Organizations: National College for Excellent Engineers, Beihang University · Zhongguancun Laboratory · Beihang University · Department of Data Science & AI, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University · Tsinghua University · Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Knowledge distillation from large reasoning models (LRMs) often uses raw teacher trajectories as supervision. However, this practice creates a mismatch between the goal of distillation and the nature of teacher trajectories. Advanced LRMs typically improve their reasoning capabilities through reward-driven post-training, such as RLHF. This training optimizes them as strong solvers, rather than as teachers that produce reasoning processes smaller models can easily learn. Since smaller models have different "cognitive capacities" compared to their larger teachers, directly imitating raw teacher trajectories can sometimes be ineffective and often requires a substantial number of high-quality samples. To bridge this mismatch, we propose Cognition-Aligned Reasoning Distillation (CARD), an RL-based framework that transforms solver trajectories into teaching trajectories aligned with the student's cognition. Avoiding expensive resampling, our framework directly transforms existing trajectories. We optimize CARD with two reward signals: (1) a Distribution Alignment Reward that matches the student's predictive distribution, and (2) a Logical Coherence Reward that reduces misleading failed reasoning steps. Comprehensive evaluations across multiple student models and settings demonstrate that CARD outperforms distillation from raw teacher trajectories in in-domain settings while achieving substantial gains in out-of-distribution performance. Code is available at https://github.com/LiteSSLHub/CARD.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivating analysis of failed steps in trajectory-based reasoning distillation. Using DeepSeek-R1-generated DeepMath trajectories, we distill three student models on two 10,000-trajectory subsets under identical settings, where one subset consists entirely of trajectories with detected failed steps and the other consists entirely of trajectories without. Bars report the difference between the no-failed-step subset and the failed-step subset. Accuracy gains are reported in absolute points, while output-length reductions are reported as (Tokenfailed−Tokenno-failed)/Tokenfailed×100% . Evaluation includes math benchmarks and ARC-Challenge for out-of-distribution generalization, and each panel corresponds to a different student model.
Figure 2: Illustration of filter-based distillation methods and CARD. Left: filter-based distillation methods sample multiple teacher trajectories before selection and SFT, incurring expensive repeated teacher sampling. Right: CARD selectively reformats solver trajectories into cognition-aligned teaching trajectories without repeated teacher sampling. Highlights in the solver trajectory indicate detected failed steps and redundant expressions that hinder student learning.
Figure 3: Overview of CARD. (1) Reward Computation. The CARD Reformatter takes a question and its original rationale as input and produces a reformatted rationale , leaving the answer unchanged. Rationale Alignment ( rrat ) and Answer Consistency ( rans ) are combined into the Distribution Alignment Reward via a weighted sum. (2) Final Reward. The Distribution Alignment Reward is gated by a Logical Coherence check (no failed steps ) and a Format Validity check (no leakage); any candidate failing either gate receives a reward of zero. (3) Dataset Construction. Teacher trajectories are split by their Failed-Step Fraction (FSF): those with FSF>0 are reformatted by CARD, while structurally clean trajectories with FSF=0 are retained directly to form the final training set.
Model
Method
Math
General (OOD)
AIME24
AIME25
GSM8K
MATH500
AMC23
AGI-Math
Avg
MMLU-Pro
ARC-C
Avg
Qwen2.5-7B
Base
10.42
5.83
90.17
73.80
41.30
70.60
48.69
52.53
87.37
69.95
+ Vanilla SFT
13.89
11.25
90.58
75.80
45.40
73.90
51.80
45.60
67.07
56.34
+ MCC-KD
12.50
9.50
90.10
74.70
44.00
72.50
50.55
46.04
67.41
56.73
+ MoRSD
13.05
10.83
89.89
74.30
44.56
71.72
50.73
45.58
68.60
57.09
+ Mix TokenSkip
12.50
10.00
88.62
68.60
42.80
69.90
48.74
44.37
71.16
57.77
Table 1: Main results on math and OOD generalization benchmarks. Best results within each student block are highlighted. ↑ denotes improvement of CARD over Vanilla SFT.
Method
Math Avg
Gen Avg
Vanilla SFT
51.80
56.34
Drop-FSF
50.93
56.44
Replace-FSF
52.74
57.55
CARD
54.22
71.07
Table 2: FSF filtering on student Qwen2.5-7B.
Method
Math Avg
Gen Avg
Vanilla SFT
52.34±0.64
56.62±0.26
CARD
54.94±0.69
70.78±0.93
Table 3: Training-seed robustness on Qwen2.5-7B.
Reward Student
Math Avg
Gen Avg
Llama3.2-1B
32.26
55.13
Llama3.2-3B
33.92
55.83
Qwen2.5-7B
33.02
55.24
Table 4: Cross-model transferability on student Llama3.2-3B.
Figure 4: Training dynamics of CARD. Left : SFT loss on Llama3.2-3B. Middle : rrat during GRPO training. Right : PPL distribution.
Figure 5: Effect of reformatting selection criterion on student performance under random selection across different fractions of the full training set. Peak Math Avg and Gen Avg are annotated.
