Large reasoning models achieve strong performance on complex tasks through long chain-of-thought (CoT) trajectories, but directly transferring such reasoning processes to smaller models remains challenging. A key difficulty is that not all teacher-generated reasoning trajectories are suitable for student learning. Existing approaches typically rely on post-hoc filtering, selecting trajectories after full generation based on heuristic criteria. However, such methods cannot control the generation process itself and may still produce reasoning paths that lie outside the student's learning capacity. To address this limitation, we propose Gen-SSD (Generation-time Self-Selection Distillation), a student-in-the-loop framework that performs generation-time selection. Instead of passively consuming complete trajectories, the student evaluates candidate continuations during the teacher's sampling process, guiding the expansion of only learnable reasoning paths and enabling early pruning of unhelpful branches. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that Gen-SSD consistently outperforms standard knowledge distillation and recent baselines, with improvements of around 5.9 points over Standard KD and up to 4.7 points over other baselines. Further analysis shows that Gen-SSD produces more stable and learnable reasoning trajectories, highlighting the importance of incorporating supervision during generation for effective distillation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison between standard KD and our proposed Gen-SSD.
Figure 2: Overview of Gen-SSD. The student actively participates in the teacher’s multi-sample generation process. At each chunk, the student evaluates candidate continuations with PPL and selects the fragments best aligned with its capability, thereby influencing the teacher’s sampling trajectory. For unsuitable candidates, generation is terminated early, which reduces inference cost and improves sampling efficiency.
Method
AIME25
AIME24
AMC23
OlympiadBench
GSM8K
Avg ↑
Teacher
49.79
67.50
91.09
66.91
94.20
73.90
Student
0.83
3.33
19.06
15.73
38.74
15.54
Cold Start
3.75
0.42
19.53
16.17
51.63
18.30
Standard KD
7.08
7.08
35.00
24.78
71.11
29.01
Self-Distillation
2.71
2.71
29.53
22.55
63.76
24.25
MCC-KD
5.21
5.63
35.47
27.15
77.79
30.25
Table 1: Performance comparison across various benchmarks. We adopt QwQ-32B as the teacher model and Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B as the student model. Best results are bolded. The chunk size for the Gen-SSD is 4K. All models are evaluated in a zero-shot setting, except for the student model, which is evaluated with two-shot prompting.
Method
PPL ↓
Token length ↓
MoRSD
2.46
6139.10
Gen-SSD
1.57
5049.60
Table 2: Comparison between Gen-SSD and MoRSD in terms of student PPL and token length.
Method
AIME25
AIME24
AMC23
OlympiadBench
GSM8K
Avg ↑
Cold Start
3.75
0.42
19.53
16.17
51.63
18.30
w/o cold-start
6.25
6.88
34.84
28.64
68.84
29.09
w/ cold-start
10.00
10.21
41.88
30.71
81.88
34.94
Table 3: Comparison under settings with and without cold-start initialization.
Figure 3: Average performance of Gen-SSD across benchmarks under different chunk sizes. Detailed results are provided in Table 9 in the appendix.
Figure 7
Setting
AIME25
AIME24
AMC23
OlympiadBench
GSM8K
Avg ↑
High PPL
7.08
4.37
34.06
25.82
68.39
27.94
Random PPL
9.58
7.92
35.78
28.64
74.75
31.33
Low PPL
10.00
10.21
41.88
30.71
81.88
34.94
Table 4: Comparison of three PPL-based data selection strategies, demonstrating the superiority of low-PPL data. The experimental setting follows Table 1 .
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
Value
Learning Rate
2×10−5
Number of Epochs
5
Number of Devices
4
Batch Size
32
Optimizer
AdamW
Learning Rate Scheduler
cosine
Appendix
Table 5: The hyperparameters used for fine-tuning.
Setting
Time ↓
Accuracy ↑
1K
16 candidates
35.46
31.22
Decreasing sampling
28.20
31.73
4K
16 candidates
34.22
33.66
Decreasing sampling
31.59
34.94
Appendix
Table 6: Comparison results. Accuracy is computed as the average performance over the five benchmarks in Table 1 . The best scores are bolded.
Method
AIME25
AIME24
AMC23
OlympiadBench
GSM8K
Avg ↑
Standard KD*
7.92
6.46
38.12
26.85
78.24
31.52
Gen-SSD*
10.00
6.88
44.37
31.01
82.26
34.90
Cold Start
6.04
4.79
29.06
24.93
65.96
26.16
Standard KD
9.58
7.50
37.97
30.56
77.41
32.60
Gen-SSD
9.79
8.96
45.16
32.49
84.84
36.25
Appendix
Table 7: Performance comparison across various benchmarks with closed-source teacher models. The highest scores are bolded. Here, * indicates direct distillation on Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B without the cold-start stage.
Method
MBPP
ARC-C
StrategyQA
CommonsenseQA
Average ↑
Standard KD
20.03
38.65
63.23
41.66
40.89
MCC-KD
17.76
38.14
64.37
40.67
40.24
MoRSD
22.07
38.91
64.93
40.43
41.59
Gen-SSD
21.36
39.68
65.68
42.07
42.20
Appendix
Table 8: Evaluation results on MBPP, ARC-C, StrategyQA, and CommonsenseQA, demonstrating generalization beyond mathematical reasoning. The best scores are bolded.
Method
AIME25
AIME24
AMC23
OlympiadBench
GSM8K
Avg ↑
Standard KD*
4.37
3.75
33.28
23.29
69.52
26.84
Gen-SSD
512
8.33
6.04
33.59
26.71
74.53
29.84
1K
8.54
6.25
37.5
28.19
78.17
31.73
2K
7.50
6.67
40.78
27.60
74.37
31.38
4K
10.00
10.21
41.88
30.71
81.88
34.94
Appendix
Table 9: Benchmarks performance of Gen-SSD with varying chunk sizes, compared against Standard KD as the baseline. Best results are bolded. Here, * indicates direct distillation on Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B without the cold-start stage.
Method
AIME25
AIME24
AMC23
OlympiadBench
GSM8K
Avg ↑
R1-7B
Standard KD*
7.92
8.33
38.91
26.26
76.27
31.54
Gen-SSD
10.83
9.79
41.88
31.16
82.56
35.24
R1-14B
Standard KD*
10.21
6.88
37.81
26.41
77.10
31.68
Gen-SSD
12.08
9.17
45.31
30.71
80.52
35.56
Appendix
Table 10: Comparison of Standard KD and Gen-SSD using R1-7B/14B/32B as teacher models. The highest scores are bolded. Here, * indicates direct distillation on Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B without the cold-start stage.
Figure 6: Comparison of PPL trends between Gen-SSD and MoRSD.
Language model distillation transfers a larger model’s capabilities to smaller or specialized models using outputs, probabilities, or internal representations.
Recent advances in large reasoning models (LRMs) have shown strong performance on complex problems through long chain-of-thought (Long CoT) reasoning. However, distilling such trajectories into smaller student models remains challenging: direct Long CoT supervision often provides limited gains and can be less effective than concise Short CoT rationales. In this work, we investigate this phenomenon from a gradient-centric perspective. Our analysis shows that Long CoT induces larger gradient magnitudes and more concentrated update directions than Short CoT, with this effect becoming more pronounced as student model capacity increases. These findings suggest that effective Long CoT distillation requires balancing the reasoning information density of reasoning trajectories with their distributional alignment to the student model. Motivated by this insight, we propose Model Interporlation Distillation (MI-Distillation), a framework that constructs a continuous Instruct-Reasoning data spectrum through model interpolation. To select suitable trajectories from this spectrum, we further introduce Sequential Learnable Surprisal Score (SeqLSS), which favors reasoning paths that are both informative and learnable for the student. Extensive experiments on reasoning benchmarks show that MI-Distillation consistently improves small model CoT distillation over strong Long CoT baselines.
Yangsong Lan, Renkai Hu, HongKai Zheng +4
College of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China · 2The Key Laboratory of Brain-Machine Intelligence Technology, Ministry of Education, Nanjing, China
Knowledge Distillation (KD) can transfer the reasoning abilities of large models to smaller ones, which can reduce the costs to generate Chain-of-Thoughts for reasoning tasks. KD methods typically ask the student to mimic the teacher's distribution over the entire output. However, a student with limited capacity can be overwhelmed by such extensive supervision causing a distribution mismatch, especially in complex reasoning tasks. We propose Token-Selective Dual Knowledge Distillation (TSD-KD), a framework for student-centric distillation. TSD-KD focuses on distilling important tokens for reasoning and encourages the student to explain reasoning in its own words. TSD-KD combines indirect and direct distillation. Indirect distillation uses a weak form of feedback based on preference ranking. The student proposes candidate responses generated on its own; the teacher re-ranks those candidates as indirect feedback without enforcing its entire distribution. Direct distillation uses distribution matching; however, it selectively distills tokens based on the relative confidence between teacher and student. Finally, we add entropy regularization to maintain the student's confidence during distillation. Overall, our method provides the student with targeted and indirect feedback to support its own reasoning process and to facilitate self-improvement. The experiments show the state-of-the-art performance of TSD-KD on 10 challenging reasoning benchmarks, outperforming the baseline and runner-up in accuracy by up to 54.4% and 40.3%, respectively. Notably, a student trained by TSD-KD even outperformed its own teacher model in four cases by up to 20.3%. The source code is available at https://github.com/kmswin1/TSD-KD.
Knowledge distillation from large reasoning models (LRMs) often uses raw teacher trajectories as supervision. However, this practice creates a mismatch between the goal of distillation and the nature of teacher trajectories. Advanced LRMs typically improve their reasoning capabilities through reward-driven post-training, such as RLHF. This training optimizes them as strong solvers, rather than as teachers that produce reasoning processes smaller models can easily learn. Since smaller models have different "cognitive capacities" compared to their larger teachers, directly imitating raw teacher trajectories can sometimes be ineffective and often requires a substantial number of high-quality samples. To bridge this mismatch, we propose Cognition-Aligned Reasoning Distillation (CARD), an RL-based framework that transforms solver trajectories into teaching trajectories aligned with the student's cognition. Avoiding expensive resampling, our framework directly transforms existing trajectories. We optimize CARD with two reward signals: (1) a Distribution Alignment Reward that matches the student's predictive distribution, and (2) a Logical Coherence Reward that reduces misleading failed reasoning steps. Comprehensive evaluations across multiple student models and settings demonstrate that CARD outperforms distillation from raw teacher trajectories in in-domain settings while achieving substantial gains in out-of-distribution performance. Code is available at https://github.com/LiteSSLHub/CARD.
Yashuo Luo, Qianren Mao, Ziqi Qin +6
National College for Excellent Engineers, Beihang University · Zhongguancun Laboratory · Beihang University +3