Does On-Policy Distillation Really Distill? From Noisy Teacher to Self-Improvement
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 teacherprovided ones. This suggests that OPD works largely by suppressing low logprobability 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.
Introduction. Reinforcement learning (RL) has become a dominant post-training paradigm to improve reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) (Guo et al., 2025; Yang et al., 2025; GLM-5-Team et al., 2026), offering stronger performance and generalization than offline methods such as supervised fine-tuning (SFT) (Chu et al., 2025; Chen et al., 2025). Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), including GRPO (Shao et al., 2024) and DAPO (Yu et al., 2026), samples multiple responses per question and assigns advantages by normalizing verifiable rewards within each group (Fig. 1(a)). However, response-level rewards provide coarse and sparse supervision for long-horizon reasoning (Yue et al., 2025). Moreover, when responses within a group share the same correctness outcome, their normalized advantages vanish (Wang et al., 2026b; Ding et al., 2026), weakening the learning signal and making training unstable or prone to collapse.
Discussion / Conclusion. The central contribution of this work is a systematic investigation into the source of performance gains in OPD. We find that much of OPD’s improvement can be reproduced without teacher supervision by assigning fixed negative advantages to low-probability tokens, while scaling these advantages according to token-level entropy further enhances performance. Building on these findings, we introduce On-Policy Self-Adaptation (OPSA), an external-supervision-free framework that enables policy self-improvement through entropy-adaptive negative advantages. Our analysis shows that OPSA suppresses low-probability tail tokens while redistributing probability mass among competing head tokens. This adaptively sharpens the overall token distribution, improving prediction confidence at low-entropy positions while preserving exploration at high-entropy reasoning forks. As a result, OPSA encourages longer and more reflective reasoning trajectories, leading to substantial improvements in both Avg@32 and Pass@32.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
What makes weaker teacher models effective for stronger student training?- What makes student-teacher distributional mismatch derail on-policy distillation?
- Why does teacher-student proximity matter more than absolute teacher strength?
- What causes on-policy distillation to become unstable at scale despite dense rewards?
- How does student capacity limit what it can learn from teachers?
- Can signal quality regulations help smaller teachers outperform larger ones?
- Why does style transfer happen during knowledge distillation?
- Why should we ignore bits where teacher and student already agree?
- Can distillation and reward optimization happen in a single training loop?
- Can structured natural language feedback outperform scalar rewards in RL?
- How does process-focused feedback compare to outcome-focused feedback in skill training?
- How do process-level rewards compare to environment-extracted next-state signals?
- How do process reward models compare to token-level variance filtering?