PaperActive

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

quality89

Updated 6 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026

paper_01M294GK865PFFDT2MKYA2VR4V

Published: 11 Sept 2026; T1 · 6 h ago
arXiv: 2609.09702; T1 · 6 h ago
Category: cs.AI; T1 · 6 h ago

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.

Authors 1

Xiaofei Feng

Specification

Official page: arxiv.org/abs/2609.09702
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 6 h agohigh
Arxiv announce type: new
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 6 h agohigh
arXiv id: 2609.09702
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 6 h agohigh
Categories: cs.AI
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 6 h agohigh
PDF: arxiv.org/pdf/2609.09702
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 6 h agohigh
Primary category: cs.AI
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 6 h agohigh
Published: 11 Sept 2026
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 6 h agohigh

Each value shows its source, tier and observation time. Conflicting claims are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. How AI Atlas records facts →

Provenance

Attributed facts

Source tiers

T19

Freshest observation

6 h ago

Conflicts

None

As of

Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.

Claim history

9 claims · 9 properties

Official pageofficial_url1

Claim history for Official page
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09702	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Abstractabstract1

Claim history for Abstract
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
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.	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Arxiv announce typearxiv_announce_type1

Claim history for Arxiv announce type
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
new	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

arXiv idarxiv_id1

Claim history for arXiv id
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
2609.09702	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Authorsauthors1

Claim history for Authors
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
Xiaofei Feng	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Categoriescategories1

Claim history for Categories
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
cs.AI	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

PDFpdf_url1

Claim history for PDF
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.09702	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Primary categoryprimary_category1

Claim history for Primary category
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
cs.AI	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Publishedpublished_at1

Claim history for Published
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
11 Sept 2026	11 Sept 2026 21:03 UTC → current	current	arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1	high	deterministic

Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →

Source documents
Source	Document	Type	Tier	Last observed	Snapshots
arXiv (Atom API + RSS)	rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.AI	feed	T1· Official	5 h ago	1

Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.