On-policy distillation (OPD) transfers teacher capabilities by supervising trajectories sampled from the student's own policy, yet its generalization behavior remains poorly understood, as most studies evaluate OPD on a single domain and on benchmarks close to the training data. We present a controlled study that varies one generalization factor at a time, from in-domain distribution shifts to cross-domain transfer and the multi-teacher setting. We find that OPD transfers a teacher's reasoning behavior rather than its answers to particular problems: training difficulty barely matters, and even problems the teacher never solves are useful. Transfer depends strongly on the origin relationship between teacher and student: same-origin pairs bring the student close to the teacher across languages, reasoning horizons, and even other domains, whereas cross-origin pairs mostly fit the trained distribution. This broad reach is a double-edged sword: since routing prompts to domain experts cannot confine each teacher's influence, combining them yields a mixture-dependent seesaw among their capabilities. These results clarify when OPD generalizes and offer a useful perspective for diagnosing multi-teacher OPD.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: In-domain math accuracy (average over six English benchmarks) is insensitive to the difficulty of the training problems, measured by the teacher’s pass-rate. Each figure compares three BigMath subsets: easy (pass-rate =1 , teacher solves all four rollouts), hard (pass-rate =0 , teacher solves none), and random (randomly sampled from the whole set). The three subsets converge to nearly identical final accuracy across all teacher–student pairs.
Filtering Strategy
AMC2023
MATH500
AIME2025
AIME2026
BeyondAIME
OlymMATH-Hard
Average
Teacher: Polaris-7B, Student: DS-distill-1.5B
w/o dynamic sampling
80.4%
89.5%
30.2%
30.1%
13.6%
4.7%
41.4%
pass-rate =0
78.8%
90.1%
30.5%
30.0%
14.7%
4.4%
41.4%
pass-rate =1
79.9%
89.7%
30.9%
28.9%
14.7%
4.0%
41.4%
pass-rate ∈[0,1)
80.9%
89.8%
31.2%
31.1%
13.7%
5.4%
42.0% ( +0.6 pp )
Teacher: Light-R1-14B, Student: DS-distill-7B
Table 1: Generalization performance of OPD with student-side dynamic sampling across six math benchmarks. Discarding only the problems the student already solves (pass-rate ∈[0,1) ) gives the best average performance. Green/red mark per-benchmark gains/drops relative to the w.o. dynamic sampling baseline.
Figure 2: OPD trained only on English math problems generalizes to Chinese and long-horizon math benchmarks, but the size and stability of the gains depend on model origin. Each figure pairs a same-origin and a cross-origin teacher for the same student; dashed lines mark the teachers’ accuracy.
Figure 3: Cross-domain generalization in single-teacher OPD. For same-origin OPD, training on math prompts, trained student’s performance on science and code also approaches teacher’s performance and vice versa. For cross-origin OPD, cross-domain generalization is much worse: in (a) and (b) (LiveCodeBench evaluation results), the green curves (training on code prompts) are consistently and substantially higher than the blue curves (training on math prompts). Dashed lines mark the teachers’ standalone accuracy.
Figure 4: The MOPD seesaw effect . Changing the mixture ratio of different teachers’ allocated prompts significantly changes the OPD students’ capabilities in different domains. For example, in subfigure (a), student’s GPQA-Diamond (scientific reasoning), LiveCodeBench (code reasoning), and IF-Eval (instruction-following) performance gradually drops down as we increase the proportion of JustRL-1.5B (math teacher) data.
Config
BeyondAIME
OlymMATH
Average
DS-distill-1.5B
9.6%
14.2%
11.9% ( student )
Math Teacher: JustRL-1.5B, Science/IF Teacher: Nemotron-1.5B
J/N=25/2
19.4%
33.3%
26.4% ( +0.1 pp )
J/N=25/8
19.6%
34.5%
27.1% ( +0.8 pp )
J/N=1/1
20.2%
32.4%
26.3% ( baseline )
J/N=8/25
19.7%
32.5%
26.1% ( -0.2 pp )
Table 2: MOPD math accuracy for different JustRL-1.5B/Nemotron-1.5B mixture ratios (J/N).
Figure 5: A tug-of-war between the teachers can be observed during MOPD training. (a,b) highlighted red boxes show that the MOPD student’s performance first tracks the JustRL-only training curve and later drifts toward the Nemotron-only training curve , under both settings. (c) In cascaded OPD (one teacher then the other), GPQA performance rises sharply under the guidance of Nemotron-1.5B with science prompts and then drops back by the subsequent JustRL-1.5B with math prompts, decoupling the effect of multi-teacher in the temporal dimension.
Figure 6: Top-K (K=16) Overlap Ratio of the teacher and student models in different OPD experiments. In Figure (a) and (b), the student models are DS-distill-1.5B and DS-distill-7B, respectively. The solid lines refer to OPD experiments with same-origin teachers; the dashed lines refer to OPD experiments with different-origin teachers.
Figure 7: The MOPD experiment results of DS-distill-7B (student), Light-R1-7B (math teacher), and Light-R1-14B (science/IF teacher). The legends refer to the expert data mix ratio of different MOPD experiments (Light-R1-14B/Light-R1-7B ∈{1/0,1/1,8/25,4/25,2/25,0/1} ).
Figure 8: MOPD on DS-distill-7B (student) with Light-R1-14B as the math expert and Polaris-7B as the science/IF expert, evaluated on four math benchmarks (AMC2023, AIME2024 (Horizon 2), AIME2026, OlymMATH-en-easy). Solid lines are MOPD runs at math/science-IF data mix ratios Light-R1-14B/Polaris-7B ∈{8/25,1/1,25/8} ; the dashed orange line is single-teacher OPD with only the math expert Light-R1-14B; the dashed grey line marks the science/IF expert Polaris-7B’s own math accuracy.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Lineage Root
Post-Training from the Root
Experimental Role
DS-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B
Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B
SFT on DeepSeek-R1 traces
Student
JustRL-DeepSeek-1.5B
DS-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B
Math-oriented RL
Teacher
DeepScaleR-1.5B
DS-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B
Math-oriented RL
Teacher
Nemotron-Research-Reasoning-Qwen-1.5B
DS-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B
Multi-domain prolonged RL
Teacher
Dev-1.5B
DS-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B
10-step science/IF OPD
Student
OpenMath-Nemotron-1.5B
Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B
SFT on OpenMathReasoning
Teacher
Appendix
Table 3: Post-training lineages of the models used in our experiments. Models sharing the same lineage root are treated as same-origin.
Model Group
Maximum Length
Qwen3-4B, Qwen3-8B, Qwen3-32B, Polaris-4B
40K
DS-distill-1.5B, JustRL-1.5B, Nemotron-1.5B
96K
Light-R1-14B, DS-distill-14B
64K
Polaris-7B, DS-distill-7B
96K
Appendix
Table 4: Maximum sequence lengths used for OPD rollout and evaluation.
Benchmark
Metric
AMC 2023
Avg@16
MATH-500
Avg@1
AIME 2025
Avg@16
AIME 2026
Avg@16
BeyondAIME
Avg@5
OlymMATH-Hard
Avg@5
Appendix
Table 5: Number of independently sampled responses used for benchmark evaluation.
Figure 9: In-domain math performance (average over six English benchmarks) is largely insensitive to the difficulty of the training queries. Subfigure (a–c) training on the extremely easy GSM8K, the extremely hard DeepMath-103K, and the diverse BigMath mixture.
Figure 10: Additional generalization results across three teacher–student configurations.
Figure 11: Training on code and science domains and generalizing to math-related domains.
Figure 12: Training on instruction-following data and generalizing on math-related benchmarks.
Configuration
BeyondAIME
OlymMATH-e(en)
OlymMATH-e(zh)
OlymMATH-h
AIME24-n2
Average
DS-distill-1.5B
9.6%
14.2%
11.2%
3.2%
6.0%
8.8%
JustRL-1.5B
19.0%
32.6%
23.0%
5.7%
16.3%
19.3%
Nemotron-1.5B
17.6%
29.2%
16.6%
5.6%
14.3%
16.7%
Math Teacher: JustRL-1.5B, science/IF Teacher: Nemotron-1.5B, Student: DS-distill-1.5B
JustRL/Nemotron=25/0
19.0%
32.6%
23.0%
5.7%
16.3%
19.3% ( +0.2 pp )
JustRL/Nemotron=25/2
19.4%
33.3%
23.0%
5.9%
14.1%
19.1% ( +0.0 pp )
Appendix
Table 6: MOPD performance comparison across five mathematical reasoning benchmarks (training step 200).
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.
Siqi Zhu, Xuyan Ye, Hongyu Lu +2
1UIUC · 2Renmin University of China · †Work done during an internship at UIUC. +1
On-policy distillation (OPD) accelerates post-training by providing dense token-level supervision from a frozen teacher on the student's own rollouts. Vanilla OPD applies this supervision uniformly across prompts, without checking whether the teacher is reliable for each prompt. Because reverse KL is mode-seeking, a confidently wrong teacher can induce a strong yet misleading update. Distributional proxies, such as entropy or teacher-student likelihood agreement, measure uncertainty or agreement but do not directly verify outcome correctness. We introduce Teacher-Gated On-Policy Distillation (TGOPD), built on the principle that teacher reliability should be verified at the prompt level before dense supervision is admitted. TGOPD estimates reliability from a small set of verifier-scored teacher probes and routes each prompt exclusively to dense OPD when the reliability check passes or to verifier-grounded GRPO otherwise. Across 4B and 35B students in mathematics, code, and instruction following, TGOPD outperforms Vanilla OPD in all six single-domain settings and achieves higher seven-benchmark averages at both scales under multi-domain training. By using otherwise-idle teacher capacity for reliability estimation, TGOPD also reduces teacher-side compute waste in asynchronous OPD, increasing teacher-node GPU utilization from 9.8% to 78.9% in the measured 4B single-domain run.
On-policy distillation (OPD) has recently emerged as an effective post-training paradigm for consolidating the capabilities of specialized expert models into a single student model. Despite its empirical success, the conditions under which OPD yields reliable improvement remain poorly understood. In this work, we identify two fundamental bottlenecks that limit effective OPD: insufficient exploration of informative states and unreliable teacher supervision for student rollouts. Building on this insight, we propose Uni-OPD, a unified OPD framework that generalizes across Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), centered on a dual-perspective optimization strategy. Specifically, from the student's perspective, we adopt two data balancing strategies to promote exploration of informative student-generated states during training. From the teacher's perspective, we show that reliable supervision hinges on whether aggregated token-level guidance remains order-consistent with the outcome reward. To this end, we develop an outcome-guided margin calibration mechanism to restore order consistency between correct and incorrect trajectories. We conduct extensive experiments on 5 domains and 16 benchmarks covering diverse settings, including single-teacher and multi-teacher distillation across LLMs and MLLMs, strong-to-weak distillation, and cross-modal distillation. Our results verify the effectiveness and versatility of Uni-OPD and provide practical insights into reliable OPD.
Wenjin Hou, Shangpin Peng, Weinong Wang +13
1Zhejiang University · 2Shenzhen Loop Area Institute · 3LLM Department, Tencent