Many LLM training and inference methods, including RL and test-time scaling, depend on repeated sampling, but benefit only when the responses meaningfully differ. Self-training faces the same challenge: training data is typically constructed by sampling IID responses and filtering primarily for correctness, thereby overrepresenting strategies a model already favours. We investigate strategic diversity, or substantive variation among approaches to a problem, as an alternative principle for constructing self-training data. We generate strategically diverse data with two sampling methods: GROOT, a new method which constructs a hierarchical tree of approaches and samples distinct paths, and Verbalized Sampling (VS), adapted to produce an unstructured set of approaches. Across competitive programming and Next-Chapter Prediction domains, models trained on strategically sampled data outperform IID-trained counterparts on difficult tasks and provide strong initializations for RL and test-time scaling. Most strikingly, self-training on strategically diverse but incorrect traces from Qwen3-4B outperforms IID distillation from a 235B teacher. These results challenge prevailing assumptions about what makes useful self-training data and show that diversity of approaches can matter more than correctness or teacher scale.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Generating strategically diverse training data. All methods sample from the base model at the same budget. IID sampling draws n independent solutions and keeps the correct ones. Groot generates a tree of strategies and samples n root-to-leaf paths; VS directly proposes n approaches with their probabilities. Each approach is passed back as a hidden instruction to produce a solution. Trained models are evaluated with pass@ k , test-time scaling, and RL.
Code
NCP
Method
4
8
64
5%
10%
15%
IID
0 42
0 77
312
1,921
631
156
IID ( T=1.5 )
0 60
106
379
5,326
3,545
1,495
Groot
155
240
—
2,775
1,077
286
Groot ( T=1.5 )
158
243
—
5,366
3,474
1,505
VS
137
217
—
2,835
1,127
321
Table 1: Qwen3-4B sampling results. Code: number of 1,833 Cobalt training-frontier problems solved at least once at each sampling budget. NCP: number of 6,295 training sections with >0 of 16 plans reaching each perplexity-improvement threshold. Every row is over the same sections, the ones all six sampling runs cover.
Method
Cobalt
LiveCodeBench
OJBench
Macro-Avg
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
Base
0.5/3.6/21.9
0.2/1.3/7.4
0.1/0.5/2.9
0.2/0.9/5.2
IID-4
0.7/4.9/19.8
0.2/1.5/7.0
0.1/0.7/3.5
0.2/1.1/5.2
IID-4 ( T=1.5 )
1.0/6.5/22.4
0.5/3.2/10.8
0.1/1.0/5.2
0.3/2.1/8.0
IID-64
1.0/6.3/21.5
0.4/2.5/8.7
0.1/1.0/4.4
0.2/1.8/6.5
IID-64 ( T=1.5 )
1.5/7.4/23.0
0.4/2.8/10.7
0.2/1.4/5.2
0.3/2.1/7.9
Table 2: Code pass@ k for Qwen3-4B-Instruct on frontier subsets (problems solved by the base model ≤2 of 64 times). Cobalt is in-distribution; LiveCodeBench and OJBench are held out, with Macro-Avg averaging them. Suffix - n denotes responses sampled per problem (e.g., Groot -4 uses four). Models use RFT unless marked ANTI, which retains only incorrect responses. Bold marks the best value per column; full test-set results, additional datasets, and budgets appear in Appendix A.2 .
Figure 2: Qwen3-4B. (a) NCP coverage of test sections at the 15% improvement threshold as the number of sampled plans k increases. (b) Best-so-far pass@8 on the Cobalt validation frontier during RL from each budget-4 RFT model, mean and standard error over three seeds; IID-based models need many steps to reach where the strategic models ( Groot , VS ) begin.
