A Metamorphic Testing Perspective on Knowledge Distillation for Language Models of Code: Does the Student Deeply Mimic the Teacher?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transformer-based language models of code have achieved state-of-the-art performance across a wide range of software analytics tasks, but their practical deployment remains limited due to high computational costs, slow inference speeds, and significant environmental impact. To address these challenges, recent research has increasingly explored knowledge distillation as a method for compressing a large language model of code (the teacher) into a smaller model (the student) while maintaining performance. However, the degree to which a student model deeply mimics the predictive behavior and internal representations of its teacher remains largely unexplored, as current accuracy-based evaluation provides only a surface-level view of model quality and often fails to capture more profound discrepancies in behavioral fidelity between the teacher and student models. To address this gap, we empirically show that the student model often fails to deeply mimic the teacher model, resulting in up to 285% greater performance drop under adversarial attacks, which is not captured by traditional accuracy-based evaluation. Therefore, we propose MetaCompress, a metamorphic testing framework that systematically evaluates behavioral fidelity by comparing the outputs of teacher and student models under a set of behavior-preserving metamorphic relations. We evaluate MetaCompress on two widely studied tasks, using compressed versions of popular language models of code, obtained via three different knowledge distillation techniques: Compressor, AVATAR, and MORPH. The results show that MetaCompress identifies up to 62% behavioral discrepancies in student models, underscoring the need for behavioral fidelity evaluation within the knowledge distillation pipeline and establishing MetaCompress as a practical framework for testing compressed language models of code derived through knowledge distillation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".