Distilling knowledge from an ensemble of teacher models is expected to have a more promising performance than that from a single one. Current methods mainly adopt a vanilla average rule, i.e., to simply take the average of all teacher losses for training the student network. However, this approach treats teachers equally and ignores the diversity among them. When conflicts or competitions exist among teachers, which is common, the inner compromise might hurt the distillation performance. In this paper, we examine the diversity of teacher models in the gradient space and regard the ensemble knowledge distillation as a multi-objective optimization problem so that we can determine a better optimization direction for the training of student network. Besides, we also introduce a tolerance parameter to accommodate disagreement among teachers. In this way, our method can be seen as a dynamic weighting method for each teacher in the ensemble.

Supervised learning relies on annotated data, which is expensive to obtain. A longstanding strategy to reduce annotation costs is active learning, an iterative process, in which a human annotates only data instances deemed informative by a model. Large language models (LLMs) have pushed the effectiveness of active learning, but have also improved methods such as few- or zero-shot learning, and text synthesis - thereby introducing potential alternatives. This raises the question: has active learning become obsolete? To answer this fully, we must look beyond literature to practical experiences. We conduct an online survey in the NLP community to collect previously intangible insights on the perceived relevance of data annotation, particularly focusing on active learning, including best practices, obstacles and expected future developments. Our findings show that annotated data remains a key factor, and active learning continues to be relevant. While the majority of active learning users find it effective, a comparison with a community survey from over a decade ago reveals persistent challenges: setup complexity, estimation of cost reduction, and tooling. We publish an anonymized version of the collected dataset