GATES: Self-Distillation under Privileged Context with Consensus Gating

On-policy self-distillation uses a model as its own teacher to provide dense supervision for reasoning, often through reference-solution conditioning. Providing privileged information does not by itself ensure effective token-level supervision throughout long responses. We introduce Activation-Conditioned Self-Distillation (ACSD), which extracts a steering vector by contrasting activations of self-generated trajectories that reach verified correct answers within a generation budget with those of all remaining trajectories. A frozen copy of the base model applies this vector at each prediction position, and the student learns from its next-token distributions on student-generated prefixes. Outcome verification is used for direction construction and calibration; distillation requires neither problem-specific reference text nor teacher parameter updates. The distilled student is used alone at inference. On each of five models, ACSD achieves the highest mean accuracy over four mathematical benchmarks among the evaluated methods. On DeepSeek-R1-0528-Qwen3-8B, mean mathematical accuracy reaches 71.9% and LiveCodeBench v6 pass@12 reaches 70.9%, compared with 69.0% and 66.3% for the reference-conditioned OPSD baseline. Contrasts among correct trajectories also support distillation, and extracted directions can be reused across mathematical training datasets. On fixed student trajectories, ACSD maintains more stable late-position logit-update magnitudes than OPSD.

On-policy self-distillation trains reasoning models on their own trajectories using dense token distribution guidance from a privileged teacher with access to a verified solution. This supervision transfers what the teacher predicts without directly transferring where it attends within the preceding context. We introduce On-Policy Attention Self-Distillation (OPASD), which complements token-level supervision with solution-conditioned attention distillation. Because the privileged teacher can attend to verified solution tokens unavailable to the student, OPASD projects teacher attention onto student-visible positions and renormalizes the resulting distribution before alignment. Across three model sizes and four competition-level mathematics benchmarks, OPASD consistently outperforms token-only OPSD, improving average accuracy by 4.98 to 8.40 percentage points. OPASD also avoids the response-length inflation and performance degradation observed with token-only distillation, reducing generated rollout tokens by 73.9% and estimated model compute by 72.6% while training 1.53x faster. These results show that solution-conditioned attention provides a complementary supervision signal that makes on-policy self-distillation more accurate, stable, and compute-efficient.

Sampling multiple solutions and returning the majority answer is among the most reliable ways to improve the reasoning accuracy of large language models without labels, and a growing family of methods converts this consensus signal into training supervision. However, existing approaches use consensus only in restricted forms: as a filter that selects solutions for fine-tuning, as a preference between answers, or as a scalar reward for reinforcement learning, discarding most of the information that the agreeing solutions contain. We present CANON (Consensus-ANchored self-distillatiON), a label-free training method that turns consensus into dense, token-level supervision. For each unlabeled prompt, CANON samples multiple solutions, extracts the majority answer, and conditions a frozen snapshot of the model on a solution that reaches it; this consensus-anchored teacher then supervises the model on its own rollouts at every token. Experiments on mathematical and scientific reasoning benchmarks show that CANON improves pass@1 by up to 12 points, outperforming label-free reinforcement learning by 6 points at a seventh of its compute and approaching a teacher conditioned on gold solutions; trained on pooled unlabeled data, it transfers to held-out benchmarks, matching training methods that use gold labels. Analysis suggests that the improvements are not pure distribution sharpening: after training, the model solves problems it previously never solved in 32 attempts, and its majority vote itself becomes more accurate.