Decision Shifts, Lost Label Functionality, and an Inconclusive Grounding Audit in Correctness-Gated Multi-Teacher Distillation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09702v1
• Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2026 04:39:56 GMT
• Title: Decision Shifts, Lost Label Functionality, and an Inconclusive Grounding Audit in Correctness-Gated Multi-Teacher Distillation
• Abstract summary: Candidate decision correctness and rationale grounding are different objectives.<n>We examine correctness-gated multi-teacher distillation in a fixed experiment.<n>Relative to unfiltered distillation, the correctness-weighted arm differed in accuracy by +0.1660.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
• Abstract: Candidate decision correctness and rationale grounding are different objectives. We examine correctness-gated multi-teacher distillation in a fixed experiment. Eight arms share 4,330 sources, a 63.9M-parameter student, 12,990 optimization rows, 406 updates, evidence inputs, and a decoder; seven teacher-based arms use one fixed three-response pool. Three seeds are evaluated on 267 held-out examples. Relative to unfiltered distillation, the correctness-weighted arm differed in accuracy by +0.1660 (95% observed-matrix interval [0.0670, 0.2455]), five-label macro-F1 by +0.1323 ([0.0916, 0.1731]), and task-defined conditional unsafe-action rate by -0.4979 ([-0.5926, -0.3686]). These shifts do not imply uniformly better behavior. Source-label SFT had the highest mean macro-F1 (0.586). The weighted arm had zero Refuted recall in every seed, and two seeds assigned NotEnoughInfo to all 167 claim examples. In an availability-amended audit at one reference seed, weighted and unfiltered outputs had 0/20 versus 1/20 evidence-supported positives and 20/20 versus 19/20 positives containing unsupported material. Samples were non-paired, source overlap was not serialized, and the amendment followed automatic summarization but preceded annotation. The audit therefore cannot estimate a common-source grounding effect and is inconclusive about system-level improvement or harm. Hard filtering already achieved 0.660 accuracy, 0.530 macro-F1, and 0.135 conditional unsafe rate. The implemented weighted arm showed no demonstrated incremental decision benefit over hard filtering. This fixed-matrix failure analysis shows decision redistribution with lost label functionality; the available human audit does not establish a grounding gain.

Related papers

• The Model Proposes, the Code Disposes: A Pre-Registered Ablation of a Verifier-and-Acceptance Stage in an LLM-Orchestrated Offensive-Security Agent [0.0]
  We evaluate whether a verifier-and-acceptance stage - a model verifier whose verdicts are enforced by deterministic code - changes what an LLM-driven offensive-security agent reports.<n>We report a 15-run exploratory pilot, a pre-registered 20-run confirmatory ablation, and a pre-registered 2 x 2 factorial study with 40 runs across two deliberately vulnerable lab targets.<n>The results support a narrow conclusion: the verifier changes what the system ships, while deterministic code supplies enforcement and auditability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-14T17:13:05Z)
• The Answer Is Not the Argument [0.00897008283486962]
  Chain-of-thought monitoring is proposed for AI oversight, yet evaluations often provide monitors with a trusted reference answer.<n>We ask whether answer access improves reasoning verification or mainly exposes incorrect conclusions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-31T19:06:44Z)
• Unmatched Does Not Mean False: Incomplete Reference Sets Can Reverse Calibration Rankings in Open-Ended Theory-of-Mind Tracking [0.5735035463793009]
  Open-ended Theory-of-Mind (ToM) trackers emit valid beliefs absent from finite references.<n>A finite-reference-plus-matcher pipeline marks unmatched outputs false, creating proxy labels that can reverse proper-score model selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T11:36:31Z)
• The Recall Trap: A Recall-Maximizing Retriever Configuration Reduces Issue Resolution in Fixed-Budget Code Context [45.88028371034407]
  We report a controlled case study in code repair, not a new phenomenon.<n>We toggle one flag (one-chunk-perfile deduplication) on an otherwise identical stack.<n>We map where it holds: it reverses on a lexical BM25 (3.2pp, significant cross-paradigm interaction)<n>We show that at a tight fixed budget, do not hard-deduplicate by file, and A/B packing policies against the task, not the metric flag was tuned.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-14T19:22:50Z)
