Residual Advantage: Student-Relative Teacher Guidance for RL with Verifiable Rewards

Xiaobing Chen; Zhiqi Pang

cs.CLOct 8, 2026

Residual Advantage: Student-Relative Teacher Guidance for RL with Verifiable Rewards

Authors: Xiaobing Chen, Zhiqi Pang

Organizations: Harbin Engineering University · Tencent · Harbin Institute of Technology

Abstract

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) and on-policy distillation (OPD) have become two main paradigms for post-training reasoning models. RLVR gives each response a single outcome label, leaving the steps inside it without separate credit. OPD provides token-level guidance at student-visited prefixes, but its pointwise signal does not directly reflect the pattern of teacher--student disagreement across the vocabulary. Dense, unbounded log-ratio supervision can amplify the teacher's influence, yet a strong solver is not necessarily a suitable guide when the student's solution paths depart from the teacher's. We propose Residual Advantage (\RA{}), which treats the teacher--student probability residual as a bounded one-step reward, subtracts the corresponding state value under the student policy to form a standard advantage, and centers the result within each response before adding it to the verifier advantage. The guidance term has zero mean within each response, so the verifier advantage remains the response's mean label and the teacher only redistributes credit among the steps within it. \CoRA{} further updates a teacher LoRA with verifier advantages on the same scored student batch and uses the updated teacher in the next iteration's residual, adapting guidance to the student's attempts. With Qwen3-1.7B-Base and Qwen3-4B-Base students and a Qwen3-8B teacher, \RA{} combined with GRPO or REINFORCE++ improves the underlying sequence-advantage algorithm in all 24 comparisons on three mathematical benchmarks, raising macro Avg@8 by 1.7--3.6 points and Pass@8 by 3.9--6.3 points. Both combinations surpass teacher-only OPD, and \CoRA{} adds a further 1.0--1.5 Avg@8 points.

Figures & tables

Figure 1: Local teacher guidance redistributes the verifier’s response-level credit. (a) At one prefix, the reward

Q_{d}(s,v)=q_{s}(v)-p_{s}(v)

over the student’s likeliest tokens, its value

V_{d}^{p}(s)

under the student policy, and the advantage

A_{s}^{d}(a)

of the sampled token, here the student’s third choice and the teacher’s first. (b) Labels along one response, with blue and coral stems for positive and negative guidance terms

\delta_{t}

; each label is

A^{V}

plus a centered guidance term, so the labels’ weighted mean is

A^{V}

Figure 2: One iteration of RA and Co- RA . Three schematic responses, only the middle one correct, receive verifier advantages

A_{i}^{V}

. RA adds a centered guidance term to every token label. Token strips show one cell per position, blue for

A_{t}>0

and rose for

A_{t}<0

, darker for larger

|A_{t}|

; the last cell is the response mean, which centering pins to

A_{i}^{V}

. Insets show (a) the student value baseline at one prefix and (b) response centering. In Co- RA , a LoRA adapter on the frozen teacher is trained with the verifier advantages of the same scored batch and supplies the next iteration’s residual.


Method	MATH-500		AIME24		AIME25		Macro
Method	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8
Qwen3-1.7B-Base	36.83	76.67	2.08	10.00	1.53	8.89	13.48	31.85
OPD (teacher only)	67.78	85.00	8.61	23.33	5.97	15.56	27.45	41.30
REINFORCE++	65.76	83.87	7.78	20.00	3.47	14.44	25.67	39.44
+ RA	69.69	85.60	13.06	30.00	5.00	20.00	29.25	45.20

Table 1: Residual guidance improves both RLVR estimators on every benchmark and metric, and the adapted teacher raises accuracy further. Three-seed means in %. Student rows are untrained, rows marked + add RA or Co- RA to the estimator above, bold marks the best per column and student, and the last row is the Qwen3-8B teacher; per-seed scores and SD are in Appendix D .

Variant (weight)	Macro Avg@8 at weight			Macro Pass@8 at weight
Variant (weight)	5	10	20	5	10	20
Full RA ( $\lambda$ )	28.84	29.25	29.29	44.94	45.20	45.29
w/o student value baseline ( $\gamma_{x}$ )	26.96	27.16	26.53	41.93	41.62	40.76
w/o response centering ( $\lambda$ )	28.37	28.71	28.66	44.46	44.74	44.67
Raw residual (w/o both, $\gamma_{\rm raw}$ )	27.48	27.52	26.96	42.63	42.43	40.96
Direct $L_{2}$ loss ( $\alpha$ )	27.83	28.02	27.71	43.39	43.44	42.96

Table 2: Every residual variant improves on verifier-only training at every tested weight, and full RA stays above every control at every matched weight. Qwen3-1.7B-Base with REINFORCE++; three-seed macro means in %. The weight is

\lambda

\gamma_{x}

\gamma_{\rm raw}

, or

\alpha

as marked, with

10

the reference weight; per-seed values and sample SD are in Table 23 .

