PreprintCited by 0Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningTopic ModelingExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Reference-Based Distillation Detection in LLMs

Open access
Rawat, Rajat, Chen, Sizhe, Anand, Akshay, Duan, Michael, Rotsted, Bob, Min, Sewon·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Model distillation -- training on outputs from stronger third-party models -- is widely used to boost performance, but raises concerns about unfair advantages and policy violations. This motivates a fundamental question: can we detect whether a model was distilled from another? We show that, while identifying a teacher model from a student in isolation is highly challenging, it becomes tractable in a reference-based setting: given a model and an earlier-generation checkpoint from the same lineage, we can identify the teacher model used to train the later checkpoint. We introduce a distillation detection method based on reference-based membership inference. By comparing how strongly a student model preferentially aligns with outputs from different candidate teachers relative to a reference checkpoint, our method identifies the most likely teacher and detects evidence of distillation. To handle unknown distillation pipelines such as hidden prompts, we infer proxy prompt templates directly from model outputs. We additionally identify a distinctive glyph-level signal specific to o1/o3 models. Evaluating distillation detection is challenging because modern model lineages are already heavily entangled. To address this, we develop a hybrid evaluation spanning both controlled distillation experiments and real-world models. Across both settings, our approach recovers the true teacher with near-perfect accuracy in single-teacher distillation scenarios, even when the underlying distillation pipeline is largely unknown. We further introduce statistical tests for both teacher attribution and distillation detection, and extend our framework to open-world settings where no teacher is guaranteed to be present among the candidates. Applying our method to contemporary models yields new evidence regarding potential distillation relationships involving QwQ, DeepSeek-R1, and GPT-OSS.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2607.09692

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Detecting distillation between models is an active research area.

    “Detecting distillation between models is an active research area.”

    From Stealing Reasoning Traces from Proprietary LLM APIs (2026) · cites this paper as Rawat et al. (2026)

  • Lee et al. (2025) quantify distillation through identity leakage and response similarity across models, and Rawat et al. (2026) attribute a student model's teacher through membership inference, which requires token likelihoods and an earlier checkpoint from the student's lineage.

    “Lee et al. (2025) quantify it through identity leakage and response similarity across models, and Rawat et al. (2026) attribute a student model's teacher through membership inference, which requires token likelihoods and an earlier checkpoint from the student's lineage.”

    From Stealing Reasoning Traces from Proprietary LLM APIs (2026) · cites this paper as Rawat et al. (2026)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Marah Abdin, Jyoti Aneja, Harkirat Behl, Sébastien Bubeck, Ronen Eldan, Suriya Gunasekar, Michael Harrison, Russell J Hewett, Mojan Javaheripi, Piero Kauffmann, et al. Phi-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08905, 2024. · arXiv
  2. Sanjay Adhikesaven, Haoxiang Sun, and Sewon Min. Which models are our models built on? auditing invisible dependencies in modern llms, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2606. 12385.
  3. Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, and Charles Sutton. Program synthesis with large language models, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07732. · arXiv
  4. Nicholas Carlini, Steve Chien, Milad Nasr, Shuang Song, Andreas Terzis, and Florian Tramer. Membership inference attacks from first principles. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2022.
  5. Gemma Team. Gemma 3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19786, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.19786. · arXiv
  6. Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015. · arXiv
  7. Xiaoqi Jiao, Yichun Yin, Shang Lifeng, Xin Jiang, Xiao Chen, Linlin Li, Fang Wang, and Qun Liu. Tinybert: Distilling bert for natural language understanding. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, 2020.
  8. Yoon Kim and Alexander M Rush. Sequence-level knowledge distillation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2016.
  9. Pratyush Maini, Hengrui Jia, Nicolas Papernot, and Adam Dziedzic. Llm dataset inference: Did you train on my dataset?, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06443. · arXiv
  10. Niklas Muennighoff, Zitong Yang, Weijia Shi, Xiang Lisa Li, Li Fei-Fei, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, Percy Liang, Emmanuel Candès, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. s1: Simple test-time scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19393, 2025. · arXiv
  11. OpenAI. gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b model card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10925, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.10925. · arXiv
  12. Leyi Pan, Aiwei Liu, Shiyu Huang, Yijian Lu, Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, Irwin King, and Philip S. Yu. Can llm watermarks robustly prevent unauthorized knowledge distillation?, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11598. · arXiv
  13. Claudia Philipp. From prompt to clone: Copyright challenges in ai model distillation. UC Law Science and Technology Journal, 17(1):49, 2026.
  14. Qwen Team. Qwen3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.09388. · arXiv
  15. Qwen Team, An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, Keming Lu, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang, Le Yu, Mei Li, Mingfeng Xue, Pei Zhang, Qin Zhu, Rui Men, Runji Lin, Tianhao Li, Tianyi Tang, Tingyu Xia, Xingzhang Ren, Xuancheng Ren, Yang Fan, Yang Su, Yichang Zhang, Yu Wan, Yuqiong Liu, Zeyu Cui, Zhenru Zhang, and Zihan Qiu. Qwen2.5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2412.15115. · arXiv
  16. Tom Sander, Pierre Fernandez, Alain Durmus, Matthijs Douze, and Teddy Furon. Watermarking makes language models radioactive, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.14904. · arXiv
  17. Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108, 2019. · arXiv
  18. Qin Shi, Amber Yijia Zheng, Qifan Song, and Raymond A Yeh. Knowledge distillation detection for open-weights models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.02302, 2025. · arXiv
  19. Reza Shokri, Marco Stronati, Congzheng Song, and Vitaly Shmatikov. Membership inference attacks against machine learning models. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2017.
  20. Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B Hashimoto. Alpaca: A strong, replicable instruction- following model. Stanford Center for Research on Foundation Models. https://crfm. stanford. edu/2023/03/13/alpaca. html, 3(6):7, 2023.
  21. Shubham Toshniwal, Wei Du, Ivan Moshkov, Branislav Kisacanin, Alexan Ayrapetyan, and Igor Gitman. Openmathinstruct-2: Accelerating ai for math with massive open-source instruction data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01560, 2024. · arXiv
  22. Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Self-instruct: Aligning language models with self-generated instruc- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10560, 2022. · arXiv
  23. Lauren Watson, Chuan Guo, Graham Cormode, and Alex Sablayrolles. On the importance of difficulty calibration in membership inference attacks, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2111.08440.
  24. Yuechen Xie, Jie Song, Huiqiong Wang, and Mingli Song. Training data provenance verification: Did your model use synthetic data from my generative model for training?, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09122. · arXiv
  25. Hengxiang Zhang, Hyeong Kyu Choi, Sharon Li, and Hongxin Wei. Detecting distillation data from reasoning models, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04850. · arXiv
  26. Likun Zhang, Hao Wu, Lingcui Zhang, Fengyuan Xu, Jin Cao, Fenghua Li, and Ben Niu. Training data attribution: Was your model secretly trained on data created by mine?, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.15781. · arXiv

Authors
Rawat, R., Chen, S., Anand, A., Duan, M., Rotsted, B., & Min, S.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • OpenAI (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7168291054
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
model distillation, membership inference, large language models, teacher attributions, hypothesis testing, model lineage

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review