On-policy distillation (OPD) transfers knowledge from a teacher model to a student along student-generated trajectories, typically by minimizing the reverse Kullback-Leibler (RKL) divergence. However, RKL can provide weak corrective signals for teacher-supported tokens to which the student assigns very low probability. This raises two questions: which positions are most consequential for the behavioral gap between the student and teacher, and what additional supervision is needed at these positions? Through cross-sampling, we find that divergence-based routing more effectively pinpoints positions contributing to the teacher-student performance gap than entropy-based routing. Further analysis reveals teacher-mode under-coverage at high Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence positions, where standard OPD increases the large teacher-student probability gaps. Motivated by these findings, we propose Divergence-Routed On-Policy Distillation (DrOPD). DrOPD retains RKL supervision at all positions and selectively adds forward Kullback-Leibler (FKL) divergence supervision at positions with high JS divergence. Experiments across six math benchmarks show that DrOPD improves over standard OPD and entropy-based routing. DrOPD also reduces severe under-coverage cases by 37.9 percent relative to OPD, supporting targeted FKL as an effective complement to OPD.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Cross-sampling and teacher-mode under-coverage at high-JS positions. (a) AMC23 accuracy versus teacher-intervention rate; dashed lines indicate standalone Teacher and Base performance. (b) Mean positive probability gap across original JS deciles, computed over recorded tokens with positive gaps. (c) Relative change from Base to OPD in the fraction of positions with gaps at or above each threshold, evaluated on fixed original JS >0.06 positions.
Figure 2: Overview of DrOPD. (a) We compute teacher–student JS divergence at each rollout position and select the top-20% with the highest disagreement. (b) High-JS positions can exhibit under-coverage of teacher-supported modes, for which RKL provides weak corrective signals. (c) DrOPD retains RKL supervision at all positions and adds FKL supervision at the high-JS positions.
Method
AIME24
AIME25
AMC23
Minerva
Olympiad
MATH500
Mean(6)
Baselines
1.7B-Base
0.42
1.25
14.38
6.34
8.18
23.88
9.07
4B-Base
10.00
5.42
30.00
6.48
24.78
40.38
19.51
4B-GRPO
24.17
17.50
60.63
30.19
48.53
83.10
44.02
8B-GRPO
25.83
21.67
68.13
35.29
51.52
86.00
48.07
Student: 1.7B-Base Teacher: 4B-GRPO
Table 1: Mathematical reasoning results (Avg@8, %). Both panels select and average over all six benchmarks. Results marked with † are reproduced by us.
Figure 3: Additional forward-KL accelerates early alignment. Changes in (a) FKL and (b) JS divergence during training. (c) Full-softmax teacher mass on the top-16 intersection.
Figure 4: Under-coverage recovery and learning progress. (a) Fraction of fixed high-JS positions with probability gaps at or above each threshold. (b) Severe under-coverage ( δt≥0.8 ) on the same positions. (c) Mean Avg@8 across six benchmarks at successive training checkpoints.
Figure 5: Sensitivity to routing and candidate support. Avg@8 averaged over four benchmarks for (a) the routed fraction, (b) top- k per model, and (c) candidate-set construction. The default uses top-20% JS routing with a top-16 union. The dashed line denotes OPD, equivalent to ρ=0 .
Method
Remaining positions
Selected positions
Mean(4)
OPD (Full RKL)
RKL
RKL
33.80
Full FKL
FKL
FKL
34.16
Sparse RKL
–
RKL
34.94
Sparse FKL
–
FKL
33.29
DrOPD
RKL
RKL + FKL
35.64
Table 2: Effect of loss direction and supervision allocation. . Selected positions are the top 20% ranked by JS; remaining positions are the other 80%. “–” denotes no loss at those positions.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Setting
Value
Training framework / rollout engine
verl / vLLM
Training data
DAPO-Math-17K
Training epochs
1
Prompt batch / PPO minibatch size
64 / 64
Responses per training prompt
4
Learning rate / weight decay
10−6 / 0.01
Appendix
Table 3: Training and evaluation settings. Candidate top- k specifies the support used for distillation, rather than a restriction on rollout sampling.
Model pair
Method
Mean step time (s)
Cumulative step time (h)
Mean response length (tokens)
1.7B–4B
OPD
141.43
10.96
3117
1.7B–4B
DrOPD
152.62
11.83
3733
Appendix
Table 4: Training cost for the 1.7B–4B pair over 279 steps.
JS
RKL
FKL
τ
η (%)
Avg@8
τ
η (%)
Avg@8
τ
η (%)
Avg@8
0.5
0.21
37.81
3
0.70
40.31
2.2
0.54
36.56
0.4
0.59
40.62
2.6
0.97
43.12
1.9
0.79
40.62
0.3
1.48
45.94
2.2
1.33
46.88
1.6
1.22
44.06
0.2
3.24
49.06
1.8
1.97
45.62
1
2.80
46.25
0.18
3.93
51.88
1.4
3.11
50.62
0.7
4.41
52.50
Appendix
Table 5: Divergence-based cross-sampling on AMC23. τ is the routing threshold; η is the measured intervention rate. Avg@8 is reported in percent.
Student entropy
Teacher entropy
Random
τ
η (%)
Avg@8
τ
η (%)
Avg@8
r
η (%)
Avg@8
1.8
0.82
34.69
1.6
3.83
25.00
0.04
3.67
16.56
1.6
1.30
37.19
1.4
4.51
27.81
0.06
5.36
16.88
1.4
2.03
40.00
1.2
5.42
29.69
0.08
7.30
17.50
1.2
3.12
42.50
1
6.28
37.50
0.1
9.03
20.00
1
4.79
42.19
0.9
6.78
31.25
0.12
10.95
20.31
Appendix
Table 6: Entropy-based and random cross-sampling on AMC23. r is the random teacher-intervention probability; the remaining columns follow Table 5 .
Student entropy
Teacher entropy
Intervention (%)
Avg@8 (%)
High
High
7.19
27.81
High
Low
3.82
47.50
Low
High
1.20
18.75
Low
Low
0.16
16.25
Appendix
Table 7: Cross-sampling restricted to individual entropy regions. Each row is a separate policy on the same 40 AMC23 problems. The column order explicitly distinguishes student and teacher entropy.
Gap threshold τ
Base
OPD
DrOPD
0.2
73.01
51.40
56.86
0.4
39.97
30.82
31.16
0.5
26.35
22.05
20.68
0.6
16.03
14.78
12.48
0.7
8.72
8.88
6.57
0.8
3.83
4.48
2.79
Appendix
Table 8: Fraction (%) of fixed original high-JS positions above each recorded-token gap threshold. Every row uses the same 97,122 positions.
Figure 6: Student probability mass on the top-16 intersection. Faint lines show raw step values and solid lines show trailing 15-step means. This complements the teacher-mass statistic in Figure 3c using the corresponding student probabilities.
Since the advent of knowledge distillation, KL divergence has been the standard loss in distillation. Recently, on-policy distillation (OPD) has emerged as an efficient post-training paradigm for LLMs. As a distillation method, OPD naturally inherits KL divergence as its standard loss. However, in this work, we find that KL divergence may not be necessary for OPD. We show that simply preserving the update direction is sufficient for effective OPD. As long as the update direction is toward the teacher, OPD works. More precisely, it is not the direction of every token, but the direction of a small subset of tokens where the teacher and student disagree strongly. We first show that simply assigning a reward of (+1) to tokens where the teacher probability is higher than the student probability and (-1) where it is lower, which merely encourages updates toward the teacher, reproduces almost the same training mode as OPD with reverse KL. We further show that only the direction of a small subset of tokens with large teacher-student disagreement is critical, and training works as long as their update direction is toward the teacher, even if other tokens are pulled away from the teacher. And as an application of these findings, we introduce Consensus Multi-Teacher On-Policy Distillation (C-MOPD) to improve Multi-Teacher On-Policy Distillation (MOPD). Unlike MOPD, which routes each sample to a single teacher and may cause capability conflicts across domains, C-MOPD lets every sample be supervised by all teachers. Experiments show that C-MOPD consistently outperforms MOPD on both math and code benchmarks. Our code is available at https://github.com/LeapLabTHU/KL-Free-OPD.
Wenze Lin, Jiyuan Long, Jiale Zhao +11
LeapLab, Tsinghua University · Qiuzhen College, Tsinghua University · Beihang University +3
On-policy distillation (OPD) is a widely used technique to transfer capabilities from capable teacher language models to the base student models, and can be formulated in a reinforcement learning style objective using student generated rollouts. Yet, despite the divergence reward being dependent on student model likelihood, existing works usually adopt a stop gradient design primarily for stability, which makes the resulting advantage estimation questionable. In this work, we provide a generic optimization framework based on f-divergence between the student and teacher, and mathematically revisit whether such design space is valid. We prove that general stop-gradient operation would lead to biased estimates of the reward objective and corresponding gradient for general divergence functions. We propose OPD+, the corrected version of OPD that demonstrates improved performance over the baseline KL approach and also supports the choice of various f-divergence. We validate our findings on mathematical reasoning and tool-use benchmarks.
On-policy distillation (OPD) transfers teacher knowledge on student-generated trajectories, but efficient sampled objectives reduce the teacher distribution to scalar credit on individual tokens. Such credit indicates whether a token should gain or lose probability, yet leaves the corresponding redistribution unspecified. We recast OPD as teacher-guided probability transport and propose RouteOPD (Routed On-Policy Distillation), which decomposes local teacher--student disagreement into student-excess sources and teacher-deficit destinations and couples them into explicit transport pairs. RouteOPD optimizes pairwise log-odds toward jointly realizable targets obtained from a bounded teacher potential, while adapting the transport budget to the concentration of teacher demand. This formulation directs updates toward teacher-preferred destinations and controls their magnitude within a single transport operator. Experiments across four teacher--student settings and four mathematical-reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that RouteOPD consistently outperforms sampled reverse-KL OPD, with improvements accompanied by higher routing fidelity and lower background leakage. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of explicitly modeling probability transport in on-policy distillation.