Variant	Reward	Baselines	Weight	Avg@8	Pass@8
Full RA	$q{-}p$	both	10	29.25 $\pm$ 0.25	45.20 $\pm$ 1.81
Clipped centered log ratio ( $c{=}5$ )	$\log(q/p)$	both	$0.6^{\dagger}$	28.04 $\pm$ 0.28	43.50 $\pm$ 0.59
Centered log ratio	$\log(q/p)$	both	$0.6^{\dagger}$	27.85 $\pm$ 0.37	43.07 $\pm$ 0.21
Raw residual (w/o both)	$q{-}p$	neither	10	27.52 $\pm$ 0.43	42.43 $\pm$ 0.79
Raw log ratio	$\log(q/p)$	neither	$0.2^{\dagger}$	27.28 $\pm$ 0.37	42.50 $\pm$ 0.68
Verifier only (REINFORCE++)	–	–	–	25.67 $\pm$ 0.66	39.44 $\pm$ 1.65

Table 3: The probability residual with both baselines is the best construction, and no log-ratio variant reaches it at any swept weight. Three-seed macro means in % with SD; weights marked † were chosen on the validation split (Appendix B.5 ), and Tables 23 and 24 give all swept weights.

	Effect of the teacher-peak branch
	Sampled OPD	REINFORCE++			RA +REINFORCE++
	no weight	$\lambda{=}5$	$\lambda{=}10$	$\lambda{=}20$	$\lambda{=}5$	$\lambda{=}10$	$\lambda{=}20$
$\Delta$ macro Avg@8	$+0.30$	$-0.38$	$-0.88$	$-1.76$	$-2.05$	$-2.07$	$-2.16$
$\Delta$ macro Pass@8	$+0.64$	$-0.46$	$-0.86$	$-2.11$	$-3.91$	$-3.41$	$-3.89$

Table 4: The same teacher-peak branch slightly helps sampled OPD but lowers both students trained with the verifier. Change in three-seed macro score when the branch is added, Qwen3-1.7B-Base, in points. The weight

\lambda

multiplies the branch’s teacher part and, with RA , also the sampled guidance. Absolute, benchmark, and per-seed scores are in Appendix D.3 .

Appendix figures & tables31 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Role	Quantity	Value
Input	Student $p$	$(0.1,0.3,0.6)$
Input	Teacher $q$	$(0.2,0.1,0.7)$
Input	Sampled action $a$	$1$
Output	Local advantage $A^{d}(a)$	$0.09$
Output	Expected update $J_{p}d$	$(0.009,-0.063,0.054)$
Output	Sampled update $g_{a}$	$(0.081,-0.027,-0.054)$

Appendix

Table 5: A sampled update that opposes the expected update. The probability vectors and sampled action are inputs; the remaining entries follow by substitution.

Figure 3: The same sampled reward can yield local advantages of opposite signs. Both teachers assign the sampled token probability

0.28

against the student’s

0.30

, giving the same log ratio (

-0.069

) and residual (

-0.02

). Their residual vectors have the same squared norm,

0.0398

, but the student values differ. The resulting

A^{d}(2)

+0.021

for teacher I and

-0.063

for teacher II.

Quantity	Teacher I	Teacher II
Student $p$	$(0.20,0.30,0.50)$	$(0.20,0.30,0.50)$
Teacher $q$	$(0.35,0.28,0.37)$	$(0.07,0.28,0.65)$
Residual $d=q-p$	$(+0.150,-0.020,-0.130)$	$(-0.130,-0.020,+0.150)$
Sampled action $a$	2	2
Sampled residual $d(a)$	-0.020	-0.020
Squared residual norm $\\|d\\|_{2}^{2}$	0.0398	0.0398

Appendix

Table 6: The two teachers of Figure 3 . The student distribution and sampled action are shared. The last row pairs the two teachers as positions of one response with equal position weights and unit guidance weight.

Role	Quantity	Value
Input	Student $p$	$(0.99,0.01)$
Input	Teacher $q$	$(0.01,0.99)$
Output	Common-action update	$(-0.000196,0.000196)$
Output	Expected update	$(-0.019404,0.019404)$

Appendix

Table 7: A confident student. The sampled and expected student-centered logit updates are computed from the stipulated probability vectors.

Teacher	Expected logit update $J_{p}d$	First-position guidance term with an agreement position
I	$(0.0382,0.0063,-0.0445)$	$0.0105\lambda$
II	$(-0.0346,-0.0189,0.0535)$	$-0.0315\lambda$

Appendix

Table 8: Further quantities for the two teachers. The teachers are those of Figure 3 . The final column pairs each teacher’s position with an agreement position at equal weights

c=(1/2,1/2)

, keeping the symbolic weight

\lambda

Setting	Configuration
Students	Qwen3-1.7B-Base and Qwen3-4B-Base
Teacher backbone / inference mode	Qwen3-8B (post-trained) / non-thinking
Training data / prompt count	DAPO-Math-17K / 17,398
Validation prompts drawn from the training file / problems used	256 / 64
Validation samples per problem / temperature	8 / 1.0
Training epochs / prompts per rollout batch	2 / 128

Appendix

Table 9: Training and evaluation configuration. Lengths count response tokens. The correct-only linear length penalty applies to verifier runs; all runs share the response cap. Evaluation uses unshaped answer correctness.

Student	Comparison (macro, pp)	$\Delta$ Avg@8	$\Delta$ Pass@8
1.7B	RA +REINFORCE++ $-$ REINFORCE++	+3.58	+5.76
1.7B	Co- RA +REINFORCE++ $-$ RA +REINFORCE++	+1.45	+1.18
1.7B	RA +REINFORCE++ $-$ OPD	+1.80	+3.90
1.7B	Co- RA +REINFORCE++ $-$ OPD	+3.25	+5.08
1.7B	RA +REINFORCE++ with branch $-$ RA +REINFORCE++	-2.07	-3.41
1.7B	RA +GRPO $-$ GRPO	+2.37	+4.35

Appendix

Table 10: Macro differences among runs. Differences of three-seed macro means from Tables 1 , 19 , and 4 , in percentage points. Each mean and difference is computed from raw counts before rounding; subtracting the displayed macro columns can differ by

0.01

Setting	Configuration
Aligned model-output width / tokenizer nominal size	$151936$ / $151669$
Probability, baseline, and label accumulation	At least float32
Actor reduction / additional label whitening	Token mean / none
PPO clipping width / epochs per rollout batch	$0.2$ / $1$
REINFORCE++ optimizer steps per rollout batch	$1$
Student minibatch size	$256$ responses

Appendix

Table 11: Probability, actor, and reporting settings. These settings supplement Table 9 .

Setting	Configuration
GRPO group size / standard deviation	$8$ responses / sample standard deviation
GRPO denominator stabilizer	$10^{-6}$
REINFORCE++ discount / variance floor	$1$ / $10^{-8}$
REINFORCE++ normalization measure	Response tokens

Appendix

Table 12: Verifier advantage normalization settings. Normalization follows reward shaping, with no reward-side KL.

Operation at iteration $k$	RA	Co- RA
Teacher distribution $q_{t}$	Fixed $q_{0,t}$	Current $q_{\phi_{k},t}$
Local reward field	$d_{t}=q_{0,t}-p_{k,t}$	$d_{t}=q_{\phi_{k},t}-p_{k,t}$
Student value baseline	$\langle p_{k,t},d_{t}\rangle$	$\langle p_{k,t},d_{t}\rangle$
Sampled local advantage	$A_{t}^{d}=d_{t}(a_{t})-\langle p_{k,t},d_{t}\rangle$
Centered guidance term	$\lambda(A_{t}^{d}-\overline{A}^{d})$	$\lambda(A_{t}^{d}-\overline{A}^{d})$

Appendix

Table 13: Residual guidance with a fixed or adapted teacher. Each method uses one teacher distribution, the student value baseline, and response centering. The weight is

\lambda=10

in both reference configurations.

Setting	Configuration
Adapter rank / scaling	$16$ / $32$
Dropout / initial effective update	$0$ / $0$
Target matrices	Attention and MLP projections
Separate optimizer / learning rate	AdamW / $10^{-5}$
Optimizer betas	$(0.9,0.999)$
Weight decay / gradient norm limit	$0$ / $1$

Appendix

Table 14: Adapter configuration and update schedule.

Figure 4: Training accuracy of Qwen3-4B-Base on DAPO-Math-17K. (A) Full two-epoch response budgets: 276,480 generations for GRPO runs and 34,560 for the one-response runs. (B) The first 34,560 generations, the shaded region in (A), show the early trajectories at the same response budget. Curves show logged training accuracy; Co- RA is omitted.

Panel of Figure 5 — Figure 5: Training diagnostics for the 4B student with RA +REINFORCE++. The guidance weight is fixed at $\lambda=10$ , and the horizontal axis counts rollout batches. (a) Recorded mean absolute guidance term $|\delta_{t}|$ , averaged over the tokens of each batch. (b) Mean response length separated by verifier correctness. The curves are from a single training seed.

