasoning in language models, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10478

    2025

  15. [23]

    DROP : A reading comprehension benchmark requiring discrete reasoning over paragraphs

    Dheeru Dua, Yizhong Wang, Pradeep Dasigi, Gabriel Stanovsky, Sameer Singh, and Matt Gardner. DROP : A reading comprehension benchmark requiring discrete reasoning over paragraphs. In Proc. of NAACL, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Edelman, Ezra Edelman, Surbhi Goel, Eran Malach, and Nikolaos Tsilivis

    Benjamin L. Edelman, Ezra Edelman, Surbhi Goel, Eran Malach, and Nikolaos Tsilivis. The evolution of statistical induction heads: In-context learning markov chains, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.11004

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Born again neural networks

    Tommaso Furlanello, Zachary Lipton, Michael Tschannen, Laurent Itti, and Anima Anandkumar. Born again neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, pp.\ 1607--1616. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    The P ile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling

    Leo Gao, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Laurence Golding, Travis Hoppe, Charles Foster, Jason Phang, Horace He, Anish Thite, Noa Nabeshima, Shawn Presser, and Connor Leahy. The P ile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027, 2020

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology

    Team Gemma, Thomas Mesnard, Cassidy Hardin, Robert Dadashi, Surya Bhupatiraju, Shreya Pathak, Laurent Sifre, Morgane Rivi \`e re, Mihir Sanjay Kale, Juliette Love, et al. Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08295, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gemma 3 technical report

    Team Gemma, Aishwarya Kamath, Johan Ferret, Shreya Pathak, Nino Vieillard, Ramona Merhej, Sarah Perrin, Tatiana Matejovicova, Alexandre Ram \'e , Morgane Rivi \`e re, et al. Gemma 3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19786, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Multi-token prediction needs registers, 2025

    Anastasios Gerontopoulos, Spyros Gidaris, and Nikos Komodakis. Multi-token prediction needs registers, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10518

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Better & faster large language models via multi-token prediction, 2024

    Fabian Gloeckle, Badr Youbi Idrissi, Baptiste Rozière, David Lopez-Paz, and Gabriel Synnaeve. Better & faster large language models via multi-token prediction, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.19737

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Knowledge distillation: A survey

    Jianping Gou, Baosheng Yu, Stephen J Maybank, and Dacheng Tao. Knowledge distillation: A survey. International Journal of Computer Vision, 129 0 (6): 0 1789--1819, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Zico Kolter, and Aditi Raghunathan

    Sachin Goyal, Christina Baek, J. Zico Kolter, and Aditi Raghunathan. Context-parametric inversion: Why instruction finetuning can worsen context reliance, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10796

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Miniplm: Knowledge distillation for pre-training language models, 2025

    Yuxian Gu, Hao Zhou, Fandong Meng, Jie Zhou, and Minlie Huang. Miniplm: Knowledge distillation for pre-training language models, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.17215

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Openthoughts: Data recipes for reasoning models, 2025

    Etash Guha, Ryan Marten, et al. Openthoughts: Data recipes for reasoning models, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.04178

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    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

  28. [36]

    Babilong: Testing the limits of llms with long context reasoning-in-a-haystack, 2024

    Yuri Kuratov, Aydar Bulatov, Petr Anokhin, Ivan Rodkin, Dmitry Sorokin, Artyom Sorokin, and Mikhail Burtsev. Babilong: Testing the limits of llms with long context reasoning-in-a-haystack, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    RACE : Large-scale R e A ding comprehension dataset from examinations

    Guokun Lai, Qizhe Xie, Hanxiao Liu, Yiming Yang, and Eduard Hovy. RACE : Large-scale R e A ding comprehension dataset from examinations. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp.\ 785--794, Copenhagen, Denmark, September 201...

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Datacomp-lm: In search of the next generation of training sets for language models, 2025

    Jeffrey Li, Alex Fang, et al. Datacomp-lm: In search of the next generation of training sets for language models, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11794

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Dynamic knowledge distillation for pre-trained language models, 2021

    Lei Li, Yankai Lin, Shuhuai Ren, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, and Xu Sun. Dynamic knowledge distillation for pre-trained language models, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.11295

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    McIlraith, and Yilun Du

    Shalev Lifshitz, Sheila A. McIlraith, and Yilun Du. Multi-agent verification: Scaling test-time compute with multiple verifiers, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.20379

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Let's verify step by step

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let's verify step by step. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Program induction by rationale generation : Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems, 2017

    Wang Ling, Dani Yogatama, Chris Dyer, and Phil Blunsom. Program induction by rationale generation : Learning to solve and explain algebraic word problems, 2017. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.04146

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Unifying distillation and privileged information

    David Lopez-Paz, L \'e on Bottou, Bernhard Sch \"o lkopf, and Vladimir Vapnik. Unifying distillation and privileged information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.03643, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Fineweb-edu: the finest collection of educational content, 2024

    Anton Lozhkov, Loubna Ben Allal, Leandro von Werra, and Thomas Wolf. Fineweb-edu: the finest collection of educational content, 2024. URL https://huggingface.co/datasets/HuggingFaceFW/fineweb-edu

    2024

  37. [45]

    A statistical perspective on distillation

    Aditya K Menon, Ankit Singh Rawat, Sashank Reddi, Seungyeon Kim, and Sanjiv Kumar. A statistical perspective on distillation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 7632--7642. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    The llama 4 herd: The beginning of a new era of natively multimodal ai innovation

    Meta AI . The llama 4 herd: The beginning of a new era of natively multimodal ai innovation. https://ai.meta.com/blog/llama-4-multimodal-intelligence/, 2024 a . https://ai.meta.com/blog/llama-4-multimodal-intelligence/

