Distilling robust reasoning capabilities from large language models (LLMs) into smaller, computationally efficient student models remains an unresolved challenge. Despite recent advances, distilled models frequently suffer from superficial pattern memorization and subpar generalization. To overcome these limitations, we introduce a novel distillation framework that moves beyond simple mimicry to instill a deeper conceptual understanding. Our framework features two key innovations. First, to address pattern memorization, Explanatory Inversion (EI) generates targeted ``explanatory probes'' that compel the student to articulate the underlying logic behind an answer, rather than just memorizing it. Second, to improve generalization, Explanatory GRPO (EXGRPO) uses a reinforcement learning algorithm with a novel Dialogue Structure Utility Bonus, which explicitly rewards the student for maintaining a coherent reasoning process across these probes. Extensive evaluations on 12 datasets demonstrate significant improvements. Using Gemma-7b as the student model, our method yields an average 20.39% increase over zero-shot performance and a 6.02% improvement over the state-of-the-art distillation baselines. Moreover, models distilled with our method show remarkable training efficiency (e.g., surpassing vanilla fine-tuning with 10-25% training data) and strong generalization to out-of-distribution tasks. Implementation is released at https://github.com/Zhen-Tan-dmml/ExGRPO.git.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) Distilled LLMs often exhibit generalization limitations compared to teacher models (e.g., Gemini-1.5-Pro v.s. smaller distilled models on Test v.s. EI-Test set, which is the augmented version of the test set using Gemini-1.5-Pro and Explanatory Inversion (EI)). See more experimental details in Appendix D . (b) This is exemplified by the reversal curse, where a model correctly solves a forward problem (e.g., 5-2=3) but fails its inverse. (c) Prior “Reverse Thinking” approaches, like RevThink ( Chen et al., 2025a ) , attempt A-to-Q reasoning. (d) Our ExGRPO method enhances distillation by using EI probes to challenge and refine student models via RL.
Figure 2: ExGRPO framework overview. The student model learns from multi-turn explanatory probe dialogues.
Methods
SQA
CSQA
ARC-c
MATH
GSM8K
TabMWP
ANLI
Date
Avg.
Gemini-1.5-Pro (Teacher Model)
Zero-shot ( Kojima et al., 2022 )
78.60
77.90
92.00
77.20
94.50
95.10
71.00
81.50
83.48
Zero-shot-EI [Ours]
78.55 ↓0.05
78.78 ↑0.88
96.82 ↑4.82
80.59 ↑3.39
93.51 ↓0.99
97.61 ↑2.51
74.02 ↑3.02
85.75 ↑4.25
85.70 ↑2.22
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (Student Model)
Zero-shot ( Kojima et al., 2022 )
72.93
71.33
85.36
74.40
90.90
93.88
61.67
73.43
77.99
SKD ( Li et al., 2023 ; West et al., 2022 )
73.51 ↑0.58
73.12 ↑1.79
87.26 ↑1.90
74.88 ↑0.48
86.20 ↓4.70
94.17 ↑0.29
62.73 ↑1.06
75.10 ↑1.67
78.01 ↑0.02
Table 1: Main results comparing our ExGRPO against zero-shot performance and various knowledge distillation and data augmentation baselines across eight held-in reasoning datasets for Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct and Gemma-7B-it student models. Teacher model performance is also shown for reference. ExGRPO shows consistent improvements. Scores are reported in percentage ( % ). * indicates the score is quoted from RevThink ( Chen et al., 2025a ) .The contribution of each rule is studied in Appendix F .
Method
BoolQ
Openbook
e-SNLI
GSM8K-Rev
Avg.
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (student)
Zero-shot
71.25
77.80
69.33
75.10
73.87
SKD
74.62 ↑3.37
79.80 ↑2.00
71.20 ↑1.87
78.45 ↑3.35
76.52 ↑2.65
AnsAug
75.53 ↑4.28
80.30 ↑2.50
70.80 ↑1.47
79.62 ↑4.52
76.56 ↑2.69
RevThink
77.10 ↑5.85
82.85 ↑5.05
73.91 ↑4.58
82.40 ↑7.30
79.06 ↑5.19
ExGRPO
80.30 ↑9.05
86.41 ↑8.61
78.44 ↑9.11
86.22 ↑11.12
82.34 ↑8.47
Table 2: OOD generalization on four held-out datasets. ExGRPO significantly improves generalization across both Qwen2.5-7B and Gemma-7B.
