RAPID: Reliability-Aware Pair Importance Distillation
Abstract: Inter example relational distillation transfers a teacher's representation geometry by matching relations among examples within a mini batch. Computing all pairs has quadratic complexity in the batch size, whereas uniform subsampling may use a limited relation budget inefficiently. We introduce Reliability Aware Pair Importance Distillation, or RAPID, which separates a reliability gated relational target from a full support adaptive pair proposal. Reliability determines which teacher relations are emphasized, while calibrated teacher entropy and detached student-teacher residuals determine which relations are evaluated. Exact inverse proposal correction makes the loss and gradient estimators conditionally unbiased with respect to the gated mini batch target. We evaluate RAPID in two text classification settings: AG News with BERT-to-DistilBERT distillation using three paired seeds and a relation budget of 256, and SST-2 with DistilBERT to DistilBERT distillation using three paired seeds and a relation budget of 64. Reliability gated relational distillation achieves the highest observed mean student accuracy on both datasets: 94.285 plus or minus 0.054 percent on AG News and 88.800 plus or minus 0.532 percent on SST-2. RAPID ranks second, achieving 94.241 plus or minus 0.025 percent and 88.685 plus or minus 0.462 percent, respectively, compared with 94.154 plus or minus 0.124 percent and 87.271 plus or minus 0.162 percent for the cross entropy baseline. Pilot evaluations are counted toward the same total budget as the main relation evaluations. Across both settings, the gated target yields the highest mean accuracy, while the adaptive proposal remains within seed-level variation. These results support the modular view that target reliability and evaluation priority are separable design dimensions.
Submission history
Access Paper:
Current browse context:
References & Citations
BibTeX formatted citation
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Verified source · arXiv.org
Reported by arXiv.org. Open the original for full media and formatting.
More in Research
All newsWhen Does Memory Help? A Cost-Aware Evaluation of Long-Term Memory in Tool-Using LLM Agents
Long-term memory for LLM agents is evaluated today by conversational recall benchmarks (LoCoMo, LongMemEval), which measure question answering over dialogue history, not whether remembered facts change what a tool-using agent does. We present MERIT (Memory Evaluation for Realistic Instrumented Tasks), a benchmark and harness that measures the marginal utility of memory for task-executing agents under explicit cost accounting. MERIT provides episodic tool-use tasks in three domains whose dependence on earlier-episode facts is verified by an automated leak check; a difficulty ladder ending in u…
Read at arXiv cs.AIBeyond Right and Wrong: Evaluating Second-order Social Reasoning in Large Language Models
Previous AI alignment efforts have focused primarily on first-order social norms -- teaching models what is socially acceptable or unacceptable (e.g., `do not steal'). However, social intelligence depends not only on norm recognition, but also on anticipating who will enforce it and how (e.g., public shame or even imprisonment). These second-order expectations, known as metanorms, govern how people respond when social rules are broken. We introduce a novel framework for evaluating metanorm reasoning in Large Language Models (LLMs) along two dimensions: emotional appraisal and behavioral respo…
Read at arXiv cs.AICriticGen: Generation-Aware Evaluation as Actionable Feedback
Current evaluation methods for large language models are coarse-grained and decoupled from generation, producing generic explanations that fail to provide actionable feedback for model improvement. We propose CriticGen, a fine-grained, generation-aware evaluation framework that turns evaluation into actionable control for answer improvement. CriticGen first generates sample-specific evaluation dimensions and scoring criteria under high-level categories such as subjective, objective, and self-derived constraints. These criteria then serve as a dynamic rubric for jointly producing a score, a re…
Read at arXiv cs.AIARC-Bench: Closed-Loop Replanning Masks Broken Action Ranking in Frozen JEPA World Models
Reward-free latent world models plan by scoring candidate actions with distances in a frozen latent space: an action is preferred if its predicted future embedding lands closer to the goal embedding. This silently assumes that latent closeness is action-rankable, i.e., that ordering candidates by latent distance agrees with ordering them by true cost. We audit this assumption directly. We introduce ARC-Bench, a no-leak, fixed-candidate protocol that measures whether frozen JEPA-style objectives rank candidate actions correctly, and apply it to official released JEPA-WM checkpoints across navi…
Read at arXiv cs.AI