01 / THE SIGNAL

我们发现了什么

你可以在这里无需认证自行尝试几个查询:http://playground.ctgt.ai/ 接下来,我将为感兴趣的人深入介绍动机、方法论和详细结果。这些结果由四位 LLM 裁判(Grok 4.20、Gemini 3.5 Flash、GPT-5 mini、Claude Sonnet 4.6)按 0-100 分评分,并根据 96 个人工评分验证,r=0.948。

  • 来源:Hacker News发现于 2026-07-31
  • 证据等级:D · 发现产品或需求信号,暂未获得可核验的商业证据。
  • 商业模式:待核验
  • 主题:独立产品
  • 初筛评分:20.7/100 · 收录 1
#独立开发#待验证#产品发现
02 / SOURCE & EVIDENCE

证据,比故事更重要。

发现产品或需求信号,暂未获得可核验的商业证据。

规则清洗与初筛,未经人工商业核验。原文语境、实际客户和付费情况仍需自行验证。

引用与数字披露

来源类型(原作者自述/第三方测算/媒体转引)需采集端标注,本版尚未落字段。

短句引用
作者
未标注
抓取日期
来源类型
未标注
数字口径
币种
未标注
口径
未标注
披露主体
未标注
披露日期
未标注

中文辅助译文(全文)

我们最近使用 DeepSeek V4 Flash 作为金融任务的教师模型,并结合 GPT-OSS-120B。蒸馏在这个问题上效果很好。在受限的 8k token 预算下,我们自蒸馏的 120B 在 FinanceReasoning 上得分 83.61%,高于 Kimi K3(81.93%)和 Inkling(65.13%)。我们发布了 20B 的开放权重。然而,使用 V4 作为教师模型时,我们意识到及时衡量其审查特征是否传递到基座模型的蒸馏版本会很及时。tl;dr 答案是否定的——教师模型在政治敏感问题上的回答与预期相差 7 个标准差,但蒸馏模型的行为仍与其美国基座保持一致。你可以无需认证地在此处尝试一些查询:http://playground.ctgt.ai/ 接下来,我将深入探讨动机、方法和详细结果,供感兴趣的人参考。衡量这种现象的难点在于,要区分模型是普遍对敏感话题不愿谈论,还是只对特定国家的敏感话题不愿谈论。因此,我们制作了 152 对匹配提示,其中一个提示询问中国相关概念,另一个询问该概念的非中国版本。例如,大跃进 vs. 乌克兰大饥荒(Holodomor)。这些由四个 LLM 评审员(Grok 4.20、Gemini 3.5 Flash、GPT-5 mini、Claude Sonnet 4.6)以 0-100 分打分,并通过 96 个人类评分进行验证,相关系数 r=0.948。OpenRouter 屏蔽了其中一些,因此我们自己托管了权重。教师模型在核心政治对上的差距为 +45.45 分,约为偏离随机水平 7 个标准差,每个蒸馏学生模型与基座的差距都在 1 分以内。

潜意识学习文献表明,当教师和学生之间不共享初始化时会出现这种情况——这里确实如此。蒸馏数据中也不包含任何中国敏感内容。本文的贡献是发布评估框架(LineageEval:https://github.com/CTGT-Inc/lineage-eval/ ),以提升在华盛顿特区及其他地区围绕此话题的讨论水平。我们是一家研究高风险和受监管 AI 应用的可解释性实验室,因此听到了很多关于在美国基座上蒸馏中国模型所谓危险的含糊言论。我们认为这些对话应该基于开放、可审计的框架,而不是感觉。我们计划接下来测试使用中国教师模型蒸馏到中国血统基座(如 Qwen)的效果。蒸馏方法是 HINT-SD 的演进,我们在模型推理出错的具体位置注入一个 hint。然后我们在接下来的 100 个 token 中使用反向 KL 训练修正后的续写。如上所述,120B 本身作为教师模型是有效的,我们最终发布了这一版本。自蒸馏的 120B 在 FinanceReasoning 上得分 83.61%,高于 Kimi K3(81.93%)和 Inkling(65.13%)。我们的模型完成了预算内 98.7% 的问题;更大的模型会截断(分别为 90.76% 和 71.01%),得分为错误。在 100k tokens 下,大模型表现更好(Kimi 89.92%)。因此,对于受限预算下的金融任务……

译文由上游机器翻译生成,可能有误;判断请以英文原文为准。

英文原文(来源本站未改写)

We recently used DeepSeek V4 Flash as a teacher for finance tasks with GPT-OSS-120B.Distillation works well on this problem.At a constrained 8k token budget, our self-distilled 120B scores 83.61% on FinanceReasoning, above Kimi K3 (81.93%) and Inkling (65.13%).We released the 20B open weights.With V4 as the teacher though, we realized it would be timely to measure if the censorship characteristic of it transferred to the distilled version of the base model. tl;dr it didn't, the teacher answered politically sensitive questions 7 SDs differently than expected, but the distilled model's behavior remained the same as its American base.

You can try a couple queries yourself with no auth here: http://playground.ctgt.ai/ I will now dive in to the motivation, methodology and detailed results for those interested.The hard part of measuring this phenomena is isolating whether a model is reluctant to talk about sensitive things generally vs. a particular country's sensitive things.So we made 152 matched pairs where one prompt asked about a Chinese concept, and the other asked about a non-Chinese version of that concept.For example, the Great Leap Forward vs. the Holodomor.These were scored 0-100 by four LLM judges (Grok 4.20, Gemini 3.5 Flash, GPT-5 mini, Claude Sonnet 4.6), validated against 96 human scores at r=0.948.

OpenRouter blocked some of these so we hosted the weights ourselves.The teacher's gap on the core political set of pairs was +45.45 points, ~7 standard deviations from chance, and every distilled student was within 1 point of its base.Subliminal learning literature says this is expected when the initializations are not shared between teacher and student, which is true here.The distillation data also did not contain any China-sensitive content.The contribution here was to release the evaluation framework (LineageEval: https://github.com/CTGT-Inc/lineage-eval/ ) to elevate the discussion around this topic in DC and beyond.

We are an interpretability lab working on high risk and regulated applications of AI, so we hear a lot of vagaries aimed at the supposed dangers of distilling Chinese models on American bases.We believe these conversations should be based on open, auditable frameworks and not feelings.We plan to test what happens with a Chinese teacher into a Chinese-lineage base like Qwen next.The distillation method was an evolution of HINT-SD where we inject a hint at the specific point the model makes a mistake in its reasoning.Then we train on the corrected continuation with reverse KL over the next 100 toks of the rollout.

As mentioned above 120B itself was efficacious as a teacher, and we ended up shipping this version.The self-distilled 120B scores 83.61% on FinanceReasoning, above Kimi K3 (81.93%) and Inkling (65.13%).Ours finishes 98.7% of problems in budget;the larger models truncate (90.76% and 71.01%) which score as incorrect.At 100k tokens big models gain (Kimi 89.92%).So for a finance task at a constrained

出处https://ctgt.ai/research/distillation-censorship-transfer抓取日期 · 采集源 Hacker News

03 / EVIDENCE GAPS

这条还缺什么证据?

下面每条都由本条已有字段推出(等级、理由、商业模式、来源次数、是否演示), 本站不生成推测性结论;通用验证方法放在方法论页。

  • 可核验的收入或付费证据查官网定价页与付费口径;第三方数据源(如 GetLatka)只作旁证,需标注来源与时点。
  • 商业模式未定确认按席位/按用量/授权还是开源托管版收费;开源项目另查 LICENSE 与是否存在付费版。
  • 只有单一来源找一手站点或其他渠道是否重复出现同一产品;社区热帖数量不等于商业进展。

通用验证清单(谁有这个问题/谁愿意付费/一个人能交付哪一小步)见我们的筛选方法

04 / SIGNAL HISTORY

发现时间线