Tokens with	Share of tokens	Share of RA guidance	Share of centered log-ratio guidance
$p(a_{t})\geq 0.9$	60.8%	0.4% ( $0.01\times$ )	0.6% ( $0.01\times$ )
$0.5\leq p(a_{t})<0.9$	11.9%	17.8% ( $1.5\times$ )	7.1% ( $0.6\times$ )
$0.1\leq p(a_{t})<0.5$	11.8%	58.9% ( $5.0\times$ )	31.6% ( $2.7\times$ )
$p(a_{t})<0.1$	15.5%	22.9% ( $1.5\times$ )	60.7% ( $3.9\times$ )
$q(a_{t})<10^{-4}$	3.8%	4.1% ( $1.1\times$ )	50.1% ( $13\times$ )

Appendix

Table 15: Where the guidance lands. Share of tokens and of the summed absolute guidance term per bucket of the student’s probability of the sampled token, for full RA and the centered log-ratio control, both computed offline on the same 256 responses of the untrained 1.7B student, with the ratio of the two shares in parentheses. The last row overlaps the others.

Responses	$n$	$\lambda\overline{A}^{d}$		Raw residual
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD
All	256	$+0.03$	$0.30$	$-0.32$	$0.73$
$M<1{,}000$	216	$+0.04$	$0.32$	$-0.31$	$0.78$
$1{,}000\leq M\leq 4{,}000$	34	$+0.00$	$0.03$	$-0.38$	$0.29$
$M>4{,}000$	6	$+0.00$	$0.01$	$-0.05$	$0.24$

Appendix

Table 16: Response mean of the guidance without centering. Mean and SD across responses of

\lambda\overline{A}^{d}

(local advantage, with the student value baseline) and of

\lambda\,\overline{d_{t}(a_{t})}

(raw residual), on the 256 offline responses of Table 15 , with

\lambda=10

;

M

is the number of tokens and

n

the number of responses in each group.

Statistic	Full RA	Uncentered	Direct $L_{2}$
Cosine of sampled and analytic $g_{T}$	0.994	0.992	1.000
Conditional noise of $g_{T}$	0.85	1.08	0
$\cos(g_{T},g_{V})$ , sampled tokens	$+0.18$	$+0.13$	$0.00$
$\cos(g_{T},g_{V})$ , resampled tokens	$+0.02$	$0.00$	–
Outcome-compatible teacher mass	64%	60%	49%
Batches with $\cos(g_{T},g_{V})<0$	26%	33%	50%

Appendix

Table 17: The sampled label reproduces the direct loss’s expected teacher gradient but shares the update with the verifier. Qwen3-1.7B-Base with REINFORCE++ at weight

10

; aggregates over three seeds.

Method	Avg@8				Pass@8
	S1	S2	S3	Mean $\pm$ SD	S1	S2	S3	Mean $\pm$ SD
Qwen3-1.7B-Base
OPD	27.61	27.17	27.58	27.45 $\pm$ 0.25	41.60	40.69	41.60	41.30 $\pm$ 0.53
REINFORCE++	26.12	24.91	25.97	25.67 $\pm$ 0.66	41.20	37.93	39.18	39.44 $\pm$ 1.65
RA +REINFORCE++	29.36	28.96	29.43	29.25 $\pm$ 0.25	46.11	43.11	46.38	45.20 $\pm$ 1.81
Co- RA +REINFORCE++	30.13	30.65	31.33	30.70 $\pm$ 0.61	44.29	47.36	47.49	46.38 $\pm$ 1.81

Appendix

Table 18: Macro performance across three training seeds. Scores in %;

\pm

denotes sample SD across the three run-level macro scores. The middle block lists the 1.7B REINFORCE++ controls of Section 4 , whose reference is the RA +REINFORCE++ run of the first block; log-ratio weights are in parentheses.

Variant	MATH-500		AIME24		AIME25		Macro
	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8
Verifier only (REINFORCE++)	65.76	83.87	7.78	20.00	3.47	14.44	25.67	39.44
Teacher only (OPD)	67.78	85.00	8.61	23.33	5.97	15.56	27.45	41.30
Full RA ( $\lambda{=}10$ )	69.69	85.60	13.06	30.00	5.00	20.00	29.25	45.20
Probability residual, baselines removed
w/o student value baseline	67.17	84.87	9.72	24.44	4.58	15.56	27.16	41.62

Appendix

Table 19: Benchmark-level results for the control runs of Section 4 . Qwen3-1.7B-Base with REINFORCE++; three-seed means in %. The macro columns repeat Tables 2 and 3 ; sample SD are reported in Table 18 .