Model Configuration
SQA
CSQA
ARC-c
MATH
GSM8K
TabMWP
ANLI
Date
Avg.
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (Student Model)
Zero-shot
72.93
71.33
85.36
74.40
90.90
93.88
61.67
73.43
77.99
SFT (1 epoch only)
73.42 ↑0.49
72.10 ↑0.77
85.90 ↑0.54
74.80 ↑0.40
86.55 ↓4.35
94.12 ↑0.24
62.10 ↑0.43
74.02 ↑0.59
77.88 ↓0.11
SFT (3 epochs only)
76.40 ↑3.47
74.50 ↑3.17
89.30 ↑3.94
74.65 ↑0.25
86.60 ↓4.30
94.25 ↑0.37
62.75 ↑1.08
76.90 ↑3.47
79.17 ↑1.18
RL (cold start, Rbase )
10.20 ↓62.73
15.80 ↓55.53
18.60 ↓66.76
5.10 ↓69.30
20.90 ↓70.00
22.30 ↓71.58
13.40 ↓48.27
18.60 ↓54.83
15.99 ↓62.00
RL (cold start, Rbase ) + LSFT-aux
63.10 ↓9.83
62.45 ↓8.88
79.40 ↓5.96
66.55 ↓7.85
85.90 ↓5.00
88.95 ↓4.93
54.80 ↓6.87
67.10 ↓6.33
71.53 ↓6.46
Table 3: Ablation study on the impact of SFT warm-up training and RL components for ExGRPO . We evaluate performance across eight reasoning datasets. All model variants are trained using the same augmented datasets with EI probes. RL without rdsu treats each EI probe as an independent training sample without grouping across reasoning paths.
Figure 3: RL training curves with Gemma as student. Evolution of key reward components during ExGRPO training. Left : Rbase . Right : rdsu , scaled for visualization.
Figure 4: Sample efficiency comparison on eight datasets. Our ExGRPO method achieves higher accuracy than standard SFT across all training data fractions ( p∈{0.1,0.25,0.5,1.0} ), often surpassing SFT trained on the full dataset with only 10−25% of the data.
Figure 5: Average accuracy v.s. average training token count. The dashed line shows the regression over the baselines.
Figure 9
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Probe Type (Rule)
SQA
ARC-c
GSM8K
ANLI
Avg.
Rephrase Question ( Yu et al., 2024 )
75.3
89.1
87.2
63.9
78.88
Counterfactual (R1)
76.8
89.5
91.2
63.1
80.15
Decomposition (R2)
76.1
88.9
90.5
63.5
79.75
Justification (R3)
75.7
88.3
89.8
62.8
79.15
Analogy-Based (R4)
74.9
87.1
88.4
61.7
78.03
Contrastive (R5)
75.3
87.5
88.6
62.1
78.38
Appendix
Table 4: Performance (Accuracy %) of SFT with single EI probe types on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct. All EI rules outperform the baseline, and the full EI combination yields the best results.
Dataset
Domain
License
Train (Original)
Train (Filtered)
Test
SQA ( Geva et al., 2021 )
Commonsense
MIT
2061
1656
209
CSQA ( Talmor et al., 2019 )
Commonsense
MIT
9741
7770
1221
ARC ( Clark et al., 2018 )
Commonsense
CC BY-SA 4.0
1199
1080
1172
MATH ( Hendrycks et al., 2021 )
Math
MIT
7500
6228
5000
GSM8K ( Cobbe et al., 2021 )
Math
MIT
7379
7085
1319
TabMWP ( Lu et al., 2022 )
Math (Tabular)
CC BY-SA 4.0
23059
22802
7684
Appendix
Table 5: The datasets used in this work are listed in the order of appearance. For each dataset, we report the domain, the number of original training samples, the number of filtered training samples, and the number of testing samples. Note that the last four datasets are held out and thus contain no filtered training samples. Due to the large size of ANLI’s training set, we randomly sampled 2,000 instances, of which 883 remained after filtering. For the Date Understanding dataset, given its small size, we randomly split the data into 200 training and 169 testing samples, and we keep all the training data.