• What Would Fix This RAG Failure? Auditing Counterfactual Response with Paired Evidence Interventions [0.0]
  We introduce Pair-ID, an offline audit that holds one query, retrieval state, and reader constant, then crosses two operations, adding missing support and deleting verified nonsupport, to measure a same-failure counterfactual response vector.<n>A complete funnel over 19,981 benchmark queries identifies 11,105 eligible Qwen failures, from which a prospectively fixed SHA-256 ordering selects 1,200 before generating any sampled response.<n>Results show that evidence sensitivity occurs at meaningful rates in the hash-selected eligible-failure sample, is only partially predictable from the observed failure, and is conditional on the reader.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-09T22:43:27Z)
• Accurate Ensembles, Fragile Narratives: Multi-Scale Stacking and a Fidelity Audit of LLM-Generated Explanations for Credit Risk [0.0]
  Credit scoring increasingly relies on models whose decision logic cannot be read off their parameters.<n>A common proposal closes that gap with a language model: compute feature attributions, hand them to an LLM, and let it write the rationale.<n>We build such a system end to end and test whether the second half of the promise holds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T13:22:14Z)
• Why Does the Future Branch? Identifiable Closure Tests for Stochastic Physical World Models [0.0]
  ClosurePairs crosses compatible microstates with repeated disturbances.<n>It recovers source attribution at unchanged likelihood.<n>It reduces equal-budget decomposition error in a nonlinear interaction benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-01T11:07:24Z)
• Looping Is Not Reliability: State-Bound Evidence and Typed Revision Contracts for Agentic Code Repair [36.56438114281786]
  We study the gap between finding a correct patch and retaining, verifying, and submitting it.<n>We derive an evidence-bound typed loop contract and instantiate its mechanically enforceable subset in a reference implementation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T16:05:23Z)
• Scaffold splits hide structural-frontier failures in ADMET models [25.408600489964726]
  We introduce a label-free structural-frontier split that reserves the sparsest and most physicochemically remote scaffold groups.<n>We evaluate it on six public experimental or curated ADMET tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-12T12:25:50Z)
• Let the Results Speak: A Replication-First Paradigm for LLM Behavioral Benchmarking [22.825786049667602]
  We propose a replication-first paradigm to anchor validity to a single human-rater consensus.<n>We certify the instrument via four properties -- reliability across K runs, cross-instrument replication across architecturally distinct judges, historical-footprint calibration via judges from earlier training cohorts, and pre-registered prediction.<n>We test it on emotional accompaniment by letting the self-evolve data-driven across: the dimensions are not pre-stipulated and the procedure stabilizes to a 9-dimension set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T03:41:11Z)
• Distributional Energy-Based Models for Uncertainty-Aware Structured LLM Reasoning [40.342912574072024]
  Large Language Models produce structured outputs such as travel plans or code solutions.<n>Individual reasoning steps may appear correct while the output as a whole violates budgets, fails test cases, or contradicts earlier deductions.<n>We propose a learned quality scorer with deterministic analytical constraint penalties for verifying structured LLM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T17:08:27Z)
• Knowing but Not Correcting: Routine Task Requests Suppress Factual Correction in LLMs [26.062372963777452]
  LLMs reliably correct false claims when presented in isolation, yet when the same claims are embedded in task-oriented requests, they often comply rather than correct.<n>We term this failure mode emphcorrection suppression and construct a benchmark of 300 false premises to systematically evaluate it across eight models.<n> Suppression rates range from 19% to 90%, with four models exceeding 80%, establishing correction suppression as a prevalent and severe phenomenon.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T10:04:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.