Skip to content
← Back to explorer

GATES: Self-Distillation under Privileged Context with Consensus Gating

Alex Stein, Furong Huang, Tom Goldstein · Feb 24, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics Long Horizon Math
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Feb 24, 2026, 5:56 AM

Stale

Extraction refreshed

Apr 13, 2026, 6:34 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Persisted extraction

Confidence 0.45

Abstract

We study self-distillation in settings where supervision is unreliable: there are no ground truth labels, verifiable rewards, or external graders to evaluate answers. We focus on document-grounded question answering with asymmetric context, where a single model serves as both tutor (with access to a relevant source document during training) and student (answering from the question alone at test time). Rather than assuming tutor correctness, we derive supervision online from tutor consensus by sampling multiple document-grounded reasoning traces and using agreement to gate learning. Conditioned on this reliability signal, we distill knowledge through full tutor reasoning trajectories (not just final answers), providing a dense and stable learning signal. Empirically, this consensus-gated trajectory distillation substantially improves transfer to the document-free student. Held-out in-domain accuracy under asymmetric evaluation improves from 46.0\% to 62.0\%, and average (maj@8) accuracy on public document-free math benchmarks improves from 20.2\% to 35.4\%.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

25/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: We study self-distillation in settings where supervision is unreliable: there are no ground truth labels, verifiable rewards, or external graders to evaluate answers.

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: We study self-distillation in settings where supervision is unreliable: there are no ground truth labels, verifiable rewards, or external graders to evaluate answers.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: We study self-distillation in settings where supervision is unreliable: there are no ground truth labels, verifiable rewards, or external graders to evaluate answers.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: We study self-distillation in settings where supervision is unreliable: there are no ground truth labels, verifiable rewards, or external graders to evaluate answers.

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction evidenced

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: Held-out in-domain accuracy under asymmetric evaluation improves from 46.0\% to 62.0\%, and average (maj@8) accuracy on public document-free math benchmarks improves from 20.2\% to 35.4\%.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Source: Persisted extraction missing

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: We study self-distillation in settings where supervision is unreliable: there are no ground truth labels, verifiable rewards, or external graders to evaluate answers.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Trajectory
  • Expertise required: Math
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: Long Horizon
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.45
  • Flags: ambiguous

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

Held-out in-domain accuracy under asymmetric evaluation improves from 46.0\% to 62.0\%, and average (maj@8) accuracy on public document-free math benchmarks improves from 20.2\% to 35.4\%. HFEPX signals include Automatic Metrics, Long Horizon with confidence 0.45. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Apr 13, 2026, 6:34 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • Held-out in-domain accuracy under asymmetric evaluation improves from 46.0\% to 62.0\%, and average (maj@8) accuracy on public document-free math benchmarks improves from 20.2\% to…

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Validate metric comparability (accuracy).

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Extraction confidence is probabilistic and should be validated for critical decisions.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Held-out in-domain accuracy under asymmetric evaluation improves from 46.0\% to 62.0\%, and average (maj@8) accuracy on public document-free math benchmarks improves from 20.2\% to 35.4\%.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Held-out in-domain accuracy under asymmetric evaluation improves from 46.0\% to 62.0\%, and average (maj@8) accuracy on public document-free math benchmarks improves from 20.2\% to 35.4\%.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.

Post a Job Get a Quote