PreprintCited by 1Topic ModelingReinforcement Learning in RoboticsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

DemoPSD: Disagreement-Modulated Policy Self-Distillation

Open access
Li, Yunhe, Shi, Hao, Liu, Wenhao, Ruan, Mengzhe, Hou, Hanxu, Dai, Zhongxiang, Qiu, Shuang, Song, Linqi·2026·arXiv

Abstract

On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) has emerged as a practical method for training large language models (LLMs) to reason, where a single model acts as both the teacher and the student with different levels of information access. However, recent studies have found that the teacher's dense token-level supervision, conditioned on privileged information, can lead to overfitting to in-domain patterns, suppress exploration, and hurt cross-domain generalization, while also introducing a more fundamental issue: *privileged information leakage*, where the student encodes answer-dependent shortcuts that are unavailable at test time. We introduce **DemoPSD**, a novel framework that resolves such problems through the idea of *selective adoption of teacher guidance*. Instead of fitting the full teacher distribution, DemoPSD steers the student toward a *reverse-KL barycenter target*, a weighted geometric combination of the teacher and student distributions, that naturally balances learning from the teacher with preserving the student's own reasoning capacity. We measure the difference between their distributions and use such a discrepancy to adaptively control the blending at each token position. We provably show that DemoPSD achieves **(1)** *leakage attenuation*, i.e., effective mitigation of privileged information leakage; and **(2)** *exploration preservation*, i.e., preservation of exploration capacity under dense token-level distillation. Extensive experiments on SciKnowEval across four scientific fields show that DemoPSD outperforms both GRPO and SDPO while maintaining higher training entropy and robustly generalizing to out-of-distribution GPQA benchmarks.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2607.02502

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 privileged teacher's dense supervision can overfit in-domain patterns.

    “the privileged teacher's dense supervision can overfit in-domain patterns [111].”

    From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [111]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, Y., Shi, H., Liu, W., Ruan, M., Hou, H., Dai, Z., Qiu, S., & Song, L.
Affiliations
  • City University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
  • Shenzhen University of Advanced Technology (CN)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7167239848
Cited by
0
References
0
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 › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
on-policy self-distillation, teacher-student distillation, domain generalization, large language models, reasoning, token-level supervision, out-of-distribution generalization, scientific question answering

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