Sajjad Pakdamansavoji, Mohammad Reza Rezaei, Ilija Subasic, Pedro Garzon, Radu Paradovschi, Zhao Chen
Language models in customer-facing products must be continually updated, since the data they serve shifts over time. As retraining on the full accumulated data is impractical, each update should instead run on a small set of examples carrying the training signal of all data seen so far. The strongest current methods build this set by gradient matching, which synthesizes examples whose training gradients match those of the full data. However, they require ground-truth labels, run once on a fixed snapshot rather than on a growing stream, and are slow on large data. We introduce \textbf{OLGA}, which lifts these limitations. It distills unlabeled data by drawing the gradient matching targets from the model's own next-token predictions. Across five text classification benchmarks with phi-1.5, it improves accuracy by 10 percentage points over the strongest selection baseline using as few as five examples. OLGA also distills online data streams by keeping a running rehearsal memory of synthetic examples, which is re-distilled together with each new batch as it arrives. In the online setting, it outperforms the strongest selection-based continual baseline by 6.6 stream-AUC percentage points. Finally, our method scales to large data by pairing distillation with selection in a hybrid pipeline, letting selection handle the mild stage of compression and distillation the extreme one. It cuts runtime by 30\% versus distillation alone at similar accuracy, and beats the best selection-only pipeline by up to 12.6 percentage points.
Ilija Subasic, Brett Levert, Andrew Rabinovich, Sajjad Pakdamansavoji, Zhao Chen
LLM-as-a-Judge has become a standard for evaluating large language models, yet most approaches implicitly assume that a single judge prompt functions as a stable evaluation instrument. Prior work has primarily explored deliberate prompt modifications such as scoring rubrics, role descriptions, or chain-of-thought reasoning in order to optimize accuracy. In contrast, we investigate whether validated prompt variants intended to preserve evaluation semantics while differing in surface realization (\textit{paraphrastic rephrasings}) yield consistent judgments under a fixed evaluation task. We introduce \textit{Prompt Lottery}, a phenomenon in which paraphrastic rephrasings produce different LLMaJ judgments. Across a large-scale study spanning diverse evaluation tasks, judge families, and model backbones, we find that these variations can alter evaluation outcomes and, in some settings, reverse relative model rankings. A user study with 10 human annotators shows that LLMaJ judges exhibit 6-9$\times$ larger agreement degradation under prompt rephrasings than humans, falling below the generally accepted threshold in usability studies. This indicates that single-prompt evaluation is insufficiently robust for model ranking. Finally, we show that multi-prompt aggregation substantially improves robustness by emphasizing judgments that remain consistent across prompt variants.