Agentic Reinforcement Learning with Self-Distilled Reward Shaping

Chao Wang; Chenshaodong; Guinan Chen; Jinghao Lin; Ranxu zhang; Sunzhe; Xiaozhou Xu; Yanyong Zhang

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Agentic Reinforcement Learning with Self-Distilled Reward Shaping

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read ADRS converts training-only skill text into per-token rewards for agentic RL, reporting state-of-the-art ALFWorld success of 94.5% with Qwen2.5-3B without using skills at test time.

desk verdict A plausible incremental method with a correct but modest theory, undercut by an internal inconsistency between the main table and the appendix that, if real, kills the Search SOTA claim and muddies ALFWorld. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03223 v1 pith:LOB7LANO submitted 2026-08-04 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

Ranxu Zhang , Guinan Chen , Chenshaodong , Jinghao Lin , Xiaozhou Xu , Sunzhe , Yanyong Zhang , Chao Wang This is my paper

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CL

keywords reinforcementlearningself-distillationLLMagentsrewardshapingcreditassignmentGRPOteachervalueadvantage

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

ADRS claims that a frozen policy's own rescoring of its student-generated tokens under privileged skill text can be converted into reliable token-level credit for agentic RL, by centering teacher scores within each step, gating them by the batch-local association between teacher confidence and realized return, and adding the result to base rewards before GRPO/GiGPO advantage construction. If right, this turns training-only procedural knowledge into a policy that needs no skills at test time and consistently beats sparse-outcome RL baselines across three long-horizon benchmarks. The paper reports new best results with Qwen2.5-3B: 94.5% ALFWorld success, 45.0% Search macro-average, and 87.5/76.6 WebShop score/success, with gains persisting under reduced data, unseen tasks, and 300-step training.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is 'pre-advantage reward shaping' built from three pieces: the within-step centered and scale-normalized teacher score $\hat q_{s,j}$, which satisfies $\sum_j \hat q_{s,j} = 0$ and makes teacher preferences comparable across interaction steps; the Teacher Value Advantage (TVA) gate $m_u = \mathrm{sg}[\sigma(\tau \tilde d_g)]$, where $d_g = \mathrm{Cov}_g(\alpha, R)/(\bar\alpha_g(1-\bar\alpha_g))$ measures whether units with higher teacher confidence also get higher realized returns; and the shaped reward $\tilde r = r_{\mathrm{base}} + \eta m \hat q$ added before the GRPO/GiGPO advantage operator. The zero-sum property (Proposition 2) ensures the trajectory-level outco

What would settle it

Train ADRS with the TVA gate replaced by a random per-group scalar drawn from the same marginal distribution, keeping everything else fixed; if the reported ALFWorld/WebShop deltas over GRPO persist, the gate is not the source of the gains. Alternatively, record the gate's signed $d_g$ on held-out trajectories across training steps: if it frequently disagrees in sign with held-out return differences on the units it gates, the reliability claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that privileged teacher scores become useful credit only when they are (1) made comparable across steps by removing step-level offset and scale, (2) discounted when their within-group confidence-return covariance is low via the Teacher Value Advantage gate, and (3) injected into the native reward-to-advantage path rather than a separate auxiliary objective. In ADRS the teacher reward $r_{s,j}^T = \eta m_{s,j} \hat q_{s,j}$ is added to the base token reward before advantage estimation; because the centered signal is zero-sum within a step (Proposition 2), it preserves trajectory ordering and only redistributes update strength across tokens. Proposition 1 shows the gate is