Control	Seed	MATH-500	AIME24	AIME25	Macro
	S1	66.65 / 84.80	10.83 / 23.33	4.17 / 16.67	27.22 / 41.60
	S2	67.73 / 86.00	10.42 / 23.33	4.17 / 20.00	27.44 / 43.11
w/o student value baseline	S3	67.13 / 83.80	7.92 / 26.67	5.42 / 10.00	26.82 / 40.16
	S1	68.48 / 85.00	13.33 / 26.67	4.58 / 16.67	28.80 / 42.78
	S2	69.50 / 85.60	11.25 / 30.00	4.17 / 20.00	28.31 / 45.20
w/o response centering	S3	69.13 / 85.40	12.50 / 30.00	5.42 / 23.33	29.01 / 46.24

Appendix

Table 20: Per-seed benchmark results for seven controls. Qwen3-1.7B-Base with REINFORCE++; entries are Avg@8 / Pass@8 in %. Weights: no student value baseline

\gamma_{x}=10

, no response centering

\lambda=10

, raw residual

\gamma_{\rm raw}=10

, clipped (

c=5

) and centered log ratio

\gamma_{\log}=0.6

, raw log ratio

\beta=0.2

, and direct

L_{2}

\alpha=10

Base method + branch		MATH-500		AIME24		AIME25		Macro
Base method + branch	$\lambda$	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8
Sampled OPD	–	63.23	83.27	7.50	20.00	4.58	14.44	25.10 $\pm$ 1.00	39.24 $\pm$ 2.53
REINFORCE++	5	65.58	83.60	6.94	18.89	3.33	14.44	25.29 $\pm$ 1.10	38.98 $\pm$ 2.22
REINFORCE++	10	65.06	82.40	6.81	21.11	2.50	12.22	24.79 $\pm$ 1.17	38.58 $\pm$ 3.02
REINFORCE++	20	64.36	82.00	4.86	16.67	2.50	13.33	23.91 $\pm$ 1.91	37.33 $\pm$ 3.63
RA +REINFORCE++	5	66.35	84.20	9.31	24.44	4.72	14.44	26.79 $\pm$ 1.22	41.03 $\pm$ 2.07

Appendix

Table 21: Benchmark-level results for the teacher-peak branch. Qwen3-1.7B-Base; three-seed means in %, with sample SD for the macro scores.

Base method + branch	$\lambda$	S1	S2	S3
Sampled OPD	–	25.63 / 41.07	23.94 / 36.36	25.74 / 40.29
REINFORCE++	5	25.93 / 40.16	24.02 / 36.42	25.91 / 40.36
REINFORCE++	10	24.78 / 39.36	23.62 / 35.24	25.96 / 41.13
REINFORCE++	20	24.39 / 37.40	25.53 / 40.93	21.80 / 33.67
RA +REINFORCE++	5	27.43 / 42.71	25.39 / 38.71	27.56 / 41.67
RA +REINFORCE++	10	28.19 / 44.16	26.20 / 38.84	27.14 / 42.38

Appendix

Table 22: Per-seed macro scores for the teacher-peak branch. Entries are macro Avg@8 / Pass@8 in %.

Variant	Weight	S1	S2	S3	Avg@8	Pass@8
	5	28.62 / 45.27	29.00 / 44.42	28.89 / 45.13	28.84 $\pm$ 0.20	44.94 $\pm$ 0.45
	10	29.36 / 46.11	28.96 / 43.11	29.43 / 46.38	29.25 $\pm$ 0.25	45.20 $\pm$ 1.81
Full RA	20	29.67 / 45.33	30.75 / 48.09	27.45 / 42.44	29.29 $\pm$ 1.68	45.29 $\pm$ 2.82
	5	27.70 / 42.84	29.19 / 45.40	28.22 / 45.13	28.37 $\pm$ 0.76	44.46 $\pm$ 1.40
	10	28.80 / 42.78	28.31 / 45.20	29.01 / 46.24	28.71 $\pm$ 0.36	44.74 $\pm$ 1.78
w/o response centering	20	29.46 / 46.38	30.33 / 46.58	26.18 / 41.07	28.66 $\pm$ 2.19	44.67 $\pm$ 3.13

Appendix

Table 23: Weight sweeps with the probability residual. Qwen3-1.7B-Base with REINFORCE++; S1–S3 entries are macro Avg@8 / Pass@8 in %. The shaded row is the reference configuration of Table 1 , and † marks the direct-

