Knowledge distillation can compress large multilingual models into lightweight alternatives; however, existing approaches employ a uniform temperature setting that does not account for the varying characteristics of different languages. This limitation results in suboptimal knowledge transfer, particularly for low-resource languages. We present an adaptive temperature distillation framework with curriculum learning for multilingual knowledge transfer. We introduce (1) a learnable temperature predictor that dynamically adjusts the softmax temperature according to language resource availability and sample difficulty, by assigning higher temperatures to low-resource languages to encourage generalization and lower temperatures to high-resource languages to preserve precise decision boundaries; (2) a curriculum learning strategy that organizes training progressively from high-to-low-resource languages and easy-to-hard samples. We evaluate our framework on 5 benchmarks covering more than 40 languages. Our method achieves an average accuracy of 84.1%, corresponding to 97.8% of the teacher model's performance (XLM-R-Large), while using only 11.8% of its parameters (66 M vs. 560 M) and running at 8.5× faster inference speed. Compared to standard distillation, we achieve + 4.6% improvement overall and up to + 7.8% for low-resource languages. Ablation studies confirmcomplementary contributions: adaptive temperature alone yields + 3.2%, curriculum learning alone yields + 2.9%, and their combination achieves + 4.8%, exceeding either individual component. The framework also reduces the number of training epochs required for convergence by approximately 40% and improves zero-shot cross-lingual transfer by + 6.0%, demonstrating its effectiveness for multilingual model compression. It should be noted that the current framework is evaluated exclusively on discriminative tasks; its applicability to generative tasks such as machine translation and abstractive summarization remains an avenue for future work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: