Revisiting On-Policy Distillation: Empirical Failure Modes and Simple Fixes

On-policy distillation (OPD) is becoming an important component of large language model (LLM) post-training for transferring the reasoning capability of a strong teacher LLM to a weaker student LLM. OPD trains the student by minimizing the reverse KL divergence between the teacher and the student via rollouts generated by the student's policy. However, estimating the gradient of the reverse KL divergence in OPD remains a challenge. Using only the sampled token from the student-generated rollout is computationally cheap but provides limited distributional supervision, which will degrade accuracy. In addition, using the full vocabulary provides complete distributional supervision but is computationally expensive. Therefore, recent works propose Top-$k$ OPD (TK-OPD) that use selected top-$k$ tokens, which provides richer distributional supervision than sampled-token estimation at substantially lower computational cost than full-vocabulary estimation. Unfortunately, using only the selected top-$k$ tokens induces bias, leading to accuracy degradation, as the probability mass outside the selected top-$k$ tokens is discarded. To address the bias of TK-OPD, we propose Tail-Corrected Top-$k$ On-Policy Distillation (TT-OPD). It preserves the advantages of TK-OPD, including rich distributional supervision and low computational cost, while providing an unbiased estimator of the gradient of the reverse KL divergence. The key insight of TT-OPD is to use not only the selected top-$k$ tokens, but also the sampled token from the student-generated rollout, thereby recovering the discarded probability mass in expectation, avoiding the bias. Experimental results demonstrate that TT-OPD significantly outperforms other tested OPD variants.

On-policy distillation (OPD) has become a key paradigm in LLM post-training, yet its training dynamics remain poorly understood. We present a systematic study examining the role, pathologies, and regulations of OPD. We first clarify the role of OPD as an exploration catalyst: it steers the student toward correct reasoning paths via dense token-level guidance, without expanding capability ceiling. We confirm this by showing that prompt diversity matters more than per-problem sampling numbers, and critically, that the effectiveness of OPD hinges entirely on the quality of its guiding signal. This dependency exposes two pathologies that derail exploration. The Student-Teacher Mismatch occurs when a large teacher-student distributional gap causes the guiding signal to misalign with task correctness, steering exploration in counterproductive directions. Length Exploitation arises when the aggregated token-level objective creates length-dependent shortcuts, allowing the student to game the reward landscape through response truncation or redundant padding, exploring degenerate length modes rather than reasoning strategies. To tame these pathologies, we investigate lightweight signal regulations: advantage clipping and log-scale compression, ensuring exploration is guided by faithful signals. Experiments across seven benchmarks demonstrate that these regulations alleviate length exploitation and enable effective distillation, stably surpassing OPD variants and RLVR baselines, thereby confirming that well-regulated signal quality, rather than mere teacher scale, governs successful exploration in OPD.

On-policy distillation (OPD) and on-policy self-distillation (OPSD) have emerged as promising post-training methods for large language models, offering dense token-level supervision on trajectories sampled from the model's own policy. However, existing results on their effectiveness remain mixed: while OP(S)D has shown promise in system prompt and knowledge internalization, recent studies also report instability and degradation. In this work, we present a comprehensive empirical study of when OPD and OPSD work, when they fail, and why. We find that OPD on mathematical reasoning is highly sensitive to teacher choice and loss formulation, whereas OPSD fails in our tested settings due to test-time absence of instance-specific privileged information (PI). In contrast, OPSD is effective when PI represents a shared latent rule, such as a system prompt or alignment preference. We identify three failure mechanisms: (1) distribution mismatch between teacher and student caused by conditioning on student-generated prefixes, (2) optimization instability from biased TopK reverse-KL gradients, and (3) an OPSD-specific limitation where the student learns a PI-free policy that aggregates PI-conditioned teachers, which is insufficient when PI is instance-specific. We further show that stop-gradient TopK objectives, RLVR-adapted teachers, and SFT-stabilized students mitigate these failures.