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the empirical within-group covariance between teacher confidence and realized return, computed on the very batch being trained on, is a reliable indicator of when the teacher signal should be trusted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On the reported benchmarks with Qwen2.5-3B, ADRS raises ALFWorld success from the strongest baseline's 84.4% to 94.5%, Search macro-average from 44.6% to 45.0%, and WebShop score/success from 85.0/68.0 to 87.5/76.6, giving new state-of-the-art numbers under the SDAR evaluation setup.
The gains hold when the RL backbone is changed from GRPO to GiGPO, when training data is cut to 60% of the full set, and when evaluated on an unseen ALFWorld split, suggesting the credit signal rather than a specific optimizer produces the advantage.
Skills are used only during post-rollout rescoring; the deployed policy receives no skill text, so the reported improvements are not a test-time prompting artifact.
Because ADRS is a credit-construction layer, it composes with the standard clipped actor update and existing KL/entropy terms, meaning it can be dropped into current agentic RL training loops with only a teacher-scale hyperparameter $\eta$ to set.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The TVA gate's dependence on a batch-local covariance is the part most likely to behave differently under distribution shift; a natural test is to log $\mathrm{Cov}(\alpha, R)$ on held-out batches and check whether its sign and magnitude predict held-out returns before trusting it as a reliability measure.
The zero-sum shaping signal is deliberately not potential-based, so unlike classical potential-based shaping it does not come with a policy-invariance guarantee; the paper only claims the sampled-trajectory ordering is preserved, and it would be worth checking whether the shaping survives discounting or off-policy reuse.
One could extend ADRS to use the teacher's token-level confidence directly as a per-token $\alpha$ rather than a unit-level average, turning the gate into a richer token-level reliability map; the current design broadcasts the gate to all tokens in a unit.
The action-object diagnostic suggests the token modulation concentrates contrast on task-bearing tokens; a sharper test would be to measure whether the same separation appears on failed trajectories, where the teacher signal is most needed.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the short version: this is a plausible incremental method with a real empirical claim, but the paper has an internal inconsistency in its headline numbers that the authors need to fix. If Table 10 is right, the Search gain vanishes and the ALFWorld gain is against a different baseline.

What's actually new: the specific combination of within-step centering/normalization, the batch-local TVA gate, and pre-advantage injection is not present in the OPSD/SDAR/RLSD line. The three propositions are correct. Proposition 2's zero-sum representation and Proposition 3's local equivalence to a detached auxiliary objective are honest and useful framing. The ALFWorld and WebShop results show sizable gains over GRPO and SDAR, and the ablations on data efficiency, transfer, and 300-step training suggest the mechanism does something.

Now the soft spots, in order of severity. The stress-test concern holds up on reading. Table 2 reports Qwen2.5-3B Search at 45.0 vs GRPO 36.4, and ALFWorld at 94.5 vs GRPO 75.0. Table 10's fixed-step comparisons list Search step 150 as ADRS-global 38.3 vs GRPO 38.4 (delta -0.1), and ALFWorld primary ADRS 94.5 vs a "local GRPO" of 84.4. The text says the primary Search row is the global-normalized eta=0.05 run, so the discrepancy can't be waved off as a different ablation. The appendix's dev-set sweep (Table 7) also tops out near 36.9 at step 150 for that config, not 45.0. This is load-bearing: the "new state-of-the-art on all three benchmarks" and "consistent improvements" claims rest on the Table 2 numbers, and the appendix contradicts them on the exact quantities. It may be a reporting error, but the paper doesn't acknowledge or explain it.

Second, the TVA gate is computed from the same batch it gates. The paper itself calls the proposition observational and batch-local. There is no out-of-sample check that the confidence-return covariance generalizes across steps, tasks, or iterations. If that association is noise, the gate degrades to a random per-group scaling. This is a legitimate concern, but secondary to the table inconsistency.

Third, there are no error bars, and the per-benchmark normalization/eta choices are selected from validation. The matched-pair tables partially justify this, but it weakens the "consistent" claim.

The theory is modest but correct, and the authors are upfront about the limits of Proposition 3. The paper is worth a serious referee, because the empirical contradiction might be fixable and the underlying method deserves independent verification. If the Search numbers can't be reconciled, the SOTA claim should be withdrawn. My recommendation: send to peer review, but the authors must reconcile the tables before acceptance.

For the reading group, I'd bring it as a case study in how an appendix can invalidate a headline result. I wouldn't cite it until the discrepancy is resolved.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ADRS, a reward-shaping layer for multi-turn LLM agents. After a skill-free rollout, the same frozen policy snapshot re-scores the realized tokens under a task-matched privileged skill. The method (i) centers and scale-normalizes teacher log-probabilities within each interaction step, (ii) computes a scalar 'Teacher Value Advantage' (TVA) gate from the within-group covariance between teacher confidence and realized return, and (iii) adds the gated, zero-sum token signal to the base token rewards before the GRPO/GiGPO advantage operator, so that the privileged signal enters the native reward-to-advantage-to-policy path rather than a separate auxiliary loss. The paper reports new state-of-the-art numbers on ALFWorld, Search-based QA, and WebShop with Qwen2.5-3B, plus ablations on GiGPO, reduced data, unseen tasks, and longer training. Three propositions are stated and proved: TVA sign equals within-group confidence-return covariance, the stepwise teacher reward is zero-sum, and the ADRS token path is locally first-order equivalent to a detached token auxiliary coefficient at the behavior-policy point.

