On-policy distillation can transfer the reasoning capabilities of a strong teacher to a smaller student. However, distillation from a stronger teacher model faces two mismatches: its solutions may be difficult for a smaller student to imitate, and its token-level probabilities may be incompatible with, or even unavailable to, the student. Existing methods handle these settings through different forms of supervision. To this end, we propose Bridged Self-Distillation (BSD), a unified framework for distilling from any teacher that provides reasoning traces. The model to be distilled from, termed the external teacher, first provides a reasoning trace as privileged context, which can be generated in an offline fashion. The student generates rollouts without this context, while a copy of the student conditioned on it, serving as the self-teacher, scores the same rollouts in the student's own token space. BSD uses the resulting token-level guidance to adjust updates on unsuccessful rollouts, with a verifier providing the outcome signal. As the external teacher is queried only to produce text, the same training procedure applies to all teacher scenarios: shared-tokenizer, cross-tokenizer, and closed API teachers. Across these scenarios, BSD improves over the base model and outperforms baselines tailored to each scenario, offering a novel and unified pathway for distillation. Code is available: https://github.com/TUMLegalTech/Bridged-Self-Distillation
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison between scenario-specific OPD and BSD. Top : existing methods derive a different training signal for each kind of teacher access, namely token-level distribution matching with a shared tokenizer, vocabulary mapping across tokenizers, and response-based feedback for a closed API. Bottom : BSD uses a unified framework for all three scenarios: the external teacher provides a reasoning trace z , and a self-teacher conditioned on z scores the student’s own on-policy rollouts.
Figure 2: Overview of Bridged Self-Distillation (BSD). An external teacher, whatever its access setting, provides a reasoning trace z for each question. The student generates rollouts without z , and the self-teacher (a frozen copy of the student conditioned on z ) scores the same tokens. The token-level guidance δt reweights the penalty on unsuccessful rollouts, while the verifier determines the direction of every update.
Shared tokenizer ( Qwen3-32B )
Cross-tokenizer ( Nemotron-3-30B-A3B )
Closed API ( GPT-5.6 Luna )
Method
AIME24
AIME25
HMMT25
Avg
AIME24
AIME25
HMMT25
Avg
AIME24
AIME25
HMMT25
Avg
Qwen3-4B
Base
72.5
62.5
42.5
59.2
72.5
62.5
42.5
59.2
72.5
62.5
42.5
59.2
+ SFT
72.5
65.0
44.2
60.6
76.7
65.0
49.2
63.6
68.3
62.5
40.8
57.2
+ OPD
73.3
67.5
40.0
60.3
70.8
62.5
45.8
59.7
70.8
64.2
44.2
59.7
+ BSD
79.2
68.3
44.2
63.9
76.7
66.7
47.5
63.6
75.8
65.0
45.0
61.9
Table 1: Avg@4 on three mathematical reasoning benchmarks; Avg is the mean across benchmarks. OPD denotes vanilla OPD, xOPD, and ROPD for shared-tokenizer, cross-tokenizer, and closed API teachers, respectively. Bold marks the best score among distillation methods within each teacher–student setting. BSD consistently improves over the base model in all twelve teacher–student pairs and achieves the best Avg in eleven pairs.
Figure 3: Training progression. (a)–(c) Mean response length on the development set at each checkpoint for four students under the shared-tokenizer, cross-tokenizer, and closed API teachers, respectively. OPD refers to vanilla OPD, xOPD, and ROPD in the three respective settings. (d) Avg@4 across the three benchmarks at each checkpoint for Qwen3-4B-Instruct distilled from GPT-5.6 Luna . SFT can substantially shorten its responses and cause performance to collapse with the closed API teacher, whereas BSD and OPD generally maintain stable response lengths and show stable or improving performance throughout training.
Figure 4: Ablations with the Qwen3-4B student and Qwen3-32B external teacher. (a) Training accuracy of GRPO, answer-conditioned RLSD, and full-trace BSD. (b) Training accuracy of BSD with a hint, guide, or full trace, including a full-trace variant that also weights successful rollouts. (c) Avg@4 across the three benchmarks for these variants and OPSD; the base model scores 59.2. Despite similar training-accuracy curves, richer privileged context generally yields better results, with the full trace performing best. Appendix D reports the per-benchmark scores.
Student
∣δˉ∣
ρH
Gain
Qwen3-0.6B
0.072
0.87
+2.2
Qwen3-1.7B
0.115
0.90
+3.5
Qwen3-4B
0.114
0.90
+3.9
Qwen3-4B-Instruct
0.037
0.83
+1.5
Table 2: Token-level guidance before training, measured on unsuccessful rollouts. ∣δˉ∣ is the absolute value of the mean of δt over all tokens, ρH is the Spearman correlation between ∣δt∣ and the student’s token entropy, and Gain is the mean improvement of BSD over the base model shown in Table 1 .
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
Qwen3-32B
Nemotron-3-30B-A3B
GPT-5.6 Luna
Access
Local weights
Local weights
API
Thinking mode
Enabled
Enabled
Reasoning effort medium
Temperature
0.6
1.0
Provider default
Top-p
0.95
1.0
Provider default
Max new tokens
8,192
8,192
8,192
Traces per problem
1
1
1
Appendix
Table 3: Generation settings of the teacher traces. The open teachers follow their recommended sampling settings.
Parameter
BSD
OPD
xOPD
ROPD
SFT
Learning rate
1×10−6
1×10−6
1×10−6
1×10−6
5×10−6
Training updates
150
150
150
150
150
LoRA rank ( r )
32
32
32
32
32
LoRA alpha ( α )
64
64
64
64
64
Checkpoint interval (updates)
25
25
25
25
25
Max prompt length (student)
2,048
2,048
2,048
2,048
–
Appendix
Table 4: Training configuration of BSD and the baselines. The rollout setting of OPD follows its original implementation, and the maximum response length of ROPD follows its released code.
Parameter
Value
Weight coefficient λ
0.5 , decayed linearly to 0 over training
Clipping range ϵ of the weight
0.2
Self-teacher synchronization
Every 10 updates
Policy clipping thresholds
0.2 (lower), 0.28 (upper)
Loss aggregation
Token mean
Importance sampling
Token-level, truncated
Appendix
Table 5: Settings specific to BSD.
Teacher
Method
GPU-hours
Qwen3-32B
SFT
0.8
OPD
29.4
BSD
31.4
Nemotron-3-30B-A3B
xOPD
70.8
BSD
48.7
GPT-5.6 Luna
ROPD
83.0
Appendix
Table 6: GPU-hours of training the Qwen3-4B student for 150 updates with each method. The value of SFT is measured with the Qwen3-32B traces.
Parameter
Value
Samples per problem
4
Seeds
{0,1,2,3}
Thinking mode
Enabled
Temperature
1.0
Top-p
1.0
Max new tokens
32,768
Appendix
Table 7: Evaluation parameters for the students on the three benchmarks.
Teacher
AIME24
AIME25
HMMT25
Avg
Qwen3-32B
80.0
75.0
52.5
69.2
Nemotron-3-30B-A3B
80.0
70.0
55.8
68.6
GPT-5.6 Luna
88.3
87.5
85.8
87.2
Appendix
Table 8: Avg@4 of the external teachers on the evaluation benchmarks and their mean (Avg).
Model
AIME24
AIME25
HMMT25
Avg
Released
60.8
49.2
29.2
46.4
Fine-tuned
56.7
49.2
27.5
44.4
Appendix
Table 9: Avg@4 of Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 before and after the fine-tuning that enables its reasoning block, and their mean (Avg).
Setting
GRPO
RLSD
OPSD
Privileged context
None
Answer
Full trace
Self-teacher
None
Synced every 10 updates
Frozen base model
Verifier reward
Yes
Yes
No
Token-level signal
None
Weight, λ : 0.5→0 , ϵ=0.2
Log-ratio, clipped at ±2
Rollouts with the signal
–
Unsuccessful
All
Appendix
Table 10: Settings in which GRPO, RLSD, and OPSD differ in the ablation. All other settings follow Table 4 .
Figure 6: Mean response length on the three benchmarks at every saved checkpoint for the variants of Figure 4 , with the Qwen3-4B student and the Qwen3-32B external teacher. The dotted line marks the base model.
