Self-distillation is an emerging approach that trains a model to imitate its own predictions when conditioned on privileged information, such as correct answers or environmental feedback. Recent methods have reported better sample efficiency and generalization than reinforcement learning (RL), but it remains unclear whether these gains extend beyond in-distribution evaluations and whether they stem from privileged distillation. In this paper, we revisit two representative methods, Self-Distillation Policy Optimization (SDPO) and On-Policy Self-Distillation (OPSD), across code, science, tool use, and math reasoning tasks. We find that their reported gains do not consistently generalize to unseen problems and are largely explained by overfitting or transferring existing reasoning behavior, rather than effectively using privileged information. Moreover, self-distillation gradients show weak alignment with policy gradients that directly optimize expected reward, questioning whether they provide an effective direction for policy improvement. Our experiments across Qwen3 models (1.7B-14B) and OLMo-3-7B suggest that effectively leveraging privileged information to improve reasoning remains an open challenge. Our code is available at https://github.com/sleepypandu/does-sd-improve-reasoning
Figures & tables
Figure 1: SDPO reduces solution diversity on LiveCodeBench v6. AST-unique solutions per training problem (from 8 samples) for Qwen3-14B before (Base) and after 200 steps of GRPO or SDPO (mean ± std, four seeds). Diversity collapse suggests memorization.
Figure 2: The reference solution barely changes the self-distillation teacher. Teacher log-probabilities (thinking on) along a Qwen3-8B thinking-off student rollout on an OpenThoughts problem, with the problem’s reference solution in context (ref z , top) and with no solution (no z , bottom). In each panel, the first row is the sampled token and the three rows below are the student’s next three most likely tokens. The two teachers assign very similar probabilities, suggesting that OPSD distillation effects do not significantly depend on z ( Section 4.3 ).
Figure 3: Qwen3-8B SDPO vs. GRPO on LiveCodeBench v6 across four seeds, scored as the fraction of problems with no failing test cases (mean ± std). train_seen and train_unseen evaluate training problems on seen and on held-out test cases respectively; test_unseen evaluates held-out problems. The 20000 training generations reported by Hübotter et al. (2026) is marked in red.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Qwen3-14B SDPO vs. GRPO on LiveCodeBench v6 across four seeds, scored as the fraction of problems with no failing test cases (mean ± std). train_seen and train_unseen evaluate problems seen during training, on seen and on held-out test cases respectively; test_unseen evaluates held-out problems.
Figure 5: Olmo-3-7B-Instruct SDPO vs. GRPO on LiveCodeBench v6 across four seeds, scored as the fraction of problems with no failing test cases (mean ± std). train_seen and train_unseen evaluate problems seen during training, on seen and on held-out test cases respectively; test_unseen evaluates held-out problems.
Model
Method
Step 0
Step 80
Step 200
Qwen3-8B
SDPO
32.3 ± 1.6
30.1 ± 0.7
29.8 ± 1.1
GRPO
30.6 ± 1.0
33.3 ± 1.9
34.3 ± 0.5
Qwen3-14B
SDPO
32.8 ± 0.7
33.9 ± 2.8
32.3 ± 1.3
GRPO
33.6 ± 0.4
36.4 ± 3.7
38.5 ± 2.2
Olmo-3-7B-Instruct
SDPO
30.9 ± 1.0
25.2 ± 1.0
21.0 ± 1.4
GRPO
31.5 ± 1.8
32.7 ± 1.2
34.1 ± 0.8
Appendix
Table 5: LiveCodeBench v6 score (fraction of problems with no failing test cases, mean ± std over four seeds) on test_unseen for SDPO and GRPO at initialization, 80 steps, and 200 steps. Bold marks the better method at each step.
Model
Method
Step 0
Step 80
Step 200
Qwen3-8B
SDPO
25.8 ± 1.8
48.6 ± 0.7
48.9 ± 1.6
GRPO
25.1 ± 0.7
43.8 ± 2.4
50.9 ± 1.1
Qwen3-14B
SDPO
29.4 ± 0.4
49.2 ± 1.3
51.9 ± 1.5
GRPO
29.0 ± 2.0
45.4 ± 1.8
54.1 ± 2.5
Olmo-3-7B-Instruct
SDPO
28.9 ± 1.7
52.9 ± 2.3
47.2 ± 4.7
GRPO
28.0 ± 1.9
39.7 ± 1.3
43.7 ± 2.4
Appendix
Table 6: LiveCodeBench v6 score (fraction of problems with no failing test cases, mean ± std over four seeds) on train_seen for SDPO and GRPO at initialization, 80 steps, and 200 steps. Bold marks the better method at each step.
