RLCSD: Reinforcement Learning with Contrastive On-Policy Self-Distillation
Open accessAbstract
On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) provides dense, token-level supervision for reasoning models by aligning a model's own distribution with that under privileged context, typically a verified solution. However, we show that the resulting distributional gap concentrates on style tokens rather than task-bearing ones, as the hinted model tends to produce shorter, more direct outputs. We term this pathology \emph{privilege-induced style drift}, which can destabilize training and shorten responses. To address this, we propose \textbf{RLCSD} (Reinforcement Learning with Contrastive on-policy Self-Distillation), which mitigates this drift by contrasting the teacher-student gap under a correct hint against that under a wrong hint, suppressing style shifts induced by hints regardless of correctness and yielding a signal more concentrated on task-bearing tokens. Experiments on Qwen3 (1.7B/4B/8B) and Olmo-3-7B-Think across mathematical and logical reasoning show that RLCSD consistently outperforms GRPO and prior OPSD methods, with additional results on agentic tasks supporting broader applicability. We further show that the contrastive principle is general: it plugs into existing OPSD methods to improve them, and its underlying insight extends to broader cross-model on-policy distillation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 learning signal drawn from the privileged/unprivileged distribution gap concentrates on style tokens rather than task-bearing ones, producing 'privilege-induced style drift' that destabilizes training or collapses response length.
“the learning signal drawn from the privileged/unprivileged distribution gap concentrates on style tokens rather than task-bearing ones - the hinted teacher writes shorter, more direct text - producing 'privilegeinduced style drift' that destabilizes training or collapses response length [112].”
From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [112]
Cites
Kimi K3: Open Frontier Intelligence
Kimi Team, Bai, T., Bai, Y., Bao, Y., C., M., Cai, J., Cai, X., Cao, P., Cao, Y., Chai, Z., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.24653 · cited 1×
“Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), exemplified by GRPO (Shao et al., 2024), has emerged as a dominant paradigm for training large reasoning models (Guo et al., 2025; Yang et al., 2025; Zeng et al., 2026; Hong et al., 2025; Chen et al., 2026; Team et al., 2026).”
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops
Chen, M., Wang, L., & Qu, B. (2026) · arXiv
“…the learning signal drawn from the privileged/unprivileged distribution gap concentrates on style tokens rather than task-bearing ones — the hinted teacher writes shorter, more direct text — producing “privilege-induced style drift” that destabilizes training or collapses response length [112].”
- Authors
- Pan, L., Tao, S., Zhai, Y., Zhang, L., Liu, Z., Ding, B., Liu, A., & Wen, L.
- Affiliations
- Alibaba Group (Cayman Islands) (KY)
- Peking University (CN)
- Tsinghua University (CN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2606.11709
- OpenAlex
- W7164364162
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- on-policy self-distillation, contrastive learning, reinforcement learning, token-level supervision, reasoning models, mathematical reasoning, logical reasoning, teacher-student gap, Qwen3
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