Method
Math Avg
Gen Avg
CARD
54.22
71.07
w/o rcoh
52.54 ↓ 1.68
66.31 ↓ 4.76
w/o rrat
52.23 ↓ 1.99
68.32 ↓ 2.75
w/o rans
52.07 ↓ 2.15
68.63 ↓ 2.44
w/o Ileak
52.66 ↓ 1.56
69.17 ↓ 1.90
Table 5: CARD component ablations on Qwen2.5-7B.
Method
Math Avg
Gen Avg
CARD
54.22
71.07
w/ 5% bias
52.88 ↓ 1.34
68.70 ↓ 2.37
w/ 10% bias
53.37 ↓ 0.85
68.94 ↓ 2.13
w/ 20% bias
52.91 ↓ 1.31
66.42 ↓ 4.65
Table 6: Robustness to FSF judge bias on student Qwen2.5-7B.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
#Train
AIME24
AIME25
GSM8K
MATH500
AMC23
AGI-Math
Math Avg
MMLU-Pro
ARC-C
Gen Avg
Vanilla SFT
30,000
13.89
11.25
90.58
75.80
45.40
73.90
51.80
45.60
67.07
56.34
Drop-FSF
21,181
13.16
10.40
90.20
74.30
44.49
73.03
50.93 ↓ 0.87
52.90
59.98
56.44 ↑ 0.10
Replace-FSF
30,000
14.87
12.39
91.09
76.42
46.61
75.06
52.74 ↑ 0.94
53.50
61.60
57.55 ↑ 1.21
CARD
30,000
16.39
14.16
91.87
77.50
48.50
76.87
54.22 ↑ 2.42
54.00
88.14
71.07 ↑ 14.73
Appendix
Table 7: Full FSF filtering comparison on Qwen2.5-7B. Math Avg and Gen Avg are macro-averages over the six math and two OOD benchmarks, respectively. ↑/↓ denote changes from Vanilla SFT.
Method
Seed
AIME24
AIME25
GSM8K
MATH500
AMC23
AGI-Math
Math Avg
MMLU-Pro
ARC-C
Gen Avg
Vanilla SFT
42
13.89
11.25
90.58
75.80
45.40
73.90
51.80
45.60
67.07
56.34
CARD
42
16.39
14.16
91.87
77.50
48.50
76.87
54.22 ↑ 2.42
54.00
88.14
71.07 ↑ 14.73
Vanilla SFT
307
15.70
13.17
90.25
75.36
48.47
75.27
53.04
45.98
67.33
56.66
CARD
307
17.28
17.70
92.23
79.51
48.90
77.90
55.59 ↑ 2.55
53.38
86.10
69.74 ↑ 13.08
Vanilla SFT
1234
14.15
13.62
90.06
77.19
43.51
74.51
52.17
44.85
68.86
56.86
CARD
1234
17.28
16.31
91.65
78.11
50.78
75.93
55.01 ↑ 2.84
54.22
88.84
71.53 ↑ 14.67
Appendix
Table 8: Full per-seed comparison of Vanilla SFT and CARD on Qwen2.5-7B across three training seeds. ↑ denotes improvement over Vanilla SFT with the same seed.
Reward Student
AIME24
AIME25
GSM8K
MATH500
AMC23
AGI-MATH
Math Avg
MMLU-Pro
ARC-C
Gen Avg
Llama3.2-1B
2.64
0.28
76.23
46.40
21.33
46.68
32.26
36.02
74.23
55.13
Llama3.2-3B
3.74
1.38
77.26
49.40
23.13
48.60
33.92
36.91
74.74
55.83
Qwen2.5-7B
2.78
0.56
77.05
46.15
23.37
48.22
33.02
37.23
73.24
55.24
Appendix
Table 9: Full cross-model transferability of the CARD Reformatter on Llama3.2-3B. CARD Train By denotes the student model used to compute rewards during Reformatter training.
Method
AIME24
AIME25
GSM8K
MATH500
AMC23
AGI-MATH
Math Avg
MMLU-Pro
ARC-C
Gen Avg
CARD
16.39
14.16
91.87
77.50
48.50
76.87
54.22
54.00
88.14
71.07
CARD w/o rcoh
15.00
13.61
90.07
74.57
46.46
75.50
52.54 ↓ 1.68
52.82
79.80
66.31 ↓ 4.76
CARD w/o rrat
15.13
12.36
89.50
73.42
46.46
76.50
52.23 ↓ 1.99
54.14
82.50
68.32 ↓ 2.75
CARD w/o rans
14.02
12.36
89.61
73.90
46.60
75.90
52.07 ↓ 2.15
53.90
83.35
68.63 ↓ 2.44
CARD w/o Ileak
14.86
13.19
89.54
74.77
46.60
77.00
52.66 ↓ 1.56
52.81
85.52
69.17 ↓ 1.90
Appendix
Table 10: Full ablation on CARD components using Qwen2.5-7B with LoRA. ↓ denotes the drop compared with full CARD.
