On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) supervises student-generated trajectories with a reference-conditioned version of the same base model. We ask whether every trajectory supplies distinct supervision that warrants its distillation cost. Gradient measurements on Qwen3-1.7B at initialization reveal that correct and incorrect responses have similar individual gradient magnitudes, but incorrect responses have approximately three times the coherent gradient share. Their estimated population-mean directions also largely overlap. A signal--noise model fitted at a small group size tracks alignment at larger group sizes without refitting. Motivated by these measurements, we introduce correctness-filtered OPSD (C-OPSD), which generates one response per problem and distills only a subset of incorrect responses. Removing unselected rows before both distillation forwards avoids their teacher/student forward and student backward work. Across Qwen3-1.7B, 4B, and 8B on AIME24, AIME25, and HMMT25, C-OPSD achieves on-par performance with full OPSD. In a measured micro-batch-size-four implementation, executed rows decrease by approximately 68%, and with retained rows packed into full micro-batches, training takes about 40% less time while rollout generation remains unchanged. Together, the measurements and training results connect outcome-conditioned supervision redundancy to more compute-efficient distillation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Outcome-conditioned gradient measurements. Qwen3-1.7B at initialization, using 3,000 trajectories and base-weight gradients. (a) Fitted coherent shares are 6.0% and 18.6%, despite similar individual gradient magnitudes. (b) The response-weighted mixture μ full = p μ C + (1 − p) μ I , with p = 0.291, is approximately 2.87 ∘ from the incorrect mean direction. Vectors use measured mean magnitudes and the noise-corrected mean-direction cosine; the tip inset is an equal-axis 3 × enlargement. These angles describe estimated population means. The following subsections give the measurement procedure and derivation.
Population
Trajectories
Mean p 0
p 0 = 0
p 0 ≥ 0.875
All
2,027
0.34
45.8%
21.5%
Correct
680
0.80
0.0%
62.1%
Incorrect
1,347
0.11
68.9%
1.0%
Table 1: Offline pass rate p 0 of the problems behind the measured trajectories, computed on the 2,027 of 3,000 trajectories whose problems appear in the probe.
Population
Within-population cosine
Mean-gradient magnitude ∥μ∥
Noise scale σ
Coherent share q
Correct
0.2042
0.3776
1.4911
6.0%
Incorrect
0.4778
0.6339
1.3253
18.6%
Table 2: Signal–noise parameters fitted at group size four.
Figure 2: Measured alignment and fixed-model predictions. Markers show within-population gradient cosine; curves use the parameters fitted at group size four, without refitting at larger sizes. Hollow markers identify the fit group size, and filled markers show measurements at sizes 16, 64, and 218. The right panel shows measured minus predicted cosine. Group size counts trajectories aggregated for analysis, not rollouts per problem. All measurements are from Qwen3-1.7B at initialization.
Group size
Correct: predicted
Correct: measured
Incorrect: predicted
Incorrect: measured
16
0.506
0.521
0.785
0.790
64
0.804
0.800
0.936
0.940
218
0.933
0.934
0.980
0.982
Table 3: Predicted and measured within-population cosine at different group sizes.
Checkpoint
Correct q
Incorrect q
Ratio
Corrected cross cosine
Initialization
6.4%
19.1%
2.99
0.975
Step 25
8.3%
25.9%
3.12
0.980
Step 50
11.3%
33.2%
2.94
0.941
Step 100
11.5%
33.9%
2.95
0.943
Table 4: Coherent share and noise-corrected cross-population cosine during C-OPSD training, group size 16.
Figure 3: One rollout per problem and physically compacted distillation batches. Full OPSD processes all generated trajectories. C-OPSD checks correctness, retains s = min(k, n − k) incorrect responses, and removes unselected rows before both distillation forwards. The example n = 4, k = 1 produces one-row tensors rather than four-row tensors with masked entries. The reference-conditioned teacher is frozen; only the student is updated. Generation is unchanged. Empty selections execute one fully masked fallback row.
Arm
Retained trajectories
Count for the same batch
Role
Full OPSD
All trajectories
n
Performance reference
Correct-only
All correct trajectories
k
Opposite outcome allocation
C-OPSD
First s incorrect trajectories
s = min(k, n − k)
Proposed filtered objective
Random selection
Outcome-blind subset of all trajectories
s
Count-matched selection control
All-incorrect
All incorrect trajectories
n − k
Higher-retention comparison
Table 5: Supervision-allocation strategies.
Setting
Value
Optimizer-step rollout count
32 distinct problems; one response per problem
Student rollout mode
Non-thinking; vLLM ( Kwon et al., 2023 ) colocated generation
Maximum rollout length
1,024 tokens
Rollout sampling
Temperature 1.1; top-p 0.95; top-k 20
Learning rate
5×10−6 ; constant schedule
Token-divergence clip parameter
0.05 for 1.7B/4B; 0.06 for 8B
Table 6: Training and evaluation settings.
Result block
Per-device batch
Gradient accumulation
Ranks
Total rollouts/step
All experiments
4
8
1
32
Table 7: Batch configurations across experiments.
Model
Method
AIME24
AIME25
HMMT25
Mean
SD
Retention
1.7B
Base
49.10
33.89
23.26
35.42
—
—
SFT
50.42
38.59
24.44
37.82
0.19
100%
GRPO
49.26
36.16
23.66
36.36
0.42
100%
OPSD
56.19
41.85
28.74
42.26
0.29
100%
C-OPSD
56.18
41.50
28.51
42.06
0.34
26%
4B
Base
74.38
65.35
43.75
61.16
—
—
Table 8: Best checkpoint per benchmark, Avg@48. Scores are percentages, averaged over training runs: five for the OPSD arms, three for SFT and GRPO, one for the untrained base. SD is the standard deviation of the per-run aggregate. A rule separates the baselines from the two OPSD arms within each model size. Retention is the fraction of generated responses distilled. Executed-row measurements are presented separately in Section 7.1.
Arm
Retention
Incorrect among retained
Mean p 0
Mean accuracy (SD)
Correct-only
33%
0%
0.83
40.35 (0.20)
Random selection
26%
66%
0.42
41.58 (0.31)
C-OPSD
26%
100%
0.09
42.06 (0.34)
All-incorrect
68%
100%
0.09
42.17 (0.38)
Table 9: Outcome allocation: best checkpoint per benchmark, Avg@48, mean over five training runs. Offline p 0 estimates the retained problems’ pass rates from a separate eight-rollout probe. Full OPSD, at 100% retention, scores 42.26 under the same protocol.
Strategy
Expected retained trajectories/step
Shared-direction signal
Noise
Estimated SNR
Mean accuracy
Correct-only
10.56
3.86
4.85
0.80
40.35
Random selection
8.32
4.51
3.99
1.13
41.58
C-OPSD
8.32
5.27
3.82
1.38
42.06
Table 10: Estimated SNR and measured ablation results for three count-matched supervision-allocation strategies.
Distillation operation
Full OPSD rows
C-OPSD mean rows
Executed-row reduction
Student forward
4
1.29
≈ 68%
Teacher forward
4
1.29
≈ 68%
Student backward
4
1.29
≈ 68%
Table 11: Executed distillation rows at micro-batch size four.
Model scale
Generation
Student f+b
Teacher f
Full total
Filtered total
Modeled saving
1.7B
101.7
305.2
157.3
564.1
250.9
55.5%
4B
262.3
786.8
405.5
1454.6
646.8
55.5%
8B
501.5
1504.3
775.3
2781.1
1236.6
55.5%
Table 12: Modeled FLOPs per optimizer step (TFLOPs), using the shared n = 4 configuration and lengths in Equation (9).
100-step training (min)
Per step (s)
Model
OPSD
C-OPSD
Saving
OPSD
C-OPSD
1.7B
14.2
8.4
41%
7.86
4.79
4B
19.8
11.8
40%
12.36
6.95
8B
22.6
13.7
40%
12.98
8.05
Table 13: Measured wall-clock time on a single GB300 GPU.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Dataset
Method
Step 25
Step 50
Step 75
Step 100
1.7B
AIME24
OPSD
53.33
54.76
56.00
55.10
1.7B
AIME24
C-OPSD
52.64
54.03
56.04
55.14
1.7B
AIME25
OPSD
39.60
41.32
41.01
39.75
1.7B
AIME25
C-OPSD
39.03
40.40
41.38
40.38
1.7B
HMMT25
OPSD
24.57
27.08
28.74
27.89
1.7B
HMMT25
C-OPSD
24.43
25.42
27.49
28.46
Appendix
Table A1: Per-dataset accuracy (Avg@48) at each evaluation checkpoint, averaged over the five training runs per arm used in Table 8 . Bold indicates the higher score between OPSD and C-OPSD within each model, dataset, and checkpoint.
On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) combines student generated trajectories with dense supervision from a privileged teacher of the same model. Its pointwise clipping protects the student from locally incompatible teacher directions, but the fixed teacher receives no feedback about the supervision the student rejects, which limits effective learning from the teacher. We introduce DualOPSD, which alternates updates in a coupled teacher-student system. The student retains OPSD's clipped forward KL objective. The privileged teacher adapts to the updated student after each student step. A residual target based on the frozen initial model preserves the effect of privileged context during teacher adaptation. Across Qwen3-8B/4B/1.7B and three math benchmarks, DualOPSD improves avg@12 accuracy over OPSD by 9.83 percentage points. Further diagnostic analyses show lower bidirectional KL, less persistent mismatch, and retained sensitivity to privileged reference. Together, these results demonstrate that DualOPSD can be a more effective form of privileged self-distillation. Code is available at: https://github.com/on1262/DualOPSD.
Yutong Chen, Guangfu Guo, Zhichao Xu +1
Department of Computer Science, Clemson University, 105 Sikes Hall, Clemson, SC 29634, USA · Department of Computer Science, University of Utah
On-policy distillation (OPD) trains a student on its own rollouts under a frozen teacher, mitigating the distribution mismatch of off-policy supervision. While prior work has primarily trained on problems a student can largely solve, we ask whether OPD can improve a student when training is restricted to problems it currently fails. We evaluate five representative OPD mechanisms with Qwen-3 and Phi-4 models under a unified competition-mathematics protocol. We find that OPD does not improve accuracy on this hard subset, with most mechanisms instead degrading performance despite continued decreases in training KL divergence. All eight configurations show a decline, and the two-sided sign test gives p=0.0078. In contrast, the same pipeline improves accuracy by 4.6 percentage points when training is not concentrated on failures, showing that the failure is conditional on the training regime rather than systematic. These findings suggest that OPD is effective when supervision is dominated by correct student prefixes, but can reinforce existing errors when training is concentrated on problems the student currently fails.
Shuo Yang, Zheyu Zhang, Mahito Sugiyama +1
Technical University of Munich · National Institute of Informatics · Munich Center for Machine Learning
On-policy distillation (OPD) offers dense token-level supervision as an alternative to the sparse outcome-level advantages of reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR). However, the teacher scores student-generated trajectories that are inherently off-policy for it, so the reliability of its supervision, and hence the source of the student's improvement, remains unclear. We quantitatively analyze teacher supervision during OPD training and find substantial noise whose prevalence increases with teacher scale. Surprisingly, the student policy is insensitive to such noise, converging to comparable performance regardless of whether noisy supervision is retained or removed. Does OPD distill at all? By analyzing what drives its gains, we find that learning concentrates on low log-probability tokens, and using a single fixed negative advantage matches the performance of teacher-provided ones. This suggests that OPD works largely by suppressing low log-probability tokens, which requires no teacher. These findings motivate On-Policy Self-Adaptation (OPSA), a supervision-free method using entropy-adaptive negative advantages. It assigns stronger learning signals to high-entropy positions, suppressing tail tokens, and evenly redistributing probability mass among head tokens. Compared with the base Qwen3-1.7B, OPSA improves Avg@32 by 35.41 points on AIME24, corresponding to a 263% relative gain, and more than doubles Pass@32 across all three benchmarks. It also outperforms OPD by 16.77 points in Avg@32 on AIME24. Extensive experiments and analyses across model families and tasks further demonstrate its effectiveness and generalizability.
Yi Ding, Ruqi Zhang
Department of Computer Science, Purdue University, USA