PreprintCited by 31Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Purified OPSD: On-Policy Self-Distillation Without Losing How to Think

Open access
Shen, Zhanming, Tong, Jintao, Yan, Shaotian, Shen, Chen, Chen, Hao, Ye, Wentao, Hu, Xiaomeng, Miao, Rui +4 more·2026·arXiv

Abstract

On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) has emerged as a promising paradigm for improving LLM reasoning, where a privileged teacher with access to reference solutions provides token-level supervision on the student's own generated trajectories. However, we find that OPSD consistently fails on long chain-of-thought (long-CoT) reasoning models, yielding at best marginal gains while destabilizing the reflective reasoning capability these models depend on. Through a novel decomposition of the teacher's supervision signal, we identify the root cause: the teacher's supervision is dominated by a reference-induced component that drives rote memorization of reference-specific shortcuts, while the question-conditioned, inference-transferable component is ignored or actively opposed. Based on this diagnosis, we propose a two-step solution. First, we construct a reference-only teacher (the same model conditioned on the reference without the question) to isolate the non-transferable component of the supervision signal; the residual after subtracting this component captures the question-conditioned, inference-transferable correction. Second, we use pointwise mutual information (PMI) as the mechanism to transform this residual into a well-formed PMI target distribution that the student can directly distill from, filtering out the reference-induced shortcut. Experiments on four long-CoT models across two datasets demonstrate consistent improvements over both the base model and standard OPSD, while preserving the models' natural epistemic behavior throughout training.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2607.02234

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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 vanilla on-policy self-distillation recipe consistently fails on long-CoT reasoning models, destabilizing the very reflective behaviors it is meant to strengthen.

    “Purified OPSD shows the vanilla recipe consistently fails on long-CoT reasoning models , destabilizing the very reflective behaviors it is meant to strengthen [110]”

    From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [110]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shen, Z., Tong, J., Yan, S., Shen, C., Chen, H., Ye, W., Hu, X., Miao, R., Wang, H., Zhao, J., Chen, G., & Ye, J.
Affiliations
  • Alibaba Group (Cayman Islands) (KY)
  • Zhejiang University (CN)
  • Jilin University (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7167214743
Cited by
0
References
36
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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 › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
on-policy self-distillation, large language model reasoning, teacher-student distillation, rote learning, pointwise mutual information, reflective thinking

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