On Teacher Hacking in Language Model Distillation
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Reward hacking and misspecification
Abstract (arXiv)
Post-training of language models (LMs) increasingly relies on the following two stages: (i) knowledge distillation, where the LM is trained to imitate a larger teacher LM, and (ii) reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), where the LM is aligned by optimizing a reward model. In the second RLHF stage, a well-known challenge is reward hacking, where the LM over-optimizes the reward model. Such phenomenon is in line with Goodhart's law and can lead to degraded performance on the true objective. In this paper, we investigate whether a similar phenomenon, that we call teacher hacking, can occur during knowledge distillation. This could arise because the teacher LM is itself an imperfect approximation of the true distribution. To study this, we propose a controlled experimental setup involving: (i) an oracle LM representing the ground-truth distribution, (ii) a teacher LM distilled from the oracle, and (iii) a student LM distilled from the teacher. Our experiments reveal the following insights. When using a fixed offline dataset for distillation, teacher hacking occurs; moreover, we can detect it by observing when the optimization process deviates from polynomial convergence laws. In contrast, employing online data generation techniques effectively mitigates teacher hacking. More precisely, we identify data diversity as the key factor in preventing hacking. Overall, our findings provide a deeper understanding of the benefits and limitations of distillation for building robust and efficient LMs.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reward hacking and misspecification, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. First posted on arXiv 4 Feb 2025.
Builds on
0 of 0 references.
No references here yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 1.
5 papers.
- 2025Universal Cross-Tokenizer Distillation via Approximate Likelihood Matchingcited by 40
- 2025Supervised Reinforcement Learning: From Expert Trajectories to Step-wise Reasoningcited by 11
- 2025MASSV: Multimodal Adaptation and Self-Data Distillation for Speculative Decoding of Vision-Language Modelscited by 4
- 2025Enhancing Reasoning Capabilities in SLMs with Reward Guided Dataset Distillationcited by 0
- 2026Scaling Properties of Same-Family On-Policy Distillationcited by 0
- 2026Scaling Properties of Same-Family On-Policy Distillation26 Sep 2026
- 2025Supervised Reinforcement Learning: From Expert Trajectories to Step-wise Reasoning29 Oct 2025
- 2025Enhancing Reasoning Capabilities in SLMs with Reward Guided Dataset Distillation25 Jun 2025
- 2025MASSV: Multimodal Adaptation and Self-Data Distillation for Speculative Decoding of Vision-Language Models15 May 2025
- 2025Universal Cross-Tokenizer Distillation via Approximate Likelihood Matching25 Mar 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Distill Not Only Data but Also Rewards: Can Smaller Language Models Surpass Larger Ones?
- 2025Knowledge Distillation with Training Wheels
- 2026A Survey of On-Policy Distillation for Large Language Models
- 2026Gains and Collapse in On-Policy Distillation:A Reinforcement Learning Perspective
- 2026X-KD: General Experiential Knowledge Distillation for Large Language Models
- 2026Beyond GRPO and On-Policy Distillation: An Empirical Sparse-to-Dense Reward Principle for Language-Model Post-Training
- 2025UNDO: Understanding Distillation as Optimization
- 2026Distilling What Matters: Confidence-Aware Selective Distillation for Large Language Models