Significance. If the empirical results were self-consistent, the paper would make a useful contribution. The idea of converting privileged self-distillation scores into pre-advantage reward shaping is clean, the zero-sum representation is a nice algebraic property, and the three propositions are correct though modest and local. The ablations showing gains beyond TVA and on a GiGPO backbone are informative, and the authors explicitly acknowledge the batch-local, non-invariance scope of their identities. However, the headline empirical claim is not currently credible because the main table and the appendix report contradictory numbers for the same 150-step setting, especially for Search-based QA. The claimed Search improvement is tiny (+0.4 points in Table 2, -0.1 points in Table 10), and the appendix is the only place where fixed-step comparisons are given. Before the SOTA claim can be accepted, the numerical inconsistencies must be resolved and the robustness of the remaining gains established with variance information.

major comments (4)

[§5.2, Table 2 vs. Appendix C.2, Table 10; §A.5; Table 7] Table 2 reports Qwen2.5-3B Search macro-average 45.0 for ADRS, a +0.4 improvement over the strongest baseline (GRPO+OPSD, 44.6). Table 10 reports Search Step 150: GRPO 38.4, ADRS-global 38.3, delta -0.1. §A.5 states that the primary 3B Search row is the global-normalized η=0.05 run, and Table 7 shows that configuration reaching only 36.9 at step 150 on the development set (peak 38.1). These numbers cannot describe the same reported run. If Table 10 is the correct full-evaluation fixed-step comparison, ADRS does not improve Search over GRPO and the new-SOTA claim in §5.2 is false. If Table 2 is correct, Table 10 is mislabeled or uses a different protocol. This must be resolved before the headline claim can be evaluated.
[Table 2 vs. Table 10, ALFWorld row] The same ALFWorld comparison is reported with different baselines. Table 2 lists GRPO at 75.0 and SDAR at 84.4 for Qwen2.5-3B at 150 steps; the text says ADRS improves by 10.1 points over the strongest baseline, which is actually SDAR (84.4→94.5). Table 10, however, labels the reference as 'Local GRPO 84.4' and gives the same +10.1 improvement over it. Unless 'Local GRPO' is a matched-configuration run that differs from the GRPO row of Table 2, this is a direct contradiction. The reader cannot tell which baseline is being compared, and the wording in §5.2 ('strongest baselines') is therefore ambiguous.
[§5.2, §A.5, Table 8, Table 9] All headline numbers are single runs with no error bars, seeds, or variance estimates, despite small claimed differences (e.g., +0.4 points on Search). In addition, the configuration is selected per benchmark after observing results: Table 8 shows global vs. per-sequence normalization was chosen because 'global normalization is stronger on ALFWorld and full Search, while per-sequence normalization is stronger on WebShop,' and §A.5 states the Search row is the η=0.05 run selected from the development sweep. With only a 0.4-point margin in Table 2 and a -0.1-point margin in Table 10, this is a multiple-comparison problem. Report seeds, error bars, and the full configuration-selection protocol so the 'consistent gains' claim can be assessed.
[§4.2, Eqs. (4)-(6); Proposition 1] Proposition 1 correctly identifies d_g as a within-group covariance of soft confidence and return. However, the same batch returns are used both to compute the gate and to define the rewards/advantages being gated, so the 'association' is true by construction for that batch. The paper provides no out-of-sample validation that this batch-local covariance is a reliable signal across held-out steps, tasks, or training iterations. If the covariance is noise, the gate degenerates to a random per-group scaling. I would ask for a temporally or cross-validated version of the reliability claim, or a clear statement that TVA is a heuristic whose usefulness is established only by the ablation results.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] Typo: 'available at the following the link' should be 'available at the following link'.
[Figure 10] The axis labels in Figure 10 appear garbled, with multiple trailing y-tick sequences ('50 75 100 125 150' etc.) that do not correspond to a single coordinate axis. Please regenerate the figure with clean axes.
[Tables 7 and 10] Each table should state in the caption whether the evaluation is on the development subset or the full 51K set, and at which optimizer-step cadence (e.g., every 15 vs. every 75 steps). Currently Table 7's development-set numbers and Table 2's full-set numbers can be confused.
[Proposition 3] The proof refers to an 'exact old-logprob condition' but the statement of Proposition 3 does not define this condition explicitly. Add it to the proposition statement for readability.
[§5.2] The sentence 'Compared with the strongest baselines ... +10.1 percentage points on ALFWorld' should name the baseline (SDAR, not GRPO) explicitly, since the GRPO row of Table 2 is 75.0 and the SDAR row is 84.4.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

TVA gate makes 'return association' true by construction; empirical SOTA claims remain independent but are weakened by internal numeric contradictions.

self definitional [Section 4.2, Eqs. (4)-(6), Proposition 1]
"It then contrasts returns on the high- and low-confidence sides: μ+_g = ... d_g = μ+_g − μ−_g. ... PRoposition 1 (TVA as RetuRn association). Ignoring the numerical ε in Eq.5, let ᾱ_g = E_g[α]. For any non-degenerate group, d_g = Cov_g(α,R)/(ᾱ_g(1−ᾱ_g))."

The scalar gate m_u = sg[σ(τ d_g)] is a monotone transform of d_g, and d_g is algebraically equal to the within-group covariance between teacher confidence α and realized return R computed on the same units whose rewards are then shaped by the gate. Thus the 'return-associated' property of TVA is true by construction on the training batch: Proposition 1 states an identity, not an out-of-sample-validated finding. Since r_T = η m qhat inherits that same-batch return information, the claim that TVA 'determines when that preference is return-relevant' restates the definition of the gate rather than a derived or tested result.

full rationale

The only reduction-by-construction I can exhibit is the TVA gate. Equations 4-6 define d_g as a monotone function of the same-batch covariance between teacher confidence and return, so Proposition 1's 'return association' is a self-definitional algebraic identity. The paper itself acknowledges this is 'observational and batch-local', which is honest, but the design still uses the fitted same-batch association to label the signal 'return-associated'. This is a partial circularity in the reliability module. The central empirical claim — consistent benchmark gains — is not circular: it is evaluated against external baselines, ablations, data-efficiency, unseen-transfer, and 300-step runs. The zero-sum and local-gradient propositions are mathematical equivalences, not circular derivations. There is no load-bearing self-citation: cited prior work (SDAR, SkillRL, etc.) is external and used for setup/benchmarking, not to establish the result. However, the appendix contradicts the main table on the exact quantities supporting the SOTA claim: Table 10 reports Search Step 150 ADRS-global 38.3 vs GRPO 38.4 (delta -0.1) while Table 2 reports Search 45.0 vs 36.4, and ALFWorld local GRPO is 84.4 in Table 10 versus 75.0 in Table 2; Table 7's dev sweep for the primary Search config peaks at 36.9 at step 150. These are internal-consistency/correctness risks, not circularity, but they weaken the non-circular empirical support. Overall, the method's core derivation is not a tautology, but one component is self-validating by construction: score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical or conceptual entities beyond a named gating procedure. Its load-bearing assumptions are the usefulness of privileged-context rescoring and the validity of a batch-local return correlation gate; the latter is the most ad hoc element.

free parameters (4)

eta (teacher scale) = ALFWorld 0.1, WebShop 0.02, Search 0.05-0.1
Selected per environment; Appendix C.1 shows sensitivity, with 0.005 collapsing to 9.6 at step 150.
score normalization scope = global or per-sequence
Chosen per benchmark based on matched comparisons in Table 8; ALFWorld and Search use global, WebShop uses per-sequence.
TVA level and GateNorm = L2 or L3, GateNorm on or off
Configuration selected per run; the primary ALFWorld row uses L2+GateNorm, WebShop uses per-seq normalization, no uniform rule.
gate temperature tau and teacher temperature T = tau=2.0, T=1.0
Fixed hyperparameters; not swept in the paper.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Privileged-context rescoring by the frozen snapshot is a useful teacher signal.
Section 4.1 assumes the same frozen policy conditioned on procedural skills yields token scores that should guide the student; this is the core premise of self-distillation.
ad hoc to paper Batch-local confidence-return covariance is a valid reliability gate for reward shaping.
Section 4.2 defines and uses the TVA gate only inside the same batch; no theoretical or out-of-sample justification is provided.
ad hoc to paper Step-wise zero-sum token rewards can be added to native returns without damaging credit assignment.
Proposition 2 proves algebraic zero-sum on sampled steps but explicitly disclaims policy invariance; the benefit is an empirical claim.
standard math Standard expectation and covariance algebra and PPO clipped gradients are valid.
Used in Propositions 1 through 3.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Agentic Reinforcement Learning with Self-Distilled Reward Shaping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LOB7LANO

@misc{pith2026260803223,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Agentic Reinforcement Learning with Self-Distilled Reward Shaping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LOB7LANO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03223}
}

read the original abstract

Agentic reinforcement learning enables LLM agents to learn through interaction, but sparse trajectory-level rewards reveal success without identifying which intermediate decisions deserve credit. Training-only privileged skills can provide denser supervision by allowing the same frozen policy snapshot to rescore fixed tokens from skill-free trajectories while conditioned on task-matched procedural skills. Existing methods, however, do not jointly calibrate teacher scores across interaction steps, relate teacher confidence to realized returns, and integrate the resulting signal into native reward-to-advantage construction. We introduce Agentic Reinforcement Learning with Self-Distilled Reward Shaping (ADRS), a framework for constructing return-associated token-level credit for multi-turn language agents. ADRS centers and normalizes privileged token scores within each step, modulates them with a return-associated Teacher Value Advantage (TVA) gate based on within-group confidence--return association, and incorporates the gated token signal into native RL credit construction. Together, these components determine what the teacher prefers, when that preference is return-relevant, and how it enters the native reinforcement-learning credit path, while keeping rollouts and inference skill-free. Finally, experiments across three interactive benchmarks show that ADRS consistently improves performance on long-horizon tasks, with gains persisting across RL backbones, reduced-data settings, unseen tasks, and extended training. For anonymous review, our code is available at the following the link: https://github.com/gitrxh/ADRS-arxiv

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03223 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Three challenges for using privileged teacher signals in agentic reinforcement learning. (1) Score calibration: raw [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** ADRS training flow. A behavior policy samples without privileged text. The same frozen snapshot re-scores those [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** ALFWorld training dynamics through 300 steps. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Data efficiency and evaluation on the supplied ALF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: GiGPO-based ALFWorld ablation on Qwen2.5-3B. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Action–object diagnostic over training on four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Effect of maximum interaction steps on ALFWorld [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: ADRS success-rate dynamics across three environments and three model configurations. Light lines are checkpoint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Episode- and response-length dynamics across three environments and three model configurations. Top: mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

Rishabh Agarwal, Nino Vieillard, Yongchao Zhou, Piotr Stanczyk, Sabela Ramos Garea, Matthieu Geist, and Olivier Bachem. 2024. On-policy distillation oflanguagemodels:Learningfromself-generatedmistakes.In InternationalCon- ference on Learning Representations, Vol. 2024. 21246–21263

work page 2024
[2]

JoseAArjona-Medina,MichaelGillhofer,MichaelWidrich,ThomasUnterthiner, Johannes Brandstetter, and Sepp Hochreiter. 2019. Rudder: Return decomposi- tion for delayed rewards.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems32 (2019)

work page 2019
[3]

Kevin Chen, Marco Cusumano-Towner, Brody Huval, Aleksei Petrenko, Jack- son Hamburger, Vladlen Koltun, and Philipp Krähenbühl. 2025. Reinforce- ment Learning for Long-Horizon Interactive LLM Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01600 (2025)

arXiv 2025
[4]

Ken Ding. 2026. HDPO: Hybrid Distillation Policy Optimization via Privileged Self-Distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.23871(2026)

arXiv 2026
[5]

Lang Feng, Zhenghai Xue, Tingcong Liu, and Bo An. 2026. Group-in-group policy optimization for LLM agent training. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems38 (2026), 46375–46408

work page 2026
[6]

Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network.arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531(2015)

arXiv 2015
[7]

Xanh Ho, Anh-Khoa Duong Nguyen, Saku Sugawara, and Akiko Aizawa. 2020. Constructing a multi-hop qa dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reason- ing steps. InProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 6609–6625

2020
[8]

Jonas Hübotter, Frederike Lübeck, Lejs Behric, Anton Baumann, Marco Bagatella, Daniel Marta, Ido Hakimi, Idan Shenfeld, Thomas Kleine Buening, Carlos Guestrin, et al. 2026. Reinforcement Learning via Self-Distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20802(2026)

arXiv 2026

Show all 43 references

[9]

Bowen Jin, Hansi Zeng, Zhenrui Yue, Jinsung Yoon, Sercan Arik, Dong Wang, Hamed Zamani, and Jiawei Han. 2025. Search-R1: Training LLMs to Reason and Leverage Search Engines with Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09516 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[10]

Triviaqa: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension

MandarJoshi,EunsolChoi,DanielSWeld,andLukeZettlemoyer.2017. Triviaqa: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 1601–1611

2017
[11]

RebelliousStu- dent: Reversing Teacher Signals for Reasoning Exploration with Self-Distilled RLVR

JeonghyeKim,JiwonJeon,DongshengLi,andYuqingYang.2026. RebelliousStu- dent: Reversing Teacher Signals for Reasoning Exploration with Self-Distilled RLVR. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.10781(2026)

2026 arXiv
[12]

Naturalquestions:abenchmarkforquestionansweringresearch

TomKwiatkowski,JennimariaPalomaki,OliviaRedfield,MichaelCollins,Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee,etal.2019. Naturalquestions:abenchmarkforquestionansweringresearch. Transactions of the Association for Computational Lingu...

2019
[13]

HunterLightman,VineetKosaraju,YuriBurda,HarrisonEdwards,BowenBaker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. 2024. Let’s verify step by step. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, Vol. 2024. 39578–39601

2024
[14]

Yifeng Liu, Shiyuan Zhang, Yifan Zhang, and Quanquan Gu. 2026. Self-Distilled Policy Gradient.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.04036(2026)

2026 arXiv
[15]

Zhengxi Lu, Zhiyuan Yao, Zhuowen Han, Zi-Han Wang, Jinyang Wu, Qi Gu, Xunliang Cai, Weiming Lu, Jun Xiao, Yueting Zhuang, et al. 2026. Self-distilled agentic reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.15155(2026)

2026 arXiv
[16]

Xufang Luo, Yuge Zhang, Zhiyuan He, Zilong Wang, Siyun Zhao, Dongsheng Li, Luna K Qiu, and Yuqing Yang. 2025. Agent Lightning: Train Any AI Agents with Reinforcement Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.03680(2025)

2025 arXiv
[17]

Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Daniel Khashabi, and Han- naneh Hajishirzi. 2023. When not to trust language models: Investigating effec- tiveness of parametric and non-parametric memories. InProceedings of the 61st annual meeting of the association for co...

2023
[18]

Zibin Meng and Kani Chen. 2026. CRAFT: Counterfactual Credit Assignment from Free Sibling Rollouts for Self-Distilled Agentic Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.29476(2026)

2026 arXiv
[19]

Andrew Y Ng, Daishi Harada, and Stuart Russell. 1999. Policy invariance un- der reward transformations: Theory and application to reward shaping. InIcml, Vol. 99. Citeseer, 278–287

1999
[20]

Ofir Press, Muru Zhang, Sewon Min, Ludwig Schmidt, Noah A Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2023. Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models.In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023. 5687–5711

2023
[21]

Qwen Team. 2025. Qwen2.5 Technical Report. arXiv:2412.15115 [cs.CL] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2412.15115

2025 arXiv
[22]

Stéphane Ross, Geoffrey Gordon, and Drew Bagnell. 2011. A reduction of im- itation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning. InPro- ceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics. JMLR Workshop and Conferenc...

2011
[23]

John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov
[24]

Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Yang Wu, et al. 2024. DeepSeekMath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300(2024)

2024 arXiv
[25]

Mohit Shridhar, