This review treats collapse as a symptom governed by three levers: where the signal is applied, that is, how tokens are weighted; what the teacher is shown, that is, the nature of the privileged information; and when the signal changes, that is, the teacher's dynamics and the decay of guidance.
Abstract
On-policy distillation trains a language model on its own generations while a teacher scores them token by token. It combines the dense supervision of imitation learning with the on-policy sampling of reinforcement learning. But it requires a second, larger model to act as teacher. On-Policy Self-Distillation (OPSD) removes that cost. The teacher is the model itself, conditioned on privileged information the student will not have at test time, such as a reference solution, a plan, or environment feedback. The teacher is no stronger than the student, only better informed. Early results were promising, with accuracy comparable to reinforcement learning at a fraction of the generated tokens. But the same asymmetry that produces the signal also biases it. One failure mode now dominates the field: collapse, the progressive narrowing of the set of reasoning paths the model can produce. Collapse is not specific to OPSD, though privileged information aggravates it. This review treats collapse as a symptom governed by three levers: (i) where the signal is applied, that is, how tokens are weighted; (ii) what the teacher is shown, that is, the nature of the privileged information; and (iii) when the signal changes, that is, the teacher's dynamics and the decay of guidance. We restrict our scope to mathematical reasoning, where the method originated and where its failure modes are best documented. We report no new experiments. The contribution is structural: a shared vocabulary for phenomena named differently across papers, and a clear line between what is settled and what is still disputed.
On-policy Distillation (OPD) supervises a student model on trajectories sampled from its own policy by minimizing the divergence between the output distributions of the teacher and student at each token position, thereby providing dense token-level supervision. Although existing OPD methods have demonstrated strong performance in improving the reasoning ability of student models, their objectives fundamentally rely on token-level distribution matching. Consequently, they lack an explicit signal for comparing a token's relative compatibility across reasoning modes and thus do not directly model preferences between these modes. To address this limitation, we propose COPD, a contrastive OPD framework. Specifically, for each token generated by the student model, a frozen teacher model scores the same student state under two contrasting instructions that elicit light and heavy reasoning. The difference between the resulting log probabilities serves as a token-level advantage signal to guide the OPD update. Rather than merely imitating a single teacher distribution, COPD directly encourages the student model to learn more concise and efficient reasoning strategies. We conduct experiments on nine multimodal benchmarks covering both reasoning and understanding tasks. The results show that COPD substantially reduces reasoning length without compromising model performance and consistently improves efficiency across different tasks and model scales. Furthermore, the contrastive formulation can be seamlessly integrated into the On-policy Self-distillation (OPSD) framework, where self-contrastive supervision is constructed without an additional teacher model, thereby enabling the model to distill itself toward lightweight reasoning.
Jiacheng Ruan, Jun Tang, Wenzhen Yuan et al.· arXiv.org· 2 citations
It is found that learning concentrates on low log-probability tokens, and using a single fixed negative advantage matches the performance of teacher-provided ones, suggesting that OPD works largely by suppressing low log-probability tokens, which requires no teacher.
It is found that OPD transfers a teacher's reasoning behavior rather than its answers to particular problems: training difficulty barely matters, and even problems the teacher never solves are useful.
Zhaoyi Li, Deyang Kong, Yuan Wei et al.· 0 citations
On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) improves the reasoning abilities of LLMs by internalizing privileged context into model parameters through self-distillation. Two recent research lines promote vanilla OPSD by choosing which tokens to learn from and by controlling how much privileged information the teacher receives, respectively. However, we show that each line optimizes one variable while holding the other fixed, which leads to a suboptimal solution. We argue that the two variables are coupled through the student's learning capacity: the privileged information sets the per-token divergence the teacher prescribes, while token weighting selects which of these the student must absorb. We formalize the two lines of work into a unified optimization framework, which maximizes the aggregate teacher--student divergence, subject to a budget on the aggregate learning difficulty the student can absorb. Under this modelling, we propose Unified On-Policy Self-Distillation (USD), a lightweight online algorithm to solve the Lagrangian. USD reveals that a single dual variable governs both decisions: at one price for learning difficulty, it simultaneously sets the token-selection threshold and the direction of privileged-information adjustment, keeping supervision matched to the student's evolving capacity. Through extensive experiments, USD consistently demonstrates superior performance over OPSD and token- and PI-side baselines across various model scales on various reasoning benchmarks. Code is available at https://github.com/lauvlalala/USD.
Yongkang Yang, Zhezheng Hao, Hong Zhang et al.· 1 citation
This work introduces Latent On-Policy Self-Distillation (LOPD), which, rather than proposing another hand-crafted OPSD variant with a newly prescribed form of privileged context, makes the teacher's privileged context itself learnable end-to-end from experience.
Gui-Min Zhang, Jiayang Lyu, Ran Sun et al.· 1 citation
