DemoPSD: Disagreement-Modulated Policy Self-Distillation
Open accessAbstract
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
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 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
Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops
Chen, M., Wang, L., & Qu, B. (2026) · arXiv
- 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)
- arXiv
- 2607.02502
- OpenAlex
- W7167239848
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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