The Strongest Teacher Is Not Always the Best Teacher: Student-Centric Answer Selection

LLM training increasingly relies on teacher-generated supervision, from synthetic responses to reasoning traces and tool-use demonstrations. Current practice often chooses the highest-performing teacher to generate student training data, implicitly treating teacher test performance as a proxy for teaching quality. We show that this assumption can fail: even when multiple teachers provide correct answers to the same question, the answer from the strongest teacher is not necessarily the best supervision for a given student. To address this gap, we propose Student-Centric Answer Sampling (SCAS), a framework that selects from verified teacher-generated answers according to their estimated student-centric learning cost. Motivated by a token-wise gradient decomposition, we derive an efficient forward-only proxy for this cost and use it to guide answer selection during training. Experiments across 30 teacher models, 6 student base models, and 8 tasks show that SCAS consistently improves student performance, suggesting that effective distillation should prioritize supervision matched to the current student rather than teacher strength alone.

Unveiling the Learning Mind of Language Models: A Cognitive Framework and Empirical Study

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities across tasks such as mathematics, coding, and reasoning, yet their learning ability, which is crucial for adapting to dynamic environments and acquiring new knowledge, remains underexplored. In this work, we address this gap by introducing a framework inspired by cognitive psychology and education. Specifically, we decompose general learning ability into three distinct, complementary dimensions: Learning from Instructor (acquiring knowledge via explicit guidance), Learning from Concept (internalizing abstract structures and generalizing to new contexts), and Learning from Experience (adapting through accumulated exploration and feedback). We conduct a comprehensive empirical study across the three learning dimensions and identify several insightful findings, such as (i) interaction improves learning; (ii) conceptual understanding is scale-emergent and benefits larger models; and (iii) LLMs are effective few-shot learners but not many-shot learners. Based on our framework and empirical findings, we introduce a benchmark that provides a unified and realistic evaluation of LLMs' general learning abilities across three learning cognition dimensions. It enables diagnostic insights and supports evaluation and development of more adaptive and human-like models.

Rethinking LLM-based Preference Evaluation

Recently, large language model (LLM)-based preference evaluation has been widely adopted to compare pairs of model responses. However, a severe bias towards lengthy responses has been observed, raising concerns about the reliability of this evaluation method. In this work, we designed a series of controlled experiments to study the major impacting factors of the metric of LLM-based preference evaluation, i.e., win rate, and conclude that the win rate is affected by two axes of model response: desirability and information mass, where the former is length-independent and related to trustworthiness, and the latter is length-dependent and can be represented by conditional entropy. We find that length impacts the existing evaluations by influencing information mass. However, a reliable evaluation metric should not only assess content quality but also ensure that the assessment is not confounded by extraneous factors such as response length. Therefore, we propose a simple yet effective adjustment, AdapAlpaca, to the existing practice of win rate measurement. Specifically, by adjusting the lengths of reference answers to match the test model's answers within the same interval, we debias information mass relative to length, ensuring a fair model evaluation.