179 questions
No questions match those filters.
You're distilling a large ensemble into a single small model for low-latency serving. Why is training the student purely on the ensemble's winning label a waste of the ensemble's real value?
This is one of the questions in the full AI/ML interview bank. Pro unlocks all 1789 questions; Premium includes the same bank plus the highest daily Practice limit.
See plansIf you take the ensemble’s top prediction and treat it as ground truth for standard cross-entropy training, that’s technically defensible — the ensemble really did predict “cat” with high confidence — but it throws away almost everything the ensemble is actually good at encoding. An ensemble of ten models doesn’t just vote for a winner; it implicitly simulates a distribution of plausible alternatives across every class, and the shape of that distribution carries real information about how the input relates to the whole label space.
Consider a distribution of cat 0.6, dog 0.3, truck 0.0001. Training the student only on “cat” tells it dog and truck are equally wrong — it has no way to know the ensemble considered dog a live possibility while truck was never in the running. That relative structure among the non-winning classes is what Hinton’s original distillation work called “dark knowledge”: it describes the geometry of the ensemble’s decision boundary, not just where the boundary landed on this one example.
The fix is to match the full soft distribution rather than the hard label — minimize KL divergence between student and teacher logits after applying a temperature to soften both, which amplifies the informative signal in the smaller probabilities that would otherwise be swamped by the dominant class. The student ends up cloning the ensemble’s uncertainty structure across the whole label space, not just memorizing its most confident guesses, which is why distilled models trained this way generalize measurably better than ones trained on hard labels alone.