    2024

  39. [47]

    Llama 3.2: Revolutionizing edge ai and vision with open, customizable models

    Meta AI . Llama 3.2: Revolutionizing edge ai and vision with open, customizable models. https://ai.meta.com/blog/llama-3-2-connect-2024-vision-edge-mobile-devices/, 2024 b . https://ai.meta.com/blog/llama-3-2-connect-2024-vision-edge-mobile-devices/

    2024

  40. [48]

    Improved knowledge distillation via teacher assistant, 2019

    Seyed-Iman Mirzadeh, Mehrdad Farajtabar, Ang Li, Nir Levine, Akihiro Matsukawa, and Hassan Ghasemzadeh. Improved knowledge distillation via teacher assistant, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.03393

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    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, pp.\ 5191--5198, 2020

    2020

  42. [50]

    Bartlett

    Hossein Mobahi, Mehrdad Farajtabar, and Peter L. Bartlett. Self-distillation amplifies regularization in hilbert space, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.05715

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    s1: Simple test-time scaling, 2025

    Niklas Muennighoff, Zitong Yang, Weijia Shi, Xiang Lisa Li, Li Fei-Fei, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, Percy Liang, Emmanuel Candès, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. s1: Simple test-time scaling, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.19393

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    On student-teacher deviations in distillation: does it pay to disobey?, 2024

    Vaishnavh Nagarajan, Aditya Krishna Menon, Srinadh Bhojanapalli, Hossein Mobahi, and Sanjiv Kumar. On student-teacher deviations in distillation: does it pay to disobey?, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.12923

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Roll the dice & look before you leap: Going beyond the creative limits of next-token prediction, 2025

    Vaishnavh Nagarajan, Chen Henry Wu, Charles Ding, and Aditi Raghunathan. Roll the dice & look before you leap: Going beyond the creative limits of next-token prediction, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.15266

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Github code dataset, 2022

    neogithub . Github code dataset, 2022. https://huggingface.co/datasets/codeparrot/github-code

    2022

  47. [55]

    In-context learning and induction heads, 2022

    Catherine Olsson, Nelson Elhage, Neel Nanda, Nicholas Joseph, Nova DasSarma, Tom Henighan, Ben Mann, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, Tom Conerly, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Scott Johnston, Andy Jones, Jackson Kernion, Liane Lovitt, Kam...

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Towards understanding knowledge distillation

    Mary Phuong and Christoph Lampert. Towards understanding knowledge distillation. In International conference on machine learning, pp.\ 5142--5151. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  49. [57]

    Knowledge distillation performs partial variance reduction

    Mher Safaryan, Alexandra Peste, and Dan Alistarh. Knowledge distillation performs partial variance reduction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 0 75229--75258, 2023

    2023

  50. [58]

    Analysing mathematical reasoning abilities of neural models, 2019

    David Saxton, Edward Grefenstette, Felix Hill, and Pushmeet Kohli. Analysing mathematical reasoning abilities of neural models, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.01557

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Bond: Aligning llms with best-of-n distillation, 2024

    Pier Giuseppe Sessa, Robert Dadashi, Léonard Hussenot, Johan Ferret, Nino Vieillard, Alexandre Ramé, Bobak Shariari, Sarah Perrin, Abe Friesen, Geoffrey Cideron, Sertan Girgin, Piotr Stanczyk, Andrea Michi, Danila Sinopalnikov, Sabela Ramos, Amélie Héliou, Aliaksei Severyn, Ma...

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Rewarding progress: Scaling automated process verifiers for llm reasoning, 2024

    Amrith Setlur, Chirag Nagpal, Adam Fisch, Xinyang Geng, Jacob Eisenstein, Rishabh Agarwal, Alekh Agarwal, Jonathan Berant, and Aviral Kumar. Rewarding progress: Scaling automated process verifiers for llm reasoning, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08146

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters, 2024

    Charlie Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.03314

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Zico Kolter, and Yonatan Bisk

    Abitha Thankaraj, Yiding Jiang, J. Zico Kolter, and Yonatan Bisk. Looking beyond the next token, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.11336

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Qwen3 technical report, 2025

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, et al. Qwen3 technical report, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09388

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Naturalreasoning: Reasoning in the wild with 2.8m challenging questions, 2025

    Weizhe Yuan, Jane Yu, Song Jiang, Karthik Padthe, Yang Li, Dong Wang, Ilia Kulikov, Kyunghyun Cho, Yuandong Tian, Jason E Weston, and Xian Li. Naturalreasoning: Reasoning in the wild with 2.8m challenging questions, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.13124

    2025

  57. [65]

    Does reinforcement learning really incentivize reasoning capacity in llms beyond the base model?, 2025

    Yang Yue, Zhiqi Chen, Rui Lu, Andrew Zhao, Zhaokai Wang, Yang Yue, Shiji Song, and Gao Huang. Does reinforcement learning really incentivize reasoning capacity in llms beyond the base model?, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.13837

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Lifting the curse of capacity gap in distilling language models, 2023

    Chen Zhang, Yang Yang, Jiahao Liu, Jingang Wang, Yunsen Xian, Benyou Wang, and Dawei Song. Lifting the curse of capacity gap in distilling language models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.12129

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Towards the law of capacity gap in distilling language models, 2024 a

    Chen Zhang, Dawei Song, Zheyu Ye, and Yan Gao. Towards the law of capacity gap in distilling language models, 2024 a . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07052

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Forcing diffuse distributions out of language models, 2024 b

    Yiming Zhang, Avi Schwarzschild, Nicholas Carlini, Zico Kolter, and Daphne Ippolito. Forcing diffuse distributions out of language models, 2024 b . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.10859

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.