Method
AIME24
AIME25
HMMT25
Avg
Step
∣δˉ∣
Base
72.5
62.5
42.5
59.2
–
–
OPSD
70.8
66.7
41.7
59.7
50
–
GRPO
72.5
64.2
45.0
60.6
50
–
RLSD
73.3
69.2
42.5
61.7
125
0.055
BSD (w/ succ.)
75.8
65.0
43.3
61.4
125
0.127
BSD-hint
71.7
68.3
45.0
61.7
150
0.062
Appendix
Table 11: Scores of the ablation in Figure 4 , with the Qwen3-4B student and the Qwen3-32B training set. Protocol as in Table 1 ; Step is the training step of the selected checkpoint, and ∣δˉ∣ is the magnitude of the mean token-level guidance of each form of context, measured before training on the same unsuccessful rollouts (Section 6.2 ).
Figure 7: Token-level guidance δt on one passage of an unsuccessful rollout, with the self-teacher conditioned on the Qwen3-32B trace (top) or on the answer alone (bottom). Red marks tokens to which the self-teacher assigns a lower probability than the student and green a higher one; the color saturates at ∣δt∣=2 .
n -gram
Base, incorrect
BSD, correct
t
but this is
0.84
0.38
−4.3
this is not
0.45
0.18
−4.2
not sure
0.58
0.29
−3.4
try to
1.21
0.66
−3.4
approach
0.80
0.58
−3.3
which matches
0.12
0.21
+4.3
Appendix
Table 12: Rates per 1,000 words of selected n -grams in incorrect responses of the base Qwen3-4B and correct responses of the student trained with BSD, on the 26 problems that have both. t is the paired t -statistic over the problems.
Qwen3-32B
Nemotron-3-30B-A3B
GPT-5.6 Luna
Student
SFT
OPD
BSD
SFT
OPD
BSD
SFT
OPD
BSD
Qwen3-4B
25
75
125
25
125
25
25
75
50
Qwen3-4B-Instruct
25
150
150
50
75
100
25
25
150
Qwen3-1.7B
150
125
125
25
150
50
25
150
25
Qwen3-0.6B
25
50
25
25
150
50
25
100
50
Appendix
Table 13: Training step of the checkpoint selected on the development set for each run of Table 1 . Checkpoints are saved every 25 steps. As in Table 1 , the OPD column is vanilla OPD for Qwen3-32B , xOPD for Nemotron-3-30B-A3B , and ROPD for GPT-5.6 Luna .
Shared tokenizer ( Qwen3-32B )
Cross-tokenizer ( Nemotron-3-30B-A3B )
Closed API ( GPT-5.6 Luna )
Method
AIME24
AIME25
HMMT25
Avg
AIME24
AIME25
HMMT25
Avg
AIME24
AIME25
HMMT25
Avg
Qwen3-4B
Base
86.7
80.0
56.7
74.4
86.7
80.0
56.7
74.4
86.7
80.0
56.7
74.4
+ SFT
80.0
76.7
56.7
71.1
83.3
80.0
63.3
75.6
83.3
80.0
50.0
71.1
+ OPD
83.3
80.0
50.0
71.1
86.7
80.0
60.0
75.6
83.3
76.7
56.7
72.2
+ BSD
80.0
80.0
60.0
73.3
86.7
83.3
56.7
75.6
83.3
76.7
53.3
71.1
Appendix
Table 14: Pass@4, the share of problems solved by at least one of the four samples, on each benchmark and averaged over the three (Avg). Checkpoints, protocol, and layout as in Table 1 , including the OPD variant of each teacher; bold marks the best score among the three methods for each teacher–student pair.
Figure 8: Avg@4 across the three benchmarks at every saved checkpoint for three further settings. Lines are linear fits over the checkpoints, and the legends give their slopes in percentage points per 100 training steps.
Teacher
Method
MMLU-Pro
LEXam
–
Base
63.5±1.9
45.9±4.9
Qwen3-32B
SFT
63.8±1.3
43.8±0.8
OPD
63.7±0.9
44.9±0.5
BSD
64.5±0.8
43.9±0.9
Nemotron-3-30B-A3B
SFT
62.1±1.5
43.8±1.3
xOPD
64.0±0.5
44.8±0.9
Appendix
Table 15: Mean and standard deviation of Avg@4 over the six saved checkpoints of each run of the Qwen3-4B student on the out-of-domain questions of Figure 9 . For the base model, the standard deviation is over its four sampling seeds.
Figure 9: Avg@4 of the Qwen3-4B student on out-of-domain questions at every saved checkpoint. Rows are the MMLU-Pro and LEXam questions, and columns are the external teachers. OPD is vanilla OPD, xOPD, and ROPD for the three teachers, respectively. SFT falls below the base model over training with Nemotron-3-30B-A3B and GPT-5.6 Luna , whereas BSD and OPD stay at its level.
Figure 10: Mean response length of the Qwen3-4B student on the out-of-domain questions at every saved checkpoint, in the layout of Figure 9 . SFT shortens the responses with GPT-5.6 Luna and lengthens them on the MMLU-Pro questions with Nemotron-3-30B-A3B , whereas BSD and OPD keep the length of the base model.
On-policy distillation offers dense, per-token supervision for training reasoning models; however, it remains unclear under which conditions this signal is beneficial and under which it is detrimental. Which teacher model should be used, and in the case of self-distillation, which specific context should serve as the supervisory signal? Does the optimal choice vary from one token to the next? At present, addressing these questions typically requires costly training runs whose aggregate performance metrics obscure the dynamics at the level of individual tokens. We introduce a training-free diagnostic framework that operates at the highest resolution: per token, per question, and per teacher. We derive an ideal per-node gradient defined as the parameter update that maximally increases the student's probability of success. We then develop a scalable targeted-rollout algorithm to estimate this gradient efficiently, even for long chains of intermediate thoughts. The gradient alignment score, defined as the cosine similarity between this ideal gradient and any given distillation gradient, quantifies the extent to which a particular configuration approximates the ideal signal. Across a range of self-distillation settings and external teacher models, we observe that distillation guidance exhibits substantially higher alignment with the ideal on incorrect rollouts than on correct ones, where the student already performs well and the teacher's signal tends to become noisy. Furthermore, we find that the optimal distillation context depends jointly on the student model's capacity and the target task, and that no single universally effective configuration emerges. These findings motivate the use of per-task, per-token diagnostic analyses for distillation.
Mohammadreza Armandpour, Fatih Ilhan, David Harrison +6
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 distillation (OPD), which supervises a student on its own sampled trajectories, has emerged as a data-efficient post-training method for improving reasoning while avoiding the reward dependence of reinforcement learning and the catastrophic forgetting often observed in standard supervised fine-tuning. However, standard OPD typically computes teacher supervision under noisy student-generated contexts and often relies on a single stochastic teacher rollout per prompt. As a result, the supervision signal can be high-variance: the sampled teacher trajectory can be incorrect, uninformative, or poorly matched to the student's current reasoning behavior. To address this limitation, we propose BRTS, a Best-of-N Rollout Teacher Selection framework for on-policy distillation. BRTS augments standard student-context OPD with a teacher-context supervision branch constructed from the curated teacher trajectory. Rather than distilling from the first sampled teacher rollout, BRTS samples a small pool of teacher trajectories and selects the auxiliary trajectory using a simple priority rule: correctness first, student alignment second. When multiple correct teacher trajectories are available, BRTS chooses the one most aligned with the student's current behavior; when unconditioned teacher samples fail on harder prompts, it invokes a ground-truth-conditioned recovery step to elicit a natural derivation. The selected trajectory is then used to provide reliable teacher-context supervision inside the OPD loop, augmented with an auxiliary loss on the teacher trajectory. Experiments on AIME 2024, AIME 2025, and AMC 2023 show that BRTS improves over standard OPD on challenging reasoning benchmarks, with the largest gains on harder datasets. Our code is available at https://github.com/BWGZK-keke/BRTS.
Ke Zhang, Yunjie Tian, Dongdi Zhao +4
Johns Hopkins University · TikTok · University of California, San Diego +1