Self-Distillation is a special type of knowledge distillation where the student model has the same architecture as the teacher model. Despite using the same architecture and the same training data, self-distillation has been empirically observed to improve performance, especially when applied repeatedly. For such a process, there is a fundamental question of interest: How much gain is possible by applying multiple steps of self-distillation? To investigate this relative gain, we propose studying the simple but canonical task of linear regression. Our analysis shows that the excess risk achieved by multi-step self-distillation can significantly improve upon a single step of self-distillation, reducing the excess risk by a factor as large as $d$, where $d$ is the input dimension. Empirical results on regression tasks from the UCI repository show a reduction in the learnt model's risk (MSE) by up to 47%.

Training and using modern neural-network based latent-variable generative models (like Variational Autoencoders) often require simultaneously training a generative direction along with an inferential(encoding) direction, which approximates the posterior distribution over the latent variables. Thus, the question arises: how complex does the inferential model need to be, in order to be able to accurately model the posterior distribution of a given generative model? In this paper, we identify an important property of the generative map impacting the required size of the encoder. We show that if the generative map is "strongly invertible" (in a sense we suitably formalize), the inferential model need not be much more complex. Conversely, we prove that there exist non-invertible generative maps, for which the encoding direction needs to be exponentially larger (under standard assumptions in computational complexity). Importantly, we do not require the generative model to be layerwise invertible, which a lot of the related literature assumes and isn't satisfied by many architectures used in practice (e.g. convolution and pooling based networks). Thus, we provide theoretical support for the empirical wisdom that learning deep generative models is harder when data lies on a low-dimensional manifold.