Method
AIME24
AIME25
GSM8K
MATH500
AMC23
AGI-MATH
Math Avg
MMLU-Pro (w/o math)
ARC-C
Gen Avg
CARD
16.39
14.16
91.87
77.50
48.50
76.87
54.22
54.00
88.14
71.07
CARD w/ 5% judge bias
13.05
13.88
89.78
76.60
47.83
76.15
52.88 ↓ 1.34
55.22
82.17
68.70 ↓ 2.37
CARD w/ 10% judge bias
14.86
12.78
90.47
77.58
47.28
77.27
53.37 ↓ 0.85
53.13
84.75
68.94 ↓ 2.13
CARD w/ 20% judge bias
14.72
13.05
90.33
75.40
47.14
76.80
52.91 ↓ 1.31
51.78
81.06
66.42 ↓ 4.65
Appendix
Table 11: Full Robustness to FSF judge accuracy using Qwen2.5-7B with LoRA. ↓ denotes the drop compared with full CARD.
Reasoning distillation from powerful teacher models to smaller students faces the Gap Curse: as teachers grow more sophisticated, their complex distributions increasingly diverge from what students can approximate, causing performance degradation. Existing mitigation strategies either filter out challenging examples through data selection or introduce weaker intermediate assistant models, inherently compromising supervision coverage or quality. We propose Teacher Alignment, which directly adapts the teacher toward the student's distribution without discarding data or degrading reasoning quality. However, naive alignment through standard knowledge distillation triggers catastrophic collapse of the teacher's reasoning capabilities. To address this, we reformulate teacher alignment as reinforcement learning and introduce TeacherGRPO, built on Group Relative Policy Optimization with two key innovations: (i) Curriculum Selective Alignment applies dual token- and distribution-level curricula to focus rewards on high-signal reasoning gaps while filtering noise from trivial tokens and uncertain tail distributions, and (ii) Importance-Adaptive Length Regularization selectively penalizes verbose redundancy while preserving pedagogically critical reasoning steps. The aligned teacher then distills knowledge to students via standard pipelines. Extensive experiments show TeacherGRPO significantly outperforms baselines across diverse reasoning benchmarks and distillation methods. Our code is available at https://github.com/LzyFischer/TeacherGRPO.
Zhenyu Lei, Zihan Chen, Yaochen Zhu +5
University of Virginia · Netflix · University of Washington +2
Distilling reasoning capabilities from Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) into smaller models is typically constrained by the limitations of rejection sampling. Standard methods treat the teacher as a static filter, discarding complex "corner-case" problems where the teacher fails to explore valid solutions independently, thereby creating an artificial "Teacher Ceiling" for the student. In this work, we propose Hindsight Entropy-Assisted Learning (HEAL), an RL-free framework designed to bridge this reasoning gap. Drawing on the educational theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), HEAL synergizes three core modules: (1) Guided Entropy-Assisted Repair (GEAR), an active intervention mechanism that detects critical reasoning breakpoints via entropy dynamics and injects targeted hindsight hints to repair broken trajectories; (2) Perplexity-Uncertainty Ratio Estimator (PURE), a ratio-based filtering heuristic that reduces high-anomaly shortcut-like rationales; and (3) Progressive Answer-guided Curriculum Evolution (PACE), a three-stage distillation strategy that organizes training from foundational alignment to hard-case adaptation. Extensive experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate that HEAL significantly outperforms traditional SFT distillation and other baselines.
Wenjing Zhang, Jiangze Yan, Jieyun Huang +7
Data Science & AI Research Institute, China Unicom · Unicom Data Intelligence, China Unicom
Knowledge Distillation (KD) can transfer the reasoning abilities of large models to smaller ones, which can reduce the costs to generate Chain-of-Thoughts for reasoning tasks. KD methods typically ask the student to mimic the teacher's distribution over the entire output. However, a student with limited capacity can be overwhelmed by such extensive supervision causing a distribution mismatch, especially in complex reasoning tasks. We propose Token-Selective Dual Knowledge Distillation (TSD-KD), a framework for student-centric distillation. TSD-KD focuses on distilling important tokens for reasoning and encourages the student to explain reasoning in its own words. TSD-KD combines indirect and direct distillation. Indirect distillation uses a weak form of feedback based on preference ranking. The student proposes candidate responses generated on its own; the teacher re-ranks those candidates as indirect feedback without enforcing its entire distribution. Direct distillation uses distribution matching; however, it selectively distills tokens based on the relative confidence between teacher and student. Finally, we add entropy regularization to maintain the student's confidence during distillation. Overall, our method provides the student with targeted and indirect feedback to support its own reasoning process and to facilitate self-improvement. The experiments show the state-of-the-art performance of TSD-KD on 10 challenging reasoning benchmarks, outperforming the baseline and runner-up in accuracy by up to 54.4% and 40.3%, respectively. Notably, a student trained by TSD-KD even outperformed its own teacher model in four cases by up to 20.3%. The source code is available at https://github.com/kmswin1/TSD-KD.