PreprintCited by 1Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesReinforcement Learning in Robotics

Power Distribution Bridges Sampling, Self-Reward RL, and Self-Distillation

Open access
Tomihari, Akiyoshi, Sato, Issei·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Recent analyses question whether reinforcement learning (RL) is responsible for strong reasoning in large language models (LLMs). At the same time, distillation and inference-time sampling, including power sampling, have emerged as effective ways to improve LLM performance. However, the relationship among RL, distillation, and sampling remains unclear. In this study, we focus on the power distribution, the target distribution of power sampling, and show that the power distribution bridges sampling, self-reward KL-regularized RL, and self-distillation. From the sampling perspective, we show that inexpensive local approximations cannot reproduce sequence-level power without information about possible suffixes. From the RL perspective, the power distribution is the closed-form optimizer of KL-regularized RL when the model's sequence-level log-probabilities are used as the reward. This identification leads to power self-distillation, an offline distillation surrogate that shares the same target distribution and amortizes the cost of power sampling into supervised training on teacher samples. We further show that power self-distillation can achieve self-reward sharpening, that downstream true-reward gains are governed by the covariance between true reward and self-reward under the power distribution, and that this ideal power-teacher gain transfers to a distilled student when the student is close to the power teacher. Experiments on reasoning tasks support our analysis: power sampling raises self-reward, true-reward gains depend on alignment with self-reward, and power self-distillation can match or exceed the performance of power sampling at much lower inference cost. The code is available at https://github.com/tom4649/power-self-distillation.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2605.04542

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The power-distribution analysis unifies sampling, self-reward RL, and self-distillation as instances of one distributional operation.

    “the power-distribution analysis unifies sampling, self-reward RL, and self-distillation as instances of one distributional operation [105]”

    From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [105]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tomihari, A., & Sato, I.
Affiliations
The University of Tokyo (JP)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7160543734
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
Keywords
power distribution, self-distillation, large language models, reward alignment, reasoning, teacher-student distillation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review