Distillation is common in LLM post-training, where on-policy knowledge distillation (OPKD) uses student-generated trajectories to prepare the student for downstream RL. At each state, the student matches a next-token distribution supplied by the teacher. As the rollout enters states the teacher would not visit, the teacher-student distribution gap can accumulate. In tool use, this gap becomes consequential because student-written calls execute before supervision and their observations shape later prefixes. Proposer-verifier generation addresses this drift by letting the teacher decide which student-proposed text is retained during generation. Existing formulations govern text but leave tool execution outside their scope. We propose Persistent Teacher Anchoring (PTA), a student-induced but teacher-committed rollout construction. PTA retains chunk-level verification and adds turn-level commitment, allowing a call to reach the environment only after the teacher has verified the entire turn. Treating verified chunks as atomic generation units, we introduce persistent lookahead, which fills idle rollout capacity by advancing future samples and carrying unfinished ones across student updates under the fixed verifier. Across Search-R1-style retrieval and DeepEyes-style perception RL, applying PTA before downstream RL improves macro best@4 by 2.5 and 2.8 points over OPKD under the same downstream RL budget, while lookahead improves throughput by 24%.
Figures & tables
Method
Proposal unit
Rejection trigger
Stage
Decision reaches
Speculative decoding ( Leviathan et al., 2023 )
chunk
probability ratio (lossless)
decoding
text
BiLD ( Kim et al., 2023 )
token
confidence or disagreement
decoding
text
RSD ( Liao et al., 2025 )
reasoning step
step reward below threshold
decoding
text
SWITCH ( Koo et al., 2025 )
token
teacher-student divergence
training
text
SKD ( Xu et al., 2025 )
chunk
outside teacher top- K
training
text
SCoRe ( Lyu et al., 2026 )
full trajectory
teacher-identified error
training
text
Table 1: Proposer-verifier generation methods. A weaker model proposes and a stronger model decides what is kept. The text-only formulations define no execution event, which is what PTA supplies (Section 3.2 ).
Figure 1: Overview of the PTA rollout. (a) SKD applied directly to a tool runtime, without a separate commitment rule: unverified tool calls reach the environment, and returned observations fall inside the verification span. (b) PTA separates chunk-level verification from turn-level commitment, so that tool execution is triggered only after a committed turn.
Figure 2: Schematic of synchronous and lookahead scheduling over the same wall-clock interval. Ticks mark completion of the current-step batch. In (b), one lookahead sample is promoted before the boundary, another becomes carryover and resumes after the actor update, and a fresh sample fills the remaining slot in the next batch. The carryover cut occurs only at an atomic state boundary.
Table 4
VStar
HRBench4K
HRBench8K
Setting
mean@4
best@4
mean@4
best@4
mean@4
best@4
OPKD
57.85
78.53
61.00
64.00
54.63
58.00
PTA
61.13
81.15
64.00
68.50
57.88
65.00
PTA without tool-call replacement
50.00
70.68
55.50
58.00
48.13
50.50
Table 4: Pre-RL alignment checkpoints in the perception-mediated environment.
Figure 3: Top-N stability diagnostics over an early training window.
Setting
Promoted
Throughput
synchronous
0.0
0.519
lookahead
20.2
0.644
Table 5: Lookahead scheduling efficiency.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Metric
Base
Direct RL
OPKD + RL
PTA + RL
VStar results
VStar mean@4
59.03
61.65
59.55
64.53
VStar best@4
75.39
73.30
80.10
78.01
V-DA mean@4
57.39
60.00
58.91
65.65
V-DA best@4
71.30
69.57
74.78
73.91
V-RP mean@4
61.51
64.14
60.53
62.83
Appendix
Table 6: Full perception-mediated reasoning results.
Benchmark
n
Δ
z
p
NQ
3,610
+0.41
0.38
0.70
PopQA
14,267
+1.61
2.86
0.004
HotpotQA
7,405
−0.15
−0.22
0.83
Musique
2,417
+2.73
3.23
0.001
VStar
191
+4.98
1.00
0.32
HRBench4K
800
+4.38
1.83
0.067
Appendix
Table 7: Benchmark-level mean@4 differences between PTA + RL and OPKD + RL, with the number of evaluation questions n . Δ is in percentage points.
Statistic
Retr.
Perc.