Knowledge distillation from large language models (LLMs) assumes that the teacher's output distribution is a high-quality training signal. On reasoning tasks, this assumption is frequently violated. A model's intermediate representations may encode the correct answer, yet this information is lost or distorted through the vocabulary projection, where prompt formatting and answer-token choices creates brittle, noisy outputs. We introduce \method{}, a distillation framework that bypasses this bottleneck by training lightweight probes on frozen teacher hidden states and using the probe's predictions, rather than output logits, as supervision for student training. This simple change yields consistent improvements across four reasoning benchmarks (AQuA-RAT, ARC Easy/Challenge, and MMLU), with gains most pronounced under limited data. Probes trained on intermediate representations provide cleaner labels than the teacher's own outputs, effectively denoising the distillation signal. \method{} requires no architectural changes to student or teacher, is architecture-agnostic, and adds minimal compute since probe training is cheap and teacher representations can be cached. By exploiting internal representations, \method{} enables practitioners to extract more value from large teacher models without additional training data or architectural complexity.
Ryan Brown, Chris Russell
Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Large language model (LLM) post-training is essential for improving reasoning, adaptation, and alignment. Existing methods mainly follow two paradigms: reinforcement learning (RL) and on-policy distillation (OPD). However, RL relies on coarse-grained outcome supervision, resulting in difficult credit assignment and limited capability to acquire new knowledge. OPD, meanwhile, unconditionally matches teacher logits through KL divergence, which creates a dilemma: similar teachers provide little new knowledge, while substantially different teachers often yield ineffective guidance, largely restricting OPD to within-family distillation. We propose Distilled Reinforcement Learning (Distilled RL), which integrates teacher supervision into the RL objective to provide fine-grained guidance, selectively transfer new knowledge and avoid unconditional imitation. Distilled RL contains three components: reverse importance sampling with clipping, negative sample reset, and sequence-level geometric normalization. Through a concise and interpretable case study, we demonstrate that Distilled RL can effectively transfer previously unavailable knowledge from a teacher model to a student model. Extensive experiments across both within-family and cross-family distillation settings show that Distilled RL substantially outperforms standard RL and OPD in terms of both pass@1 and pass@k. Our code is available at https://github.com/597358816/Distilled-RL.
Chen Wang, Zhaochun Li, Jionghao Bai +4
College of Elite Engineers, Nankai University · Zhongguancun Academy · Beijing Institute of Technology +4
When distilling reasoning from large language models (LLMs) into smaller ones, teacher rationales for similar problems often vary wildly in structure and strategy. Like a chef who makes the same dish differently each time, this inconsistency burdens the student with noisy supervision that is hard to internalize. We propose Distillation through Reasoning Path Compression (D-RPC), which constrains the teacher to follow a compact, dynamically maintained bank of reusable high-level reasoning paths. For each training question, D-RPC retrieves the most relevant path and conditions the teacher to follow it, producing rationales that are consistent across similar problems yet diverse enough to cover different problem types. A PAC-Bayes analysis formalizes the resulting trade-off between bank size and coverage: smaller banks reduce supervision entropy but risk coverage gaps, and the generalization bound identifies an optimal intermediate size confirmed by our ablations. Across five math and commonsense reasoning benchmarks with two student models, D-RPC consistently outperforms chain-of-thought distillation, freeform rationale generation, direct distillation, and structured-supervision baselines, while using fewer tokens than template-heavy alternatives.
Jialin Yang, Jiankun Wang, Jiajun Wu +3
University of Calgary · Calgary, Canada · University of Michigan +1