Model
Method
Step 0
Step 80
Step 200
Qwen3-8B
SDPO
25.6 ± 0.5
44.1 ± 1.0
44.0 ± 1.7
GRPO
25.4 ± 1.0
41.2 ± 2.4
46.2 ± 2.0
Qwen3-14B
SDPO
28.2 ± 1.4
43.0 ± 0.2
45.4 ± 2.1
GRPO
26.0 ± 1.0
41.8 ± 1.6
49.2 ± 2.0
Olmo-3-7B-Instruct
SDPO
25.9 ± 1.6
48.5 ± 1.4
42.6 ± 6.2
GRPO
25.8 ± 0.4
36.2 ± 2.3
41.9 ± 0.8
Appendix
Table 7: LiveCodeBench v6 score (fraction of problems with no failing test cases, mean ± std over four seeds) on train_unseen for SDPO and GRPO at initialization, 80 steps, and 200 steps. Bold marks the better method at each step.
Figure 6: Cross-domain validation accuracy of Qwen3-8B trained with GRPO and SDPO on SciKnowEval and ToolAlpaca, averaged over four seeds. Panels vary over training domains (across rows) and evaluation domains (across columns).
Method
AIME24
AIME25
HMMT25
Avg.
Baselines
Base
50.3
37.2
23.6
37.0
GRPO
51.9 ± 1.3
39.2 ± 1.0
25.6 ± 2.3
38.9
SFT
53.1 ± 0.5
40.4 ± 0.9
24.7 ± 1.2
39.4
OPSD (self-distill)
Ref z
55.4 ± 1.0
41.7 ± 0.4
26.4 ± 0.8
41.2
Appendix
Table 11: Olmo-3-7B-Instruct training methods evaluated under avg@12 . OPSD self-distill uses the frozen Olmo-3-7B-Instruct as the teacher, while OPSD cross-model uses Olmo-3-7B-Think as the teacher. Denote z as the reference solution shown to the teacher. We report the checkpoint with the best average performance (averaged over four seeds), reporting mean ± std accuracy.
Method
Cosine
Baselines
GRPO
+0.026±0.021
SFT
−0.060±0.021
OPSD (self-distill)
Ref z
+0.057±0.052
No z
+0.051±0.047
Appendix
Table 19: Cosine similarity between the gradient of each method trained on OpenThoughts and the GRPO gradient on AIME24, AIME25, and HMMT25 for Olmo-3-7B-Instruct, measured at the base model (pooled over four seeds, ± paired jackknife error). OPSD self-distill uses the frozen Olmo-3-7B-Instruct as the teacher, while OPSD cross-model uses Olmo-3-7B-Think as the teacher.
Gradient
Qwen3-1.7B
Qwen3-4B
Qwen3-8B
Qwen3-14B
Olmo-3-7B-Instruct
Reference
3.583
3.436
3.666
3.736
4.033
Baselines
GRPO think
3.979
4.108
3.889
3.786
–
GRPO nothink
3.653
3.483
3.322
2.717
3.951
SFT
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.002
OPSD (teacher thinking-on / cross-model)
Appendix
Table 20: Gradient noise scale across four seeds for the math probe, where each seed’s gradient is the mean over 64 iterations; 0 is a noiseless estimate. The reference is GRPO nothink on AIME24, AIME25, and HMMT25. For Olmo-3-7B-Instruct, the teacher thinking-on and thinking-off rows are replaced by OPSD cross-model (Olmo-3-7B-Think teacher) and self-distill, respectively.