Committed assistant tokens retaining the student proposal
90.5
88.4
Tokens within tool-call spans retaining the student proposal
99.5
93.0
Tool calls containing at least one replacement
8.9
84.7
Appendix
Table 8: Verifier acceptance and correction rates, in percent, aggregated over the training logs of the alignment runs used in the paper.
Figure 4: Verifier behavior over the first 150 training steps. (a) Fraction of student-proposed tokens that the verifier keeps. (b) Fraction of chunks in which at least one token is replaced. (c) Number of chunks accumulated per sample, each of which corresponds to one call to the teacher verifier in Algorithm 1 . Light lines are per-step values and solid lines are a nine-step moving average.
We study on-policy distillation (OPD) for agentic tasks, where an LLM agent interacts with an environment over multiple turns and a student imitates a teacher over these multi-turn interaction histories. Fully online OPD is costly because each update requires fresh student rollouts through the environment and teacher queries at visited histories. We propose Replayed-Prefix On-Policy Distillation (ReOPD), an off-environment alternative that reuses pre-collected teacher trajectories as replayed prefixes: the student acts at selected steps, while the teacher provides dense per-step supervision without executing new environment interactions. We show that multi-turn OPD introduces a prefix trap: making histories more student-on-policy improves relevance to the student, but can query the teacher on histories where its target is unreliable. This creates a two-sided distribution shift between student occupancy and teacher reliability. ReOPD addresses this by treating multi-turn OPD as a reliability-aware prefix distribution design and implements it with a simple step-decaying sampling schedule that emphasizes early, lower-shift prefixes. Across mathematical reasoning with Python and search environments over multiple teacher and student model scales, ReOPD preserves or improves OPD-level accuracy, uses zero tool calls during student training, and is at least 4× faster per rollout than OPD. ReOPD therefore turns expensive agent-environment interaction into a reusable offline resource, enabling scalable distillation across tools, tasks, and environments.
On-policy distillation (OPD) enhances the capabilities of small language agents by providing dense, token-level supervision from a teacher model on student-generated trajectories. However, standard OPD implicitly assumes that credit is uniformly distributed across long-horizon trajectories, assigning the same strength of teacher supervision to different actions. Through credit-distribution analysis and outcome-reversal counterfactual experiments, we find that trajectory credit is concentrated on a small number of critical actions. Moreover, even when the trajectory is held fixed, reversing only the final outcome substantially changes the credit assigned to multiple interaction turns. These findings show that the uniform-credit assumption fails to identify critical decisions and ultimately degrades the model's reasoning accuracy. To address these challenges, we propose ToolOPD, an outcome-aware on-policy distillation framework designed for long-horizon tool use. ToolOPD first summarizes each completed trajectory and its outcome into a reusable hindsight skill. It then measures how this skill changes the teacher's probability of each student action token and converts the change into outcome-aware credit. The resulting credit preserves supervision that supports successful decisions or discourages failed ones, while suppressing irrelevant and conflicting signals. ToolOPD uses these credits to reweight the action-level distillation loss and jointly optimizes it with reinforcement learning. Extensive experiments across multiple long-horizon tool interaction benchmarks demonstrate that ToolOPD significantly outperforms existing reinforcement learning and self-distillation baselines.
Agentic language models must learn when to call tools, when to consume tool responses, and when to answer directly. This makes multi-teacher on-policy distillation a natural training strategy: one teacher can specialize in tool calls, another in direct responses, and the student can learn from both on its own generated distribution. We show that this strategy can induce a behavior shift that is invisible from aggregate losses alone. In a two-teacher tool-use setting, vanilla generalized knowledge distillation improves tool-call recall but also moves the model toward over-calling, where it calls tools on examples that should be answered directly. Aggregate explanations are insufficient: tool-call samples do not receive more token exposure, and full-sequence per-token divergence is not larger for the tool-call teacher. We instead analyze behavior leverage imbalance: local token-level signals at mode- entry and structural positions, such as <tool_call> and function names, can have disproportionate control over the global generation mode. We propose Soft Clamp, a per-token divergence calibration method that dynamically compresses extreme token-level Jensen-Shannon divergence while preserving nonzero gradients. On APIGen-MT, Soft Clamp reduces over-calling from 13.7% to 9.0% relative to vanilla GKD while matching its decision accuracy. In a BFCL multi-turn diagnostic, it also lowers tool-call loops and repeated calls among GKD variants. These results suggest that multi-teacher OPD should monitor where teacher signals act, not only how large they are in aggregate.