L_{2}

weight selected on the validation split and reported in Table 3 . The weight is

\lambda

for full RA and the uncentered control,

\gamma_{x}

and

\gamma_{\rm raw}

for the two controls without the student value baseline, and

\alpha

for direct

L_{2}

Variant	Weight	S1	S2	S3	Avg@8	Pass@8
	0.05	26.70 / 41.40	26.36 / 41.73	26.71 / 41.67	26.59 $\pm$ 0.20	41.60 $\pm$ 0.18
	$0.2^{\dagger}$	27.51 / 42.71	26.85 / 41.73	27.47 / 43.04	27.28 $\pm$ 0.37	42.50 $\pm$ 0.68
	0.6	27.02 / 42.04	26.53 / 41.53	27.04 / 41.33	26.86 $\pm$ 0.29	41.64 $\pm$ 0.37
	1.2	25.27 / 38.78	25.05 / 39.18	25.25 / 38.98	25.19 $\pm$ 0.12	38.98 $\pm$ 0.20
Raw log ratio ( $\beta$ )	2	24.79 / 37.40	23.71 / 37.80	24.55 / 37.67	24.35 $\pm$ 0.57	37.62 $\pm$ 0.20
	0.05	26.61 / 41.47	26.30 / 40.29	26.59 / 40.96	26.50 $\pm$ 0.17	40.90 $\pm$ 0.59

Appendix

Table 24: Weight sweeps with the log ratio. Qwen3-1.7B-Base with REINFORCE++; S1–S3 entries are macro Avg@8 / Pass@8 in %. For each control, † marks the weight selected on the validation split (Appendix B.5 ) and reported in Table 3 .

Variant	Weight	Seed	MATH-500	AIME24	AIME25	Macro
		S1	65.45 / 83.60	8.75 / 20.00	4.17 / 20.00	26.12 / 41.20
		S2	65.58 / 83.80	7.92 / 20.00	1.25 / 10.00	24.91 / 37.93
Verifier only	–	S3	66.25 / 84.20	6.67 / 20.00	5.00 / 13.33	25.97 / 39.18
		S1	68.35 / 85.80	12.50 / 30.00	5.00 / 20.00	28.62 / 45.27
		S2	69.50 / 86.60	11.67 / 26.67	5.83 / 20.00	29.00 / 44.42
Full RA	5	S3	68.35 / 85.40	12.92 / 30.00	5.42 / 20.00	28.89 / 45.13

Appendix

Table 25: Per-seed benchmark results for the residual weight sweeps. Qwen3-1.7B-Base with REINFORCE++; entries are Avg@8 / Pass@8 in %. The shaded rows are the reference runs of Table 1 . The weight is

\lambda

for full RA and the uncentered control,

\gamma_{x}

for the control without the student value baseline, and

\gamma_{\rm raw}

for the raw residual. Macro values average the three benchmark percentages within each run.

Run	MATH-500		AIME24		AIME25		Macro
Run	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8
OPD (two epochs)	67.78	85.00	8.61	23.33	5.97	15.56	27.45 $\pm$ 0.25	41.30 $\pm$ 0.53
REINFORCE++	65.76	83.87	7.78	20.00	3.47	14.44	25.67 $\pm$ 0.66	39.44 $\pm$ 1.65
OPD, then REINFORCE++	68.65	85.27	9.72	26.67	6.81	18.89	28.39 $\pm$ 0.57	43.61 $\pm$ 1.88
REINFORCE++ + reverse KL	66.21	84.27	8.33	21.11	3.89	14.44	26.14 $\pm$ 0.97	39.94 $\pm$ 1.97
RA +REINFORCE++	69.69	85.60	13.06	30.00	5.00	20.00	29.25 $\pm$ 0.25	45.20 $\pm$ 1.81

Appendix

Table 26: Sequential and joint combinations of OPD and REINFORCE++ against RA +REINFORCE++ at a matched response budget. Qwen3-1.7B-Base; three-seed means in %, with sample SD for the macro scores and the per-seed scores of the two combinations below; the reverse-KL weight is

\beta=0.2

. The other rows repeat Table 1 ; bold marks the best mean per column.

OPD, sampled token, by seed
Run	MATH-500		AIME24		AIME25		Macro
Run	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8
OPD, full vocabulary	67.78	85.00	8.61	23.33	5.97	15.56	27.45 $\pm$ 0.25	41.30 $\pm$ 0.53
OPD, sampled token	62.31	82.47	7.64	20.00	4.44	13.33	24.80 $\pm$ 0.79	38.60 $\pm$ 2.42
REINFORCE++	65.76	83.87	7.78	20.00	3.47	14.44	25.67 $\pm$ 0.66	39.44 $\pm$ 1.65
RA +REINFORCE++	69.69	85.60	13.06	30.00	5.00	20.00	29.25 $\pm$ 0.25	45.20 $\pm$ 1.81

Appendix

Table 27: Full-vocabulary and sampled OPD. Qwen3-1.7B-Base; three-seed means in %, with sample SD for the macro scores and the per-seed scores of the sampled run below. The other rows repeat Table 1 .

Method	$K{=}8$	$K{=}16$	$K{=}32$	$K{=}64$	$K{=}128$	$K{=}256$	$K{=}512$
Qwen3-1.7B-Base (untrained)	31.85	36.07	39.73	41.79	46.12	47.87	48.95
increment per doubling	–	+4.22	+3.66	+2.06	+4.33	+1.75	+1.08
REINFORCE++	39.44	43.16	46.03	49.57	52.30	54.21	55.50
increment per doubling	–	+3.72	+2.87	+3.54	+2.73	+1.91	+1.29
OPD (teacher only)	41.30	46.35	50.37	53.50	55.10	57.79	59.12
increment per doubling	–	+5.05	+4.02	+3.13	+1.60	+2.69	+1.33

Appendix

Table 28: Macro Pass@K up to

K=512

, Qwen3-1.7B-Base with REINFORCE++. Three-seed means in %, with the increment from the previous

K

in gray.

Figure 6: The margin over the untrained student does not close up to Pass@512. Macro Pass@K of Table 28 and each trained run’s margin over the untrained student, in points.

Model	MATH-500		AIME24		AIME25		Macro
Model	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8
1.7B-Base	36.83 $\pm$ 0.17	76.67 $\pm$ 1.10	2.08 $\pm$ 1.10	10.00 $\pm$ 3.33	1.53 $\pm$ 0.64	8.89 $\pm$ 1.92	13.48 $\pm$ 0.56	31.85 $\pm$ 1.00
4B-Base	51.79 $\pm$ 0.30	89.60 $\pm$ 0.40	7.22 $\pm$ 0.64	22.22 $\pm$ 1.92	4.72 $\pm$ 0.24	20.00 $\pm$ 3.33	21.25 $\pm$ 0.13	43.94 $\pm$ 1.17
8B teacher	84.23 $\pm$ 0.33	95.53 $\pm$ 0.70	26.25 $\pm$ 1.25	43.33 $\pm$ 0.00	21.39 $\pm$ 2.29	38.89 $\pm$ 6.94	43.95 $\pm$ 1.23	59.25 $\pm$ 2.47

Appendix

Table 29: Untrained students and the teacher under the evaluation protocol. Qwen3-1.7B-Base and Qwen3-4B-Base before any training, and the Qwen3-8B teacher in non-thinking mode. Scores in %;

\pm

is the sample SD across three evaluation runs.

Teacher	MATH-500		AIME24		AIME25		Macro
Teacher	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8	Avg@8	Pass@8
Frozen $q_{0}$	84.23	95.53	26.25	43.33	21.39	38.89	43.95 $\pm$ 1.23	59.25 $\pm$ 2.47
Adapter, 1.7B + REINFORCE++	82.75	94.27	24.03	41.11	19.31	35.56	42.03 $\pm$ 0.77	56.98 $\pm$ 2.39
Adapter, 1.7B + GRPO	82.56	93.93	23.61	38.89	18.75	34.44	41.64 $\pm$ 0.65	55.76 $\pm$ 2.08
Adapter, 4B + REINFORCE++	82.97	94.53	26.39	44.44	20.14	36.67	43.16 $\pm$ 0.53	58.55 $\pm$ 2.46
Adapter, 4B + GRPO	82.90	94.40	24.44	40.00	21.53	40.00	42.96 $\pm$ 0.80	58.13 $\pm$ 2.32

Appendix

Table 30: The adapted teacher is a worse solver than the frozen teacher. Qwen3-8B in non-thinking mode with the Co- RA adapter of each setting, under the evaluation protocol; scores in %. The frozen row repeats Table 29 , where

\pm

is the SD across three evaluation runs; in the adapted rows

\pm

is the sample SD across the three seeds’ adapters.

Adapter trained with	S1	S2	S3
Qwen3-1.7B + REINFORCE++	42.29 / 57.09	41.16 / 54.53	42.63 / 59.31
Qwen3-1.7B + GRPO	42.01 / 56.89	40.89 / 53.36	42.02 / 57.02
Qwen3-4B + REINFORCE++	43.44 / 59.38	42.55 / 55.78	43.50 / 60.49
Qwen3-4B + GRPO	43.08 / 58.20	42.10 / 55.78	43.69 / 60.42

Appendix

Table 31: Per-seed macro results of the adapted teachers. Macro Avg@8 / Pass@8 in % of the adapter from each Co- RA training seed.

Explore similar work

Sep 3, 2026cs.CL

Sequential Beats Joint: On the Interplay between On-Policy Distillation and RLVR

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) and on-policy distillation (OPD) have emerged as two dominant methods for post-training reasoning LLMs. Prior work uses OPD's dense token-level supervision to complement the sparse RL reward, fusing the two signals within a single step: either as a \emph{weighted-additive combination} or a \emph{teacher-modulated rescaling} of the RL advantage. In this paper, we show that a simple two-stage scheme, OPD-then-RL, consistently outperforms pure OPD, pure RLVR, and all such joint baselines across logic and math reasoning benchmarks. Beyond the empirical results, we further provide a systematic understanding of this through pass@

k

behavior, learning dynamics, and parameter updates, yielding a consistent explanation: OPD expands the student's coverage of teacher-supported solutions and RL sharpens within that support, while jointly optimizing the two signals causes them to interfere. To provide a practical recipe, we find that the OPD validation score is the key signal for when to switch to RL, and that OPD is a better cold start for RL than SFT. Together, our results establish OPD-then-RL as a simple yet strong way to combine the two methods, turning two entangled signals into complementary stages.

Boyan Li, Bingsen Chen, Chenghao Yang +3

University of Alberta · New York University · NYU Shanghai +3

RL for Language Model Reasoning Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards On-Policy Distillation RL Post-Training

Ask PDF

Sep 23, 2026cs.LG

When and Where to Trust the Teacher: Unifying On-Policy Distillation and GRPO through Entropy-Calibrated Credit Assignment

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) supervises mathematical reasoning through final-answer correctness, but provides little guidance on individual tokens. On-policy distillation (OPD) supplies dense feedback on student-generated responses, yet teacher preference need not reflect correctness. Recent hybrids combine OPD and verifier-derived advantages or reweight task credit using teacher ratios. However, teacher guidance enters after verifier-based group normalization, and token reweighting need not preserve the total task credit assigned to each response. We introduce Unified Entropy-Calibrated Credit Redistribution for GRPO (UECR-GRPO), which integrates verifier and teacher signals within a single GRPO-style update at both the response and token levels. \emph{Path-Utility Unification} (PUU) combines verifier reward and a teacher-to-anchor path log-ratio in a single KL-regularized objective. Its on-policy implementation uses a length-normalized teacher score and combines both rewards before group normalization and PPO clipping, allowing teacher evidence to influence the response ranking. \emph{Entropy-Calibrated Redistribution} (ECR) then uses the signed teacher--old-policy token gap to redistribute the verifier-derived component. Full-vocabulary teacher entropy attenuates uncertain guidance, while a response-wise zero-sum projection preserves the total task credit and its token-wise sign before clipping. Across five mathematical reasoning benchmarks, UECR-GRPO achieves average

\mathrm{Avg@12}

accuracies of 17.21% and 65.09% with Qwen3-1.7B and Qwen3-4B students, respectively, exceeding the strongest baseline at each scale by 0.89 and 0.56 percentage points.

Jie Zhang, Jingxiao Yang, Zhehao Huang +2

Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Zhejiang University

RL for Language Model Reasoning Group Relative Policy Optimization Credit Assignment in RL Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards On-Policy Distillation

Ask PDF

Aug 25, 2026cs.LG

On-policy Distillation with Verifiable Reward

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) and on-policy distillation (OPD) have become two widely adopted paradigms for post-training large language models. However, RLVR suffers from sparse task-level feedback, while OPD provides dense token-level guidance but ignores trajectory correctness, limiting its performance to that of the teacher. Combining them is a promising direction: OPD supplies dense supervisory signals, while RLVR provides task-level correctness. Nevertheless, existing integrations often rely on weighted combination or heuristic switching, introducing extra hyperparameters and trade-offs. We propose On-policy Distillation with Verifiable Reward (OPDVR), a simple yet effective method that seamlessly combines OPD and RLVR without adding any hyperparameters. We first reformulate the implicit reward of sampled-token OPD based on trajectory correctness, then apply a ReLU gating mechanism to ensure that correct trajectories receive non-negative rewards and incorrect ones receive non-positive rewards---thereby aligning the distillation signal with task success while preserving the teacher's distributional guidance. Furthermore, our modification transforms sampled-token OPD into a proper RLVR method, making it readily combinable with any policy gradient algorithm, such as GRPO. Experiments on six reasoning benchmarks show that OPDVR consistently outperforms standard OPD. Our code is available at https://github.com/LeapLabTHU/OPDVR.

Wenze Lin, Jiale Zhao, Xitai Jiang +5

LeapLab, Tsinghua University · Qiuzhen College, Tsinghua University · Beihang University +2

RL for Language Model Reasoning Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards On-Policy Distillation RL Post-Training

Ask PDF