A reasoning trace can accompany a correct answer without providing effective supervision for a particular student. We study how to construct traces that improve learning beyond answer-only supervision by considering both their intermediate content and their accessibility to the target learner. We introduce ReDiST, a student-conditioned trace-construction and distillation framework for evidence-rich reasoning. Starting from the student's own attempts, ReDiST revises answer-correct drafts against the supplied evidence and repairs unsuccessful drafts with additional guidance from the verified answer. A frozen student-matched reader screens and ranks original and edited candidates using answer recovery and verified-answer probability, given the question, evidence, and candidate trace. We distill the selected targets while balancing trace and final-answer supervision with an auxiliary answer loss. Construction and selection occur offline, and inference uses only the distilled student. Experiments on question-answering benchmarks show that ReDiST can improve both source-task and cross-benchmark performance over answer-only, original-trace, and the evaluated trace-selection and rewriting baselines. Across supervision recipes, performance rankings can differ between source and transfer benchmarks, highlighting the importance of evaluating trace teaching utility across distributions.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Source-task accuracy and cross-benchmark transfer respond differently to supervision. Qwen3-8B before task-specific training (Raw) and after training on MuSiQue with answer-only supervision, original student traces, or ReDiST . MuSiQue measures source-task performance, while 2Wiki and HotpotQA measure cross-benchmark performance. Dashed lines mark each benchmark’s raw-model EM. Values are EM point estimates from Table 1 . Comparisons between trained variants reflect complete training recipes.
Figure 2: ReDiST : student-conditioned trace construction and distillation. (a) Process content and student accessibility guide the design. (b) A rewrite model revises answer-correct student drafts against the supplied evidence and repairs unsuccessful drafts with additional guidance from the verified answer. A frozen student-matched reader screens and ranks original and edited candidates using answer recovery and verified-answer probability, given the question, evidence, and candidate trace. (c) Repair exposure m and auxiliary answer-loss weight α control how selected targets enter training. Teaching utility is evaluated through the trained student’s source-task and cross-benchmark performance.
MuSiQue (Source)
2Wiki (Transfer)
HotpotQA (Transfer)
QuALITY (Transfer)
Method
EM ↑
F1 ↑
EM ↑
F1 ↑
EM ↑
F1 ↑
Acc. ↑
H.Acc. ↑
Raw Model
0.342
0.450
0.516
0.605
0.503
0.677
0.623
0.561
Answer-only
0.562
0.662
0.479
0.560
0.497
0.659
0.523
0.427
Original Trace
0.426
0.518
0.521
0.608
0.512
0.667
0.627
0.535
STaR
0.510
0.613
0.613
0.689
0.583
0.745
0.587
0.541
NLL
0.546
0.642
0.600
0.693
0.597
0.767
0.617
0.554
Table 1: Source-task and cross-benchmark performance after MuSiQue supervision. All systems use Qwen3-8B. Trained variants use only MuSiQue examples for gradient updates.
Figure 3: Evidence use in a selected 2Wiki example. Test-time reasoning excerpts from raw Qwen3-8B and Qwen3-8B students trained with MBT-R or ReDiST . MBT-R identifies the relevant directors but introduces an unsupported co-director. In contrast, the ReDiST output uses the relevant film–director–nationality links and answers correctly. Quoted model text is reproduced verbatim, with ellipses marking omissions, while highlights, correctness markers, and notes are author annotations.
Source
Transfer
Variant
Controlled change
MuSiQue
2Wiki
HotpotQA
Full ReDiST
Reference recipe
0.584
0.686
0.633
Original target
No revision or repair
0.426
0.521
0.512
Selected student target
No revision or repair
0.552
0.577
0.550
Fresh rewrite
Rewrite without the original draft
0.554
0.483
0.570
Repair disabled
Original targets for repair cases
0.577
0.626
0.576
Table 2: ReDiST component and supervision-allocation ablations. Variants modify trace construction or answer-loss allocation relative to the full recipe. All entries are EM.
Qwen3-4B
Qwen3-8B
Gemma4-E2B
Gemma4-E4B
Supervision
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
Raw model
0.293
0.225
0.342
0.516
0.225
0.518
0.425
0.643
Answer-only
0.558
0.440
0.562
0.479
0.514
0.368
0.578
0.449
Original trace
0.405
0.445
0.426
0.521
0.311
0.546
0.456
0.644
STaR
0.519
0.480
0.510
0.613
0.444
0.588
0.553
0.682
NLL
0.519
0.635
0.546
0.600
0.545
0.610
0.571
0.682
Table 3: Source-task and transfer performance across target students. All trained variants receive MuSiQue supervision. Columns report MuSiQue source-task (S) and 2Wiki transfer (T) EM for each student.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Category
Baseline
Trace source
Acceptance / selection
Reference
Raw Model
— (no training)
—
Answer supervision
Answer-only
— (gold answer only)
aligned question set
Self-generated
Original Trace
student, greedy
EM match, non-empty trace
STaR
student, greedy (+ hint)
EM match, non-empty trace, closed tag (hint removed for training)
Trace selection
NLL
teacher, multi-prompt pool
argmin mean student NLL
RSR
teacher, multi-prompt pool
argmin rank–surprisal ratio
Appendix
Table 4: Baseline taxonomy. “Student” denotes the untrained target student. The teacher is Qwen3-14B for Qwen students and Gemma4-26B-A4B for Gemma students.
Table 5: Training data retained by each supervision method (Qwen3-8B student). Kept counts distinct training questions.
Rewrite teacher
Repair success
Token NED (%)
MuSiQue (Source)
2Wiki (Transfer)
(%)
Revise
Repair
EM
F1
EM
F1
Qwen3-4B
57.97
0.98
18.31
0.581
0.691
0.648
0.733
Qwen3-8B
61.60
2.78
26.24
0.593
0.693
0.670
0.757
Qwen3-14B
61.78
1.15
29.90
0.584
0.681
0.686
0.780
Qwen3-30B-A3B
53.29
5.92
28.22
0.587
0.695
0.646
0.729
Gemma4-E4B
56.43
13.10
44.86
0.581
0.686
0.670
0.763
Appendix
Table 6: Rewrite-teacher comparison with a fixed student initialization. Each student is initialized from Qwen3-8B and distilled using MuSiQue supervision. We report repair success, token-level normalized edit distance (NED), and downstream EM/F1.
2Wiki (Source)
MuSiQue (Transfer)
HotpotQA (Transfer)
QuALITY (Transfer)
Method
EM ↑
F1 ↑
EM ↑
F1 ↑
EM ↑
F1 ↑
Acc. ↑
H.Acc. ↑
Raw Model
0.516
0.605
0.342
0.450
0.503
0.677
0.623
0.561
Answer-only
0.698
0.775
0.482
0.579
0.630
0.763
0.537
0.465
Original Trace
0.599
0.676
0.387
0.486
0.589
0.736
0.620
0.567
STaR
0.675
0.731
0.448
0.548
0.597
0.740
0.623
0.535
NLL
0.677
0.763
0.463
0.561
0.616
0.762
0.607
0.522
Appendix
Table 7: Source-task and cross-benchmark performance after 2Wiki supervision. All systems use Qwen3-8B. Trained variants use only 2Wiki examples for gradient updates.
MuSiQue-trained
2Wiki-trained
Supervision
MuSiQue (Source)
2Wiki (Transfer)
2Wiki (Source)
MuSiQue (Transfer)
Raw model
0.342 [0.313, 0.370]
0.516 [0.485, 0.547]
0.516 [0.485, 0.547]
0.342 [0.313, 0.370]
Answer-only
0.562 [0.531, 0.592]
0.479 [0.448, 0.510]
0.698 [0.669, 0.726]
0.482 [0.451, 0.513]
Original trace
0.426 [0.396, 0.457]
0.521 [0.490, 0.551]
0.599 [0.568, 0.629]
0.387 [0.357, 0.417]
STaR
0.510 [0.479, 0.542]
0.613 [0.583, 0.643]
0.675 [0.646, 0.704]
0.448 [0.417, 0.478]
NLL
0.546 [0.515, 0.577]
0.600 [0.570, 0.630]
0.677 [0.648, 0.705]
0.463 [0.433, 0.493]
Appendix
Table 8: Qwen3-8B source-task and transfer EM under MuSiQue and 2Wiki supervision. Each entry reports EM on a fixed 1,000-question validation slice with its 95% bootstrap interval.
α
MuSiQue EM ↑
2Wiki EM ↑
HotpotQA EM ↑
0.00
0.592
0.652
0.630
0.15
0.584
0.686
0.633
0.30
0.572
0.653
0.602
0.60
0.575
0.616
0.587
0.75
0.558
0.610
0.590
0.90
0.535
0.579
0.567
Appendix
Table 9: Answer-loss weight sweep.
Qwen3-4B
Qwen3-8B
Gemma4-E2B
Gemma4-E4B
Supervision
S
T
S
T
S
T
S
T
Raw model
0.225
0.293
0.516
0.342
0.518
0.225
0.643
0.425
Answer-only
0.678
0.425
0.698
0.482
0.628
0.401
0.687
0.458
Original trace
0.576
0.400
0.599
0.387
0.554
0.264
0.661
0.468
STaR
0.644
0.446
0.675
0.448
0.644
0.430
0.759
0.546
NLL
0.659
0.423
0.677
0.463
0.669
0.458
0.692
0.557
Appendix
Table 10: Source-task and transfer performance across target students. All trained variants receive 2Wiki supervision. Columns report 2Wiki source-task (S) and MuSiQue transfer (T) EM for each student.
MuSiQue (Source)
2Wiki (Transfer)
HotpotQA (Transfer)
QuALITY (Transfer)
Method
EM ↑
F1 ↑
EM ↑
F1 ↑
EM ↑
F1 ↑
Acc. ↑
H.Acc. ↑
Raw Model
0.293
0.421
0.225
0.413
0.407
0.600
0.560
0.510
Answer-only
0.558
0.676
0.440
0.521
0.547
0.692
0.470
0.395
Original Trace
0.405
0.500
0.445
0.534
0.586
0.730
0.587
0.535
STaR
0.519
0.618
0.480
0.558
0.606
0.746
0.527
0.497
NLL
0.519
0.621
0.635
0.723
0.606
0.755
0.597
0.522
Appendix
Table 11: Source-task and cross-benchmark performance after MuSiQue supervision. All systems use Qwen3-4B. Trained variants use only MuSiQue examples for gradient updates. Bold: best value in each column.
On-policy distillation transfers reasoning ability through dense token-level supervision, yet the nature of the transferable signal remains unclear. We discover that reasoning chains contain two types of knowledge that require different discovery mechanisms: decisions (where to branch), which surface through student uncertainty, and evidence (intermediate steps that justify decisions), which hides in positions where the student is confident yet wrong. Current methods capture only decisions; the substantive knowledge in evidence tokens remains untransferred. We propose DEAR(Decision-Evidence Aware Reasoning Distillation), which first identifies decisions via student entropy, then discovers their supporting evidence through hidden-state cosine similarity to decision anchors, boosted by teacher-student divergence to prioritize the largest knowledge gaps. Across three student-teacher configurations on math and code benchmarks, DEAR consistently outperforms standard OPD, with up to +2.5pp on competition math and +5.7pp on code generation.
Jinwei Xiao, Zhuowen Han, Yueqing Sun +6
Meituan Longcat Team · TJUNLP Lab, College of Intelligence and Computing, Tianjin University · Nanjing University
Knowledge distillation from large language models (LLMs) assumes that the teacher's output distribution is a high-quality training signal. On reasoning tasks, this assumption is frequently violated. A model's intermediate representations may encode the correct answer, yet this information is lost or distorted through the vocabulary projection, where prompt formatting and answer-token choices creates brittle, noisy outputs. We introduce \method{}, a distillation framework that bypasses this bottleneck by training lightweight probes on frozen teacher hidden states and using the probe's predictions, rather than output logits, as supervision for student training. This simple change yields consistent improvements across four reasoning benchmarks (AQuA-RAT, ARC Easy/Challenge, and MMLU), with gains most pronounced under limited data. Probes trained on intermediate representations provide cleaner labels than the teacher's own outputs, effectively denoising the distillation signal. \method{} requires no architectural changes to student or teacher, is architecture-agnostic, and adds minimal compute since probe training is cheap and teacher representations can be cached. By exploiting internal representations, \method{} enables practitioners to extract more value from large teacher models without additional training data or architectural complexity.
Ryan Brown, Chris Russell
Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Distilling reasoning traces from strong large language models into smaller ones is a promising route to improve intelligence in resource-constrained settings. Existing approaches face a fundamental trade-off: offline distillation from teacher-generated traces provides high-quality, sample-efficient supervision but suffers from distributional drift: during training, the student model conditions on teacher-generated prefixes, whereas during inference the student autoregresses on self-generated prefixes, leading to compounding errors over long reasoning trajectories. Meanwhile, on-policy or self-distillation methods better match the student's inference-time distribution, but require costly online sampling and often produce low-quality traces in early training. We propose a principled offline reasoning distillation framework that preserves the efficiency and supervision quality of offline teacher-generated data while correcting teacher-student distribution drift. It adaptively emphasizes teacher supervision that is better aligned with the student's on-policy distribution. Evaluations on mathematical reasoning benchmarks of GSM8K, MATH, MATH500, and harder held-out competition-style tasks, including AMC, AIME, and OlympiadBench, show that our method improves reasoning accuracy over prior offline distillation algorithms and yields more stable reasoning traces while preserving instruction-following capabilities. Our work shows that lightweight, distribution-correction-aware training can substantially strengthen offline reasoning distillation without online rollouts.