The paper presents the JSI and WüNLP systems submitted to the DIALECT-COPA shared task on causal commonsense reasoning in dialectal texts. Jointly, we compare LLM-based zero-shot and few-shot in-context inference (JSI team), and task-specific few-shot fine-tuning, in English and respective standard language, with zero-shot cross-lingual transfer (ZS-XLT) to the test dialects (WüNLP team). Given the very strong zero-shot and especially few-shot in-context learning (ICL) performance, we further investigate whether task semantics, or language/dialect semantics explain the strong performance, showing that a significant part of the improvement indeed stems from learning the language or dialect semantics from the in-context examples, with only a minor contribution from understanding the nature of the task. The higher importance of the dialect semantics to the task semantics is further shown by the finding that the in-context learning with only a few dialectal instances achieves comparable results to the supervised fine-tuning approach on hundreds of instances in standard language.

Compared to standard language model (LM) pretraining (i.e., from scratch), Knowledge Distillation (KD) entails an additional forward pass through a teacher model that is typically substantially larger than the target student model. As such, KD in LM pretraining materially slows down throughput of pretraining instances vis-a-vis pretraining from scratch. Scaling laws of LM pretraining suggest that smaller models can close the gap to larger counterparts if trained on more data (i.e., processing more tokens)—and under a fixed computation budget, smaller models are able to process more data than larger models. We thus hypothesize that KD might, in fact, be suboptimal to pretraining from scratch for obtaining smaller LMs, when appropriately accounting for the compute budget. To test this, we compare pretraining from scratch against several KD strategies for masked language modeling (MLM) in a fair experimental setup, with respect to amount of computation as well as pretraining data. Downstream results on GLUE, however, do not confirm our hypothesis: while pretraining from scratch performs comparably to ordinary KD under a fixed computation budget, more sophisticated KD strategies, namely TinyBERT and MiniLM, outperform it by a notable margin. We further find that KD yields larger gains over pretraining from scratch when the data can be repeated under the fixed computation budget.