Method
Cobalt
LiveCodeBench
OJBench
Macro-Avg
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
IID-4 (self)
0.7/5.2/20.5
0.3/1.9/8.2
0.1/0.7/3.3
0.2/1.3/5.8
IID-4 (teacher)
4.6/16.7/39.3
1.1/6.9/19.1
0.3/2.1/7.6
0.7/4.5/13.4
GROOT-4 (self)
4.8/18.5/39.5
2.4/11.3/25.0
1.8/7.3/ 15.2
2.1/9.3/20.1
GROOT-4 (teacher)
5.0/19.4/ 40.3
1.8/9.3/20.5
1.4/6.7/15.0
1.6/8.0/17.8
VS-4 (self)
5.5 / 19.6 / 40.3
3.1 / 13.6 / 30.8
2.1 / 7.6 /14.7
2.6 / 10.6 / 22.8
Table 3: Frontier-set pass@ k with teacher- versus self-generated training data. Teacher data uses Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct for both approaches and solutions; self-generated data uses the 4B student. In all cases the trained model is Qwen3-4B-Instruct, with sampling budget 4 and a 16k token cap (increased from 8k due to truncation in teacher-trained models). Full test sets, budget 8, and 8k-cap results are in Appendix A.4 .
Table 6
Method
Cobalt
LiveCodeBench
OJBench
Macro-Avg
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
Base
0 0.5 /
0 3.6 /
21.9
0 0.2 /
0 1.3 /
0 7.4
0 0.1 /
0 0.5 /
0 2.9
0 0.2 /
0 0.9 /
0 5.2
+RL
0 4.5 /
13.9 /
29.3
0 1.1 /
0 5.9 /
15.3
0 0.4 /
0 2.4 /
0 7.5
0 0.8 /
0 4.1 /
11.4
IID-4
0 0.7 /
0 4.9 /
19.8
0 0.2 /
0 1.5 /
0 7.0
0 0.1 /
0 0.7 /
0 3.5
0 0.2 /
0 1.1 /
0 5.2
+RL
0 5.5 /
17.3 /
36.6
0 1.1 /
0 6.0 /
15.4
0 0.4 /
0 2.0 /
0 6.4
0 0.7 /
0 4.0 /
10.9
GROOT-4
0 3.5 /
14.1 /
30.5
0 1.5 /
0 8.0 /
19.5
0 1.2 /
0 5.3 /
11.5
0 1.4 /
0 6.7 /
15.5
Table 6: Qwen3-4B frontier-subset performance after RL from each budget-4 initialization; the full test sets are in Appendix A.5 . For each arm the first row is the student before RL and the second the mean over three RL runs of the checkpoints selected by validation pass@8. We report pass@1 / pass@8 / pass@64; Macro-Avg is the mean of the two held-out benchmarks, LiveCodeBench and OJBench. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Appendix figures & tables28 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Cobalt
LiveCodeBench
OJBench
Macro-Avg
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
Full dataset
Base
11.4/32.4/52.2
23.1/38.2/50.4
3.2/6.6/10.5
13.2/22.4/30.4
IID-4
12.9/33.7/51.8
23.4/37.5/49.0
3.3/7.0/11.5
13.3/22.2/30.2
IID-8
15.4 /38.0/55.2
26.7 /40.8/52.5
3.9/8.8/16.5
15.3 /24.8/34.5
IID-64
13.1/33.9/52.5
24.1/38.9/51.9
3.5/7.5/12.5
13.8/23.2/32.2
Appendix
Table 7: Nemotron3-Nano-4B: code pass@ k on the full test sets and on the Nemotron base model’s own frontier (519 problems, 428 shared with the Qwen frontier); Nemotron and Qwen numbers are not comparable in absolute terms. We report pass@1/8/64; Macro-Avg is the mean of the two held-out benchmarks, LiveCodeBench and OJBench. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Figure 3: Nemotron3 Nano-4B: best-so-far pass@8 on its validation frontier set during RL training from each budget-4 model, mean and standard error over three seeds.
Method
Cobalt
LiveCodeBench
OJBench
Macro-Avg
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
Full dataset
Base
11.4/32.4/52.2
23.1/38.2/50.4
3.2/6.6/10.5
13.2/22.4/30.4
+RL
27.7/57.5/73.6
35.4/51.9/62.4
9.9/21.0/30.1
22.6/36.5/46.3
IID-4
12.9/33.7/51.8
23.4/37.5/49.0
3.3/7.0/11.5
13.3/22.2/30.2
+RL
30.2/58.7/73.7
38.9 / 55.6 /65.6
11.0 / 22.8 / 31.5
25.0 / 39.3 / 48.5
Appendix
Table 8: Nemotron3-Nano-4B competitive programming: test performance after RL from each initialization, mean over three RL runs. We report pass@1/8/64; Macro-Avg is the mean of the two held-out benchmarks, LiveCodeBench and OJBench. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Full test set
Frontier ( ≤2/64 )
Method
Cobalt
LiveCodeBench
OJBench
Cobalt
LiveCodeBench
OJBench
Base
0 8.0 → 21.9
21.0 → 28.2
0 2.6 → 0 7.7
0 0.3 → 0 3.9
0 0.3 → 0 2.2
0 0.1 → 0 3.5
IID-4
10.7 → 23.8
21.9 → 29.9
0 2.9 → 0 9.1
0 0.6 → 0 4.8
0 0.3 → 0 0.9
0 0.1 → 0 4.1
IID-8
13.6 → 26.7
25.9 → 32.5
0 3.6 → 0 9.3
0 1.0 → 0 5.5
0 0.6 → 0 2.8
0 0.3 → 0 4.4
Groot -4
11.5 → 22.8
23.4 → 28.8
0 4.4 → 0 8.0
0 1.4 → 0 4.3
0 0.6 → 0 2.4
0 1.1 → 0 3.8
Groot -8
11.3 → 22.7
22.7 → 28.1
0 3.7 → 0 7.3
0 1.0 → 0 4.2
0 0.6 → 0 2.3
0 0.7 → 0 3.0
Appendix
Table 9: Nemotron3-Nano-4B competitive programming: RSA pass@1 before and after ten aggregation iterations (population size 16), mean over three runs; bold marks the best final value in each column.
Code
NCP
Method
4
8
64
5%
10%
15%
IID
52
97
424
5,375
2,807
0 915
Groot
115
197
—
5,725
3,340
1,140
VS
137
233
—
5,707
3,286
1,172
Appendix
Table 10: Nemotron3-Nano-4B sampling results. Code: Cobalt training-frontier problems solved at least once at each sampling budget; the frontier is defined relative to Nemotron3-Nano-4B, so it is a different problem set from the one in Table 1 . NCP: number of 6,754 training sections with >0 of 16 plans reaching each perplexity-improvement threshold. Every row is over the same sections, the ones all three sampling runs cover.
Method
5%
10%
15%
k=16
k=64
k=16
k=64
k=16
k=64
Base (no distill)
74.9
86.7
37.4
51.4
11.1
18.6
IID
72.3
83.9
34.6
48.0
10.4
17.1
Groot
82.8
91.0
45.3
59.5
14.6
23.4
VS
81.4
90.8
43.6
57.7
14.2
22.6
Appendix
Table 11: Nemotron3-Nano-4B NCP coverage (%) of test sections at three perplexity-improvement thresholds, for Nemotron3-Nano-4B trained on plans clearing a 20% threshold at a sampling budget of 8. Coverage is over the same 1,430 test sections for every row. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Method
Cobalt
LiveCodeBench
OJBench
Macro-Avg
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
Full dataset
Base
11.4/32.4/52.2
23.1/38.2/50.4
3.2/6.6/10.5
13.2/22.4/30.4
IID-4 (self)
12.9/33.7/51.8
23.4/37.5/49.0
3.3/7.0/11.5
13.3/22.2/30.2
IID-4 (teacher)
13.0/35.6/55.8
23.6/38.7/51.4
3.9/9.1/16.7
13.8/23.9/34.0
GROOT-4 (self)
13.2/36.0/56.7
25.6/41.9/55.8
5.0/12.5/22.0
15.3/27.2/38.9
Appendix