Gradient
Qwen3-8B
Qwen3-14B
Olmo-3-7B-Instruct
Reference
1.968
3.152
1.999
GRPO
2.855
3.125
2.076
SDPO
0.043
0.018
0.020
Appendix
Table 21: Gradient noise scale across four seeds for the LiveCodeBench v6 probe, where each seed’s gradient is the mean over 8 iterations; 0 is a noiseless estimate. The reference is GRPO on test_unseen ; GRPO and SDPO are trained on train_seen .
Parameter
GRPO
SDPO
General
Model
Qwen3-8B
Qwen3-8B
Thinking
False
False
Total steps
200
200
Data
Max. prompt length
2048
2048
Appendix
Table 23: GRPO and SDPO training hyperparameters on SciKnowEval and ToolAlpaca
On-policy self-distillation, where a student is pulled toward a copy of itself conditioned on privileged context (e.g., a verified solution or feedback), offers a promising direction for advancing reasoning capability without a stronger external teacher. Yet in math reasoning the gains are inconsistent, even when the same approach succeeds elsewhere. A pointwise mutual information analysis traces the failure to the privileged context itself: it inflates the teacher's confidence on tokens already implied by the solution (structural connectives, verifiable claims) and deflates it on deliberation tokens ("Wait", "Let", "Maybe") that drive multi-step search. We propose Anti-Self-Distillation (AntiSD), which ascends a divergence between student and teacher rather than descending it: this reverses the per-token sign and yields a naturally bounded advantage in one step. An entropy-triggered gate disables the term once the teacher entropy collapses, completing a drop-in replacement for default self-distillation. Across five models from 4B to 30B parameters on math reasoning benchmarks, AntiSD reaches the GRPO baseline's accuracy in 2 to 10x fewer training steps and improves final accuracy by up to 11.5 points. AntiSD opens a path to scalable self-improvement, where a language model bootstraps its own reasoning through its training signal.
Guobin Shen, Xiang Cheng, Chenxiao Zhao +4
1Xiaohongshu Inc. · Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences
On-policy distillation is an efficient alternative to reinforcement learning, offering dense token-level training signals. However, its reliance on a stronger external teacher has driven recent work on on-policy self-distillation, where the same model serves as both teacher and student under different prompt contexts. Yet, existing self-distillation methods largely reduce learning to KL matching toward the context-augmented teacher model. This approach often suffers from training instability and can degrade reasoning performance over time. Moreover, self-distillation from the same model with prompt augmentation lacks the exploratory diversity provided by a genuine external teacher. To address these limitations, we move beyond fixed-teacher KL matching and propose Preference-Based Self-Distillation (PBSD), which revisits on-policy self-distillation through a reward-regularized perspective. Instead of directly matching the teacher distribution, we derive a reward-regularized objective whose analytic optimum is a reward-reweighted teacher distribution, yielding a target policy provably superior to the original teacher under this objective. Practically, PBSD optimizes preference gaps between teacher and student samples while maintaining on-policy student sampling. We support this framework with a statistical analysis of the induced preference-learning problem, formally establishing when on policy self-distillation is preferable to learning from an external teacher in our setting. Experiments on mathematical reasoning and tool-use benchmarks across multiple model scales demonstrate that PBSD consistently achieves the strongest average performance among comparable baselines, showing improved training stability over prior self-distillation baselines while preserving token efficiency.
On-policy self-distillation trains a reasoning model on its own rollouts while a teacher, often the same model conditioned on privileged context, provides dense token-level supervision. Existing objectives typically weight the teacher's token-level signal uniformly across a chain-of-thought sequence, despite substantial variation in the entropy of the teacher's predictive distribution. We propose EGRSD (Entropy-Guided Reinforced Self-Distillation), which unifies token-level updates through three signals: a reward-grounded direction, a teacher-student likelihood-ratio magnitude, and the proposed teacher-entropy confidence gate that down-weights high-entropy token positions while maintaining a nonzero lower bound on every token weight. We further introduce CL-EGRSD, a causal-lookahead variant that distinguishes sustained high-entropy spans from transient high-entropy positions whose following context rapidly becomes low entropy. Experiments with Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-8B in thinking mode show that EGRSD and CL-EGRSD advance the accuracy-length frontier among the compared trainable methods.
Junlong Ke, Zichen Wen, Weijia Li +2
2Tsinghua University · 1Shanghai Jiao Tong University · 3Shanghai AI Laboratory