On-policy distillation (OPD) provides token-level teacher feedback, yet common sampled-token updates assign credit locally and omit the effects of earlier actions on subsequent feedback. We introduce \method{} (Group-Relative On-Policy Distillation), which decouples feedback computation from credit assignment by aggregating token feedback into calibrated sequence-level credit. We establish a theoretical basis for this approach by showing that, under ideal on-policy assumptions, broadcasting raw summed feedback to every response token yields an unbiased estimate of the negative gradient of the sequence-level reverse-KL objective. To support effective learning in practice, \method{} discounts later feedback that may become less reliable under distribution shift and uses same-prompt rollout groups to calibrate teacher guidance. It preserves relative response preferences while retaining a controlled fraction of the group mean, which we term collective teacher pressure. Across five Qwen3 teacher--student settings and six mathematical reasoning benchmarks, \method{} outperforms vanilla OPD in macro Avg@K in every setting, including gains of 10.9 and 11.5 percentage points in two settings with matched thinking patterns. It also maintains stable training under mismatched thinking patterns, where vanilla OPD collapses. Ablations show that retaining an appropriate amount of collective teacher pressure can improve learning, while excessive collective teacher pressure or an unrestricted feedback horizon can destabilize training.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Sequence credit and training stability across five teacher–student pairings. (a) Illustrative local feedback favors incorrect B , whereas trajectory credit favors correct A ; outcomes do not enter the objective. (b) JH(H) measures how strongly prefix scores favor correct responses (higher is better). On fixed responses, it peaks around 1,500–3,000 tokens; the horizontal scale is cube-root. (c,d) Training directly on the discounted trajectory score causes verifier reward to fall as response length approaches the generation cap.
Figure 2: GR-OPD overview. (1) The student samples responses to the same prompt and receives token feedback from teacher–student log-probability differences. (2) Discounting with γ aggregates feedback into a trajectory score while down-weighting later positions. (3) Calibration preserves relative response preferences and retains a fraction λ of the group mean, termed collective teacher pressure . The two components are added and normalized by a common group standard deviation. (4) Each response’s advantage is broadcast to its tokens for a PPO-style clipped update.
Table 1: Per-suite Avg@K (%) across five teacher–student pairings. Bold marks the higher score within each pairing; Macro is the unweighted mean over the six suites before rounding. “Collapse” marks a failed training trajectory.
Figure 3: Training dynamics across two matched Instruct pairings and one cross-pattern pairing. Purple curves denote vanilla OPD, and GR-OPD colors denote λ . (a) Calibrating collective teacher pressure at γ=.99 : λ is the retained fraction of the shared component. (b) Controlling the feedback horizon: solid and dashed GR-OPD curves denote γ=.99 and γ=1 . Faint lines show per-step values, bold lines show ten-step moving averages, and endpoint dots mark the last recorded step.
Teacher → student
λ
Normalized pressure magnitude proxy
Retained pressure magnitude proxy
I4nothink→I1.7nothink
.5
3.21
1.60
I4nothink→I1.7nothink
.25
3.16
0.79
I4nothink→I1.7nothink
.2
3.17
0.63
I32nothink→I1.7nothink
.25
3.61
0.90
I32nothink→I1.7nothink
.2
3.56
0.71
I4think→B1.7
0
7.23
0
Table 2: Collective teacher pressure before and after calibration ( γ=.99 ). Cross-pattern runs show larger normalized pressure than matched runs; λ controls the amount retained alongside relative response preferences. Both columns report batch-level magnitude proxies (Appendix C.7 ).
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Setting
Value
Prompts per rollout batch
64
Responses per prompt, G
8
Configured per-device training batch size
1
Gradient-accumulation steps
8
Student data-parallel replicas
8
Responses per global optimization minibatch
64
Appendix
Table 3: GR-OPD training configuration. Sampling settings refer to student rollouts during training.
Model used in this paper
Official checkpoint
Public revision
Qwen3-1.7B-Base
Qwen/Qwen3-1.7B-Base
ea980cb
Qwen3-4B-Base
Qwen/Qwen3-4B-Base
906bfd4
Qwen3-1.7B-Instruct
Qwen/Qwen3-1.7B
70d244c
Qwen3-4B-Instruct
Qwen/Qwen3-4B
1cfa9a7
Qwen3-32B-Instruct
Qwen/Qwen3-32B
9216db5
Appendix
Table 4: Official checkpoints for the models and tokenizers. Repository links point to fixed public revisions on Hugging Face.
Benchmark
Questions
K
AIME 2024
30
32
AIME 2025
30
32
AMC 2023
40
32
MATH-500
500
8
Minerva Math
272
8
OlympiadBench (math subset)
170
8
Appendix
Table 5: Evaluation question counts and samples per question. The six suites contain 1,042 questions in total.
Model
Mode
Role
Macro Avg@K
Mean tokens
Qwen3-1.7B-Base
default
Student
23.099
4,166.4
Qwen3-4B-Base
default
Teacher
31.244
3,245.5
Qwen3-1.7B-Instruct
nothink
Student
32.995
1,662.1
Qwen3-4B-Instruct
nothink
Teacher
42.970
1,937.5
Qwen3-4B-Instruct
think
Teacher
74.574
10,138.4
Qwen3-32B-Instruct
think
Teacher
78.954
9,221.9
Appendix
Table 6: Pre-OPD reference capability. Macro Avg@K and mean response length are averaged equally over the six suites. Mean response length is measured in tokens.
Figure 4: Training dynamics for γ=1 and γ=.99 on I32nothink→I1.7nothink . (A) Mean response length in tokens (logarithmic axis); (B) mean task-verifier reward; (C) Pearson correlation between trajectory score and response length; and (D) Spearman correlation between trajectory score and verifier reward. Correlations pool responses within each rollout batch. Curves use centered moving averages as specified above.
On-policy distillation (OPD) has emerged as an effective approach for large language model post-training, yet existing objectives face a trade-off between objective fidelity and optimization stability. Token-level OPD provides stable but local supervision, whereas sequence-level OPD captures future credit at the cost of horizon-dependent variance. We establish a unified temporal-credit view of these formulations, showing that practical token-level OPD can be interpreted as a temporal approximation to the sequence-level reverse-KL gradient. Building on this connection, we propose γOPD (GammaOPD), which uses discounted temporal credit assignment to balance long-horizon supervision and optimization stability, while admitting a horizon-independent variance bound. We further develop a reward-compatible bounded mixing (RBM) mechanism for γOPD that balances verifiable outcome feedback with the discounted OPD advantage to move beyond purely teacher-dependent optimization. Experiments on mathematical and code reasoning demonstrate consistent improvements over existing OPD methods across vanilla, size-mismatched, and multi-teacher distillation settings.
Shiqi Liu, Zeyu He, Letian Tao +9
School of Vehicle and Mobility & College of AI, Tsinghua University · 2Didi Voyager Labs, DiDi Autonomous Driving
On-policy distillation (OPD) learns from teacher feedback on student-generated responses and has shown promise in reducing forgetting relative to supervised fine-tuning (SFT). However, its benefits and fragility remain incompletely understood. We study sequential distillation from multiple teachers, where the student minimizes its average divergence from the teachers. Forward Kullback--Leibler (KL) divergence yields a weighted arithmetic mixture, while reverse KL yields a normalized weighted geometric aggregate. We develop algorithms that learn these targets under off-policy and on-policy feedback, respectively, establishing logarithmic regret bounds in the tabular setting and extending the analysis to function approximation. By analyzing these aggregation targets, we identify mechanisms that help explain both the benefits and fragility of OPD. Relative to forward KL, reverse KL can better retain a confident expert's preferences under uninformative feedback, but is more sensitive to teachers that assign very low probabilities to correct responses. Its token-level conditionals also reveal a dependence on continuation distributions that can favor incorrect prefixes over long horizons.
Qiwei Di, Xuheng Li, Kaixuan Ji +3
Department of Computer Science, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
On-policy distillation (OPD) trains a student on its own responses using dense token-level guidance from a stronger teacher. In long-context tasks, however, token-level teacher support can favor locally plausible responses that omit evidence distributed across the input or violate global task constraints. Task-specific verifiers, in contrast, evaluate task completion at the response level and may return graded rewards that reflect partial success. We diagnose this mismatch on fixed responses from two representative long-context evidence-aggregation tasks. Across longer input ranges, trajectory-level OPD scores become progressively less aligned with verifier rewards, indicating teacher-verifier disagreement. Motivated by this observation, we introduce Group-Calibrated On-Policy Distillation (GC-OPD). GC-OPD separately normalizes verifier rewards and trajectory-level OPD scores within each rollout group and uses their difference as a signed teacher-verifier disagreement residual. Relative-advantage-based credit assignment (RACA) distributes this trajectory-level residual across tokens according to their relative OPD advantages while preserving the original OPD signal. Across five long-context benchmarks, post-training with GC-OPD raises the five-benchmark averages of the official Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-8B checkpoints from 29.08 to 40.47 and from 35.12 to 44.65, respectively. Vanilla OPD reaches 39.31 and 43.56 under the same setup. Controlled ablations show that the signed residual is more effective than either an additional OPD-derived term or direct group-normalized verifier reward addition, while RACA further improves over uniform token allocation. Together, these results demonstrate that group-relative residual calibration can incorporate verifier outcomes without discarding dense token-level guidance. Code is available at https://github.com/SolereZhang/GC-OPD.
Zhu Zhang, Jixun Wang, Xiaoang Xu +6
Tsinghua University · OpenBMB · Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications