LLMs as Teacher Models

• LLMs as teacher models are defined as large, instruction-tuned systems that generate rubrics, feedback, and iterative curricula to train smaller student models.
• They employ mechanisms such as supervised fine-tuning, embedding-based rubric generation, and progressive revision loops to enhance model alignment and scalability.
• This teacher–student framework advances neural language systems by integrating knowledge distillation, reinforcement learning, and multi-model collaboration to boost performance and adaptability.

LLMs as teacher models are central to the development, instruction tuning, and efficiency of neural language systems. Teacher LLMs function as comprehensive, automated sources of guidance, shaping smaller student models by transmitting knowledge, semantic structure, reasoning skills, and pedagogical methods via direct supervision, distillation, and feedback mechanisms. The teacher–student paradigm spans curriculum generation, rubric construction, knowledge distillation, policy imitation, and progressive learning, fundamentally advancing the scalability and adaptability of LLM architectures.

1. Formalization of the Teacher–Student LLM Framework

A teacher LLM is generally a large, instruction-tuned model that acts as a source of high-quality outputs, feedback, and structured evaluation for a smaller, target student LLM. The teacher models can generate explicit scoring criteria (rubrics), critique and revise student answers, and serve as a reference distribution for knowledge transfer. The student model is typically initialized with random or base weights and iteratively optimized to mimic or internalize the teacher’s outputs based on losses grounded in log-likelihood, KL divergence, and multi-modal semantic matching (Feng et al., 2023).

Typical teacher–student pipelines feature:

• Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT): Initial optimization of the student on (instruction, reference) pairs by minimizing cross-entropy loss.
• Rubric/Evaluation Creation: The teacher clusters instructional inputs and constructs per-type evaluation criteria; assignment may use BERT-based similarity matching.
• Iterative Feedback and Revision: The teacher revises student generations according to rubrics; the student is updated to maximize the likelihood of teacher revisions, often in multiple rounds for curriculum refinement.

Mathematically, the central objectives include supervised loss ($\mathcal{L}_{SFT}$), curriculum-tuning loss for revision ($\mathcal{L}_{CITING}$), and distillation-based KL divergence ($\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{KD}}$), with fine-grained token or representation matching underpinning learning dynamics.

2. Mechanisms for Curriculum and Rubric Generation

LLMs as teacher models are leveraged to synthesize instructional curriculums, evaluation rubrics, and context-aware feedback. CITING (Feng et al., 2023) employs a teacher LLM to classify instructions into clusters, formulates explicit rubrics for answer evaluation, and operationalizes curriculum instruction tuning via iterative revision loops. Rubric assignment uses embedding-based methods: $$e_h = \mathrm{BERT}(x_h),\qquad e_n = \mathrm{BERT}(x_n),\qquad \mathrm{Score}_j = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^n \mathrm{Cosine}(e_n, e_{h,k})$$ which enable robust coverage of instruction types and facilitate role adaptation for diverse tasks.

Teacher LLMs also drive progressive learning frameworks by expanding from basic to generalized and then harder problem variants with structured feedback and revision protocols (YODA (Lu et al., 2024)). Teachers generate more challenging or broader examples, allowing students to refine understanding through systematic exposure and procedural interactions.

3. Distillation and Knowledge Transfer

Knowledge distillation is a foundational approach for compressing and transferring complex capabilities of large teacher LLMs into compact student models. Standard token-level KD employs KL divergence between teacher and student output distributions (Cao et al., 18 Sep 2025): $$L_{\mathrm{KD}} = \mathbb{E}_{x\sim D} [\mathrm{KL}(\pi_{\mathrm{ref}}(\cdot|x)\|\pi_\theta(\cdot|x))]$$ Delta-KD (Cao et al., 18 Sep 2025) extends this by using the distributional shift (Delta) imparted during the teacher's supervised fine-tuning. The student is trained not only to mimic the teacher’s output but also to encode the behavioral transformation undergone by the teacher: $$\pi_s^*(y|x) = \frac{1}{Z(x)} \pi_t^{\mathrm{ft}}(y|x) \Big( \frac{\pi_s^{\mathrm{raw}}(y|x)}{\pi_t^{\mathrm{raw}}(y|x)} \Big)^\alpha$$ This shift-sensitive paradigm yields improved preservation of task-specific teacher knowledge under resource constraints.

Multi-teacher collaborative schemes further aggregate the outputs and intermediate features of several teacher models via entropy-driven dynamic weighting and semantic feature alignment (Meng et al., 21 Jul 2025). Fusion of teacher distributions ($P_T(y|x) = \sum_{k=1}^K \alpha_k P_{T_k}(y|x))$ ensures that the most confident teacher (lowest output entropy) directs the student, improving generalization and stability.

Vocabulary-agnostic distillation (Shin et al., 24 Mar 2025) addresses the teacher–student vocabulary mismatch via token-level lexical alignment, enabling cross-tokenizer knowledge transfer and robust performance, even at minimal vocabulary overlap.

4. Teacher LLMs for Reinforcement and Policy Learning

Large teacher LLMs substantially enhance RL agent training. The LLM4Teach framework (Zhou et al., 2023) employs a teacher LLM to provide high-level, option-based policy distributions ($\pi_T(\cdot|s)$), which the student agent imitates via KL divergence and then fine-tunes on direct environment feedback after annealing the imitation loss term. The end-to-end loss couples RL reward maximization and teacher-led distillation: $$\mathcal{L}(\theta) = \mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{RL}}(\theta) + \lambda_i \mathbb{E}_{s\sim\pi_\theta}[\mathrm{KL}(\pi_T(\cdot|s) \| \pi_\theta(\cdot|s))]$$ Bilateral teacher–student feedback (Gu, 2024) further enables recursive optimization, where the RL agent supplies real-time feedback signals $F_{RL \to LLM}(t)$ to the teacher LLM, promoting token utility and rapid convergence.

Pedagogical RL frameworks (Dinucu-Jianu et al., 21 May 2025) align tutor models with scaffolding objectives, discouraging answer leakage and emphasizing multi-turn instructional plans. On-policy RL with simulated student LLM interaction is used, with rewards combining solve rate and pedagogical acceptance, and Pareto frontier navigation over these objectives.

5. Instructional Quality, Explanation, and Pedagogical Alignment

LLMs as teachers underpin detailed annotation, explanation, and instructional quality assurance. TeacherLM (He et al., 2023) annotates examples with fundamentals, chain-of-thought, and common mistakes, allowing student models to internalize "why" and "how," not just the answer. This annotation-centered augmentation translates into consistent improvements in student zero-shot reasoning and multi-task transfer.

Pedagogical alignment (Sonkar et al., 2024) formalizes tutor model training to prioritize stepwise guidance, error evaluation, and hint-based support over direct answer delivery. Synthetic preference generation and direct preference optimization (DPO) enable RLHF-based behavioral alignment, resulting in substantial gains in pedagogical decision accuracy.

Explanatory teacher interventions (Saha et al., 2023) empirically benefit students by transmitting chain-of-thought rationales and personalized explanations, selected via explicit utility-based intervention functions. Targeted teaching improves both immediate performance and future generalization on unexplained data. Misaligned teacher explanations, however, can actively degrade student outcomes, underlining the importance of teacher integrity.

6. Automated Alignment, Data Efficiency, and Scaling

LLMs as teachers lower the cost and complexity of model alignment, especially in iterative tuning scenarios. TS-Align (Zhang et al., 2024) enables large-scale, automatic mining of pairwise feedback via teacher–student collaboration, with the teacher serving as a ranking authority and the student reward model absorbing the teacher's feedback through margin-ranking and adapters. Policy models fine-tuned in this collaborative loop yield strong gains in win rate over vanilla SFT and single-iteration DPO.

Mixture-of-Experts teacher architectures (Kothari et al., 2024) (e.g., Mixtral 8×7B) are exceptionally data-efficient. Student models distilling from MoE teachers via prediction-layer and attention-based KD can approach or even surpass dense models orders of magnitude larger, especially when supplemented with domain-specific expert alignment.

Fine-tune-CoT (Ho et al., 2022) leverages chain-of-thought rationales from large teacher LLMs to bootstrap reasoning capabilities in much smaller students, showing that explicit reasoning supervision and diverse rationale sampling enable emergent behaviors far exceeding baseline scaling laws.

7. Empirical Validation and Evaluation Practices

Teacher–student LLM frameworks consistently outperform standard SFT, RLHF, and single-model baselines in both qualitative and quantitative benchmarks. In CITING (Feng et al., 2023), curriculum-driven teacher revision achieves average GPT-4 win rates of 73–79% across articulate, in-depth, and comprehensive metrics. YODA (Lu et al., 2024) demonstrates that progressive learning loops driven by teacher feedback yield +17.01 percentage point improvement on GSM8K and +9.98 on MATH versus AI-SFT.

Evaluation practices include pairwise comparison using LLM judges, BERTScore, DialogRPT, and custom pedagogical reward models. Pedagogical benchmarking tracks not only final answer accuracy but also intermediate teaching actions, scaffolding, and explainability metrics.

A plausible implication is that research attention should increasingly shift from teacher–student architectures optimized solely for raw factual prediction toward those supporting advanced pedagogical, reasoning, and alignment objectives—especially as open-source teacher capacity and annotation techniques progress.

---

Selected References by arXiv id:

• Curriculum and teacher-driven instruction tuning: CITING (Feng et al., 2023).
• RL agent distillation from LLM teachers: LLM4Teach (Zhou et al., 2023), Bi-Directional Feedback (Gu, 2024).
• Multi-teacher, collaborative distillation frameworks: Collaborative Distillation (Meng et al., 21 Jul 2025), Vocabulary-agnostic KD (Shin et al., 24 Mar 2025).
• Progressive learning: YODA (Lu et al., 2024).
• Pedagogical alignment: Pedagogical Alignment (Sonkar et al., 2024), From Problem-Solving to Teaching (Dinucu-Jianu et al., 21 May 2025).
• Rich annotation-centered supervision: TeacherLM (He et al., 2023), Reasoning Teachers (Ho et al., 2022).
• Efficient, scalable iterative alignment: TS-Align (Zhang et al., 2024).
• Domain adaptation via MoE teachers: A Teacher Is Worth a Million Instructions (Kothari et al., 2024).
• Permutation-invariant debiasing: Teacher-Student Training for Debiasing (Liusie et al., 2024).
• Delta-KD for robust distillation: Delta Knowledge Distillation (Cao et al., 18 Sep 2025).
• Explanatory and personalized interventions: Teaching via Explanation (Saha et al., 2023).