Skip to content
aiqbench takeMachine Learning

aiqbench analysis

This is a theoretical paper on how reverse-KL distillation for language models behaves statistically. It finds that online distillation needs substantially more data when the teacher reveals only the probability of the sampled action, while offline distillation reaches the same minimax rate under either feedback model. For practitioners, the main takeaway is that the source of training trajectories matters for sample efficiency, and that naive online objectives can fail. These are bounds and proofs rather than empirical benchmarks, so their relevance depends on how well the assumptions match real training setups.
Source coveringarXiv

Reverse-KL Policy Distillation: Statistical Guarantees and Limits

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2610.30844v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reverse Kullback-Leibler (KL) distillation has shown empirical promise for training language models, but its statistical guarantees and limits remain poorly understood. In particular, the effects of two design choices remain unclear: Does access to the teacher's full action distribution provide an advantage over observing only the probability it assigns to the sampled action? Must training trajectories come from the student (online distillation), or can teacher-generated trajectories (offline distillation) suffice? Our work takes a first step toward understanding the theory underlying these questions. We study the sample complexity of online reverse-KL distillation under two feedback models: the teacher reveals either its full action distribution or only the probability of the student-generated action. We establish minimax bounds for the former and show that substantially more data may be required for the latter. In contrast, offline reverse-KL distillation can attain the same minimax rate whether the teacher reveals its full distribution or only its probability of the teacher-generated action. The key distinction is that teacher-generated actions themselves reveal the teacher's preferences, while queries at student-selected actions can leave those preferences unobserved. This highlights an additional statistical challenge for online distillation compared to offline distillation. These statistical guarantees do not follow simply from optimizing standard distillation objectives: our lower bounds show that common online objectives can fail when candidates are evaluated only on past student-generated trajectories. We develop trajectory-loss and importance-ratio truncation techniques together with policy-space learning to achieve optimal online distillation guarantees.

Abstract:Reverse Kullback-Leibler (KL) distillation has shown empirical promise for training language models, but its statistical guarantees and limits remain poorly understood. In particular, the effects of two design choices remain unclear: Does access to the teacher's full action distribution provide an advantage over observing only the probability it assigns to the sampled action? Must training trajectories come from the student (online distillation), or can teacher-generated trajectories (offline distillation) suffice? Our work takes a first step toward understanding the theory underlying these questions. We study the sample complexity of online reverse-KL distillation under two feedback models: the teacher reveals either its full action distribution or only the probability of the student-generated action. We establish minimax bounds for the former and show that substantially more data may be required for the latter. In contrast, offline reverse-KL distillation can attain the same minimax rate whether the teacher reveals its full distribution or only its probability of the teacher-generated action. The key distinction is that teacher-generated actions themselves reveal the teacher's preferences, while queries at student-selected actions can leave those preferences unobserved. This highlights an additional statistical challenge for online distillation compared to offline distillation. These statistical guarantees do not follow simply from optimizing standard distillation objectives: our lower bounds show that common online objectives can fail when candidates are evaluated only on past student-generated trajectories. We develop trajectory-loss and importance-ratio truncation techniques together with policy-space learning to achieve optimal online distillation guarantees.

Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2610.30844 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2610.30844v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.30844 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

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.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 333 words

Related coverage