Table 12: Nemotron3-Nano-4B distilled from a larger teacher: code pass@ k on the full test sets and on the frontier subsets, which are defined relative to Nemotron3-Nano-4B. Each method appears twice, distilled from the 4B teacher and from the larger teacher (Nemotron3-Super-120B-A12B-BF16), with the generation budget and all other settings held fixed so that only the teacher changes. We report pass@1/8/64; Macro-Avg is the mean of the two held-out benchmarks, LiveCodeBench and OJBench. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Method
Cobalt
LiveCodeBench
OJBench
Macro-Avg
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
Full dataset
Base
16.0/39.4/56.7
34.3 /44.0/50.3
9.3 /14.8/18.3
21.8 /29.4/34.3
IID-4
15.0/37.9/55.1
34.0/43.4/50.0
8.8/14.6/18.4
21.4/29.0/34.2
IID-8
15.1/38.1/55.5
33.9/43.3/50.1
9.0/14.6/18.3
21.4/28.9/34.2
IID-64
16.2/39.6/55.7
33.9/43.7/50.8
9.2/14.8/19.1
21.5/29.2/35.0
Appendix
Table 13: Qwen3-4B code pass@ k at sampling budgets 4 and 8, and for an equal mix of the Groot -4 and VS -4 datasets (MIX-8). We report pass@1/8/64; Macro-Avg is the mean of the two held-out benchmarks, LiveCodeBench and OJBench. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Method
Cobalt
LiveCodeBench
OJBench
Macro-Avg
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
Full dataset
Base
16.0/39.4/56.7
34.3/44.0/50.3
9.3/14.8/18.3
21.8/29.4/34.3
IID-4 RFT
15.0/37.9/55.1
34.0/43.4/50.0
8.8/14.6/18.4
21.4/29.0/34.2
IID-4 SFT
15.3/38.6/55.0
33.8/43.7/50.9
9.3/14.9/18.8
21.5/29.3/34.9
IID-4 ANTI
15.5/38.7/55.1
34.1/43.5/49.9
9.0/14.6/18.9
21.6/29.1/34.4
Appendix
Table 14: Qwen3-4B competitive programming: RFT (correct responses only), SFT (all responses) and ANTI (incorrect responses only) at sampling budgets 4 and 8, trained on the same sampled datasets; IID-64 at T=1.5 is the strongest IID dataset. We report pass@1/8/64; Macro-Avg is the mean of the two held-out benchmarks, LiveCodeBench and OJBench. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Method
Cobalt
LiveCodeBench
OJBench
Macro-Avg
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
Full dataset
Base
16.0/39.4/56.7
34.3/44.0/50.3
9.3/14.8/18.3
21.8/29.4/34.3
IID-4
15.0/37.9/55.1
34.0/43.4/50.0
8.8/14.6/18.4
21.4/29.0/34.2
IID-4 ( T=1.5 )
17.2/41.1/56.8
34.7 /44.9/52.1
9.6 /15.2/20.1
22.2 /30.0/36.1
IID-8
15.1/38.1/55.5
33.9/43.3/50.1
9.0/14.6/18.3
21.4/28.9/34.2
Appendix
Table 15: Competitive programming. Effect of the sampling temperature used to create the Qwen3-4B training data, on the IID models and on the structured Groot -4 and VS -4 datasets. We report pass@1/8/64; Macro-Avg is the mean of the two held-out benchmarks, LiveCodeBench and OJBench. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Figure 4: Unique problems solved by Qwen3-4B on the 1,833-problem Cobalt training frontier at a sampling budget of four. Left: IID sampling by temperature (mean of three runs). Right: Groot and VS by planner and solver temperature (mean over three runs per cell).
Table 19
Method
Cobalt
LiveCodeBench
OJBench
Macro-Avg
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
Full dataset
IID-4 (self)
15.1/38.3/55.5
34.1/43.8/50.6
8.8/14.3/17.8
21.5/29.0/34.2
IID-4 (teacher)
16.9/43.8/63.9
32.9/45.9/54.9
7.8/15.0/21.8
20.3/30.4/38.4
IID-8 (self)
15.2/38.3/55.9
34.0/43.7/50.8
9.0/14.3/17.6
21.5/29.0/34.2
IID-8 (teacher)
17.9/45.5/65.2
32.7/46.2/55.6
8.0/15.2/21.7
20.4/30.7/38.6
Appendix
Table 18: Pass@k from teacher- versus self-generated training data. Teacher datasets are constructed with Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct for both the approaches and solutions. The standard self-generating procedure uses the 4B student (marked self). In both cases the trained student is Qwen3-4B-Instruct. Evaluated with a 16k-token generation limit. We report pass@1 / pass@8 / pass@64; Macro-Avg is the mean of the two held-out benchmarks, LiveCodeBench and OJBench. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Method
Cobalt
LiveCodeBench
OJBench
Macro-Avg
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
Full dataset
IID-4 (self)
15.0/37.9/55.1
34.0 /43.4/50.0
8.8/14.6/18.4
21.4 /29.0/34.2
IID-4 (teacher)
16.0/42.0/62.3
32.4/45.1/54.3
7.5/14.4/21.1
19.9/29.8/37.7
IID-8 (self)
15.1/38.1/55.5
33.9/43.3/50.1
9.0/14.6/18.3
21.4 /28.9/34.2
IID-8 (teacher)
17.0/ 43.4 / 63.0
32.1/45.2/53.5
7.7/14.7/20.9
19.9/30.0/37.2
Appendix
Table 19: Pass@ k from teacher- versus self-generated training data, evaluated with an 8k-token generation limit; Table 18 gives the same comparison at 16k. Teacher datasets are constructed with Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct for both the approaches and the solutions, while the standard self-generating procedure uses the 4B student (marked self). In both cases the trained student is Qwen3-4B-Instruct. We report pass@1/8/64 on the full test sets and on the frontier subsets; Macro-Avg is the mean of the two held-out benchmarks, LiveCodeBench and OJBench. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Method
Cobalt
LiveCodeBench
OJBench
Macro-Avg
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
Full dataset
Base
16.0/39.4/56.7
34.3/44.0/50.3
9.3/14.8/18.3
21.8/29.4/34.3
+RL
19.5/43.5/59.1
33.6/45.3/53.5
9.2/15.6/21.8
21.3/30.5/37.7
IID-4
15.0/37.9/55.1
34.0/43.4/50.0
8.8/14.6/18.4
21.4/29.0/34.2
+RL
21.8/46.6/63.6
35.6 /46.8/54.1
9.3/15.6/20.9
22.5 /31.2/37.5
Appendix
Table 20: Qwen3-4B performance before and after RL, from every RFT initialization: the base model, IID and strategic datasets at budgets 4 and 8, the high-temperature ( T=1.5 ) IID variants, and MIX-8. Each variant’s first row is the student before RL and the second after RL (mean over three RL runs). Results are given on the full test sets and on the frontier subsets. We report pass@1/8/64; Macro-Avg is the mean of the two held-out benchmarks, LiveCodeBench and OJBench. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Method
Cobalt
LiveCodeBench
OJBench
Macro-Avg
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
Full dataset
IID-4 SFT
15.3/38.6/55.0
33.8/43.7/50.9
9.3/14.9/18.8
21.5/29.3/34.9
+RL
21.5 / 45.9 /60.9
36.0 /46.5/53.6
9.6 /16.0/21.9
22.8 /31.3/37.7
IID-4 ANTI
15.5/38.7/55.1
34.1/43.5/49.9
9.0/14.6/18.9
21.6/29.1/34.4
+RL
20.0/43.1/58.7
35.4/45.7/52.0
9.0/14.6/19.3
22.3/30.1/35.6
Appendix
Table 21: Qwen3-4B performance before and after RL from the budget-4 SFT and ANTI initializations, the counterpart of Table 20 for the other two correctness filters. Each variant’s first row is the student before RL and the second after RL (mean over three RL runs). Results are given on the full test sets and on the frontier subsets. We report pass@1/8/64; Macro-Avg is the mean of the two held-out benchmarks, LiveCodeBench and OJBench. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Method
Easy ( n=104 )
Medium ( n=31 )
Med-hard ( n=47 )
Hard ( n=61 )
V-hard ( n=13 )
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
Base
19.0/41.4/54.8
14.5/40.9/67.7
14.2/38.0/61.7
14.8 /38.4/55.7
7.2 /15.3/15.4
IID-4
18.5/41.3/54.6
13.4/35.9/63.1
13.2/37.9/62.3
13.5/36.6/51.2
6.2/15.8/22.1
IID-64
20.2/43.8/57.6
14.1/38.9/59.3
14.1/39.3/61.7
14.7/ 38.9 /53.7
6.1/15.1/19.2
IID-64 ( T=1.5 )
22.1 / 46.6 / 58.9
14.3/39.3/62.2
14.4/37.9/59.5
14.5/38.8/53.3
6.9/16.1/21.2
GROOT-4
20.0/43.8/57.5
21.8/55.3/ 75.0
15.3/43.1/62.3
12.0/37.2/54.7
5.0/16.1/26.0
Appendix
Table 22: Qwen3-4B performance on the full Cobalt test set, split by the benchmark’s own difficulty tiers rather than by model-relative frontier difficulty; n is the number of problems in each tier. We report pass@1/8/64. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Method
Easy ( n=43 )
Medium ( n=52 )
Hard ( n=80 )
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
Base
86.2/95.4/97.7
32.3/47.2/57.7
7.8 /14.3/20.0
IID-4
85.4/95.0/97.6
32.1/46.3/56.9
7.6/13.8/19.9
IID-64
85.8/95.2/97.4
31.8/47.3/59.3
7.5/13.6/20.3
IID-64 ( T=1.5 )
86.4 /95.6/97.6
32.4 /48.2/60.0
7.6/15.3/22.0
GROOT-4
84.1/ 96.4 / 98.8
28.9/51.5/65.4
6.9/18.1/28.0
Appendix
Table 23: Qwen3-4B performance on the full LiveCodeBench test set, split by the benchmark’s own difficulty tiers rather than by model-relative frontier difficulty; n is the number of problems in each tier. We report pass@1/8/64. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Method
Easy ( n=36 )
Medium ( n=79 )
Hard ( n=117 )
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
p@1/8/64
Base
45.7/63.5/70.7
5.8/12.1/18.5
0.4/1.6/2.0
IID-4
43.8/62.5/68.0
5.4/12.2/20.6
0.4/1.5/1.7
IID-64
45.3/62.5/69.0
5.7/12.7/22.1
0.4/1.5/1.7
IID-64 ( T=1.5 )
45.9 /64.5/75.7
6.0/13.4/21.5
0.5 / 1.7 /2.1
GROOT-4
41.7/70.2/ 90.2
7.0 /19.6/29.3
0.2/1.0/ 2.4
Appendix
Table 24: Qwen3-4B performance on the full OJBench test set, split by the benchmark’s own difficulty tiers rather than by model-relative frontier difficulty; n is the number of problems in each tier. We report pass@1/8/64. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Method
Cobalt
LiveCodeBench
OJBench
Base
15.9 → 29.6
34.2 → 39.9
0 9.1 → 12.6
IID-4
15.5 → 27.7
34.6 → 40.4
0 9.1 → 12.5
IID-64 ( T=1.5 )
17.4 → 33.9
34.7 → 42.5
0 9.2 → 13.4
Groot -4
16.8 → 37.0
33.9 → 44.5
0 9.3 → 14.1
VS -4
17.9 → 35.2
33.4 → 45.1
0 9.3 → 14.1
Appendix
Table 25: Qwen3-4B RSA pass@1 on the full test sets, before → after ten aggregation iterations (population size 16), from the best-validation checkpoints; Table 5 gives the same comparison on the frontier subsets. Bold marks the best final value in each column.
Method
Easy
Medium
Med-hard
Hard
V-hard
Base
17.9 →
35.9
16.0 →
27.3
15.1 →
27.5
15.4 →
25.6
6.2 →
12.8
IID-4
19.1 →
34.5
14.0 →
21.2
13.1 →
28.4
14.4 →
22.7
5.6 →
10.1
IID-64
19.9 →
38.7
17.0 →
21.3
13.8 →
31.3
14.7 →
26.2
6.7 →
9.1
IID-64 ( T=1.5 )
22.5 →
44.1
16.1 →
28.1
14.2 →
29.6
15.1 →
25.4
5.9 →
10.7
GROOT-4
19.5 →
42.6
21.0 →
39.5
16.8 →
37.5
12.9 →
30.3
5.6 →
12.3
VS-4
22.2 →
42.0
23.1 →
44.0
17.0 →
34.6
12.8 →
24.2
4.6 →
10.9
Appendix
Table 26: Qwen3-4B RSA pass@1 on Cobalt, before → after ten aggregation iterations (population size 16), split by the benchmark’s own difficulty tiers. Bold marks the best final value in each column.
Table 29
Figure 5: Qwen3-4B NCP coverage of test sections at three perplexity-improvement thresholds as sampled plans k increases, for the base model and trained models. Bands are ± one standard error of the mean across the three training runs.
Threshold
Model
5%
10%
15%
Base
27.6
9.5
2.0
IID-8
27.2
9.5
1.9
IID-16
28.3
9.7
2.1
Groot -8
39.9
15.7
3.7
Groot -16
39.1
15.0
3.6
Appendix
Table 29: Qwen3-4B NCP coverage@32 (%) of test sections at three perplexity-improvement thresholds, for Qwen3-4B-Instruct trained on plans clearing a 20% threshold. The suffix is the sampling budget: 8 or 16 candidate plans per training section. Mean over three training runs (the base model is a single model). Bold marks the best value in each column.
Threshold
Model
5%
10%
15%
c@1/8/32
c@1/8/32
c@1/8/32
IID-16 RFT
8.9/19.7/27.1
2.0/5.8/9.1
0.3/1.1/2.0
IID-16 SFT
8.9/19.7/27.2
2.1/6.0/9.1
0.3/1.1/2.0
IID-16 ANTI
9.0/19.9/28.0
2.0/6.1/9.7
0.3/1.1/2.0
Groot -16 RFT
13.6/29.1/39.5
3.5/10.0/15.4
0.6/2.1/3.9
Appendix
Table 30: Qwen3-4B NCP coverage@1/8/32 (%) of test sections for students trained under three filters: RFT keeps only samples over 20% improvement, SFT draws the same d number of samples at random, and ANTI takes the d worst samples. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Threshold
Model
5%
10%
15%
c@1/8/32
c@1/8/32
c@1/8/32
Base
9.0/20.1/27.6
2.0/6.0/9.5
0.3/1.1/2.0
+RL
5.4/13.3/19.3
1.1/3.2/5.0
0.2/0.6/1.2
IID-16
9.3/20.5/28.3
2.1/6.2/9.7
0.3/1.2/2.1
+RL
7.7/17.9/24.9
1.6/4.8/7.8
0.2/0.9/1.6
Appendix
Table 31: Qwen3-4B NCP coverage@1/8/32 (%) before and after RL from each RFT initialization: the base model, IID, and strategic datasets with budget 16. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Foil threshold
Model
5%
10%
15%
c@1/8/32
c@1/8/32
c@1/8/32
Own threshold 5%
Base
2.7/7.6/11.2
4.5/11.1/16.2
5.2/12.6/18.2
IID-16
3.4/9.3/13.9
6.0/14.6/21.1
7.2/16.8/23.5
Groot -16
5.1/13.7/ 20.4
14.3/30.9/ 41.2
21.5/40.8/ 51.9
Appendix
Table 32: Qwen3-4B NCP coverage@1/8/32 (%) of test sections after RL, requiring the arm’s own plan to clear its threshold while both foil plans stay below the foil threshold. Row groups are the own threshold. Bold marks the best value in each column.
Setting
Value
Sampling (code)
default budget per problem
4 ( 1×4 )
planner T / top- p / max tokens
0.45 / 0.95 / 8192
solver and IID T / top- p / max tokens
0.85 / 0.95 / 8192
high-temperature IID
T=1.5
Sampling (NCP)
default budget per section
16 ( 2×8 )
planner and solver T
0.85
Appendix
Table 33: Sampling, training, evaluation, RSA, and RL settings, used for every dataset and both base models (Qwen3-4B and Nemotron-3-Nano-4B) unless otherwise noted.
Self-training for language models uses their own generations, feedback, and interaction traces as supervision to improve capabilities with less labeled data.
Can post-trained large language models (LLMs) further improve themselves using only unlabeled prompts, without external teachers or feedback from tools? We study this setting starting only from unlabeled seed questions with no ground-truth solutions, across three reasoning domains: math, science, and coding. We propose Self-Verified Distillation, a simple post-training refinement algorithm in which the model generates candidate solutions to these seed questions, filters them using prompt-based self-verification, and trains on the resulting self-curated dataset. Inspired by the UQ benchmark's use of multiple validators to screen candidate answers to hard unsolved questions, we adapt this validation-based filtering idea to self-training: the model filters its own generated solutions through a three-stage cascade of cycle-consistency, factuality, and correctness checks, accepting a solution only if it passes all stages with unanimous judge votes. We find that sampling more candidate generations and using a larger verification budget during training data construction produces higher-quality self-curated data and, in turn, better reasoning models. We then train Qwen3 models at multiple scales with Self-Verified Distillation and obtain gains across all three domains. For Qwen3-4B, our method improves aggregate held-out pass@1 by +16.7 points in math (AIME26 and HMMT), +11.1 points in science (GPQA Diamond and HLE), and +8.3 points in coding (LCBv5 and LCBv6), with gains also extending to 0.6B and 8B models. Compared to our test-time-only baseline (UQ-TTC), which improves performance by spending extra compute at inference time, Self-Verified Distillation achieves better performance in most settings while requiring only a single inference call at test time.
Post-training large language models usually applies a single training recipe to all samples, even though the model's own rollouts reveal different sample-level learning states. We propose Self-Routing, a behavior-conditioned post-training framework that uses rollout correctness and confidence to decide how each sample should be optimized. Depending on its behavior state, a sample is routed to GRPO, on-policy self-distillation, regularization, or skipping, allowing training to adapt without external teachers, extra annotations, or additional sampling. Experiments on mathematical reasoning across Qwen3 and Qwen3.5 backbones show that Self-Routing consistently improves over uniform GRPO, uniform OPSD, fixed mixtures, and simpler routing baselines. Further analyses show that the routing distribution changes over training and reduces unnecessary updates on low-signal or already stable samples.
Yifei Li, Lingling Zhang, Muye Huang +3
School of Computer Science and Technology, Xi’an Jiaotong University, China · Shaanxi Province Key Laboratory of Big Data Knowledge Engineering · Zhongguancun Academy, Beijing, China +1
The effectiveness of Reinforcement Learning (RL) in Large Language Models (LLMs) depends on the nature and diversity of the data used before and during RL. In particular, reasoning problems can often be approached in multiple ways that rely on different forms of reasoning, and exposure to only a limited range of such approaches in the training data may limit the effectiveness of RL. Motivated by this, we investigate using diverse self-generated data during mid-training as an intermediate step before RL training. Specifically, we adopt a bootstrapped data-generation framework guided by George Polya's problem-solving approaches for generating multiple variants of correct answers for each question in the training data, and then perform fine-tuning. We first provide a theoretical perspective on how mid-training on such data improves RL and explain how policy-gradient updates can incentivize combining multiple approaches. We then empirically demonstrate that RL-trained models initialized with our mid-training data achieve consistent improvements across various mathematical reasoning benchmarks and other OOD tasks like code generation and narrative reasoning. Overall, our investigative study shows that a language model learning multiple problem-solving approaches, through self-generated data helps subsequent RL.
Aswin RRV, Jacob Dineen, Divij Handa +4
Arizona State University · Google Cloud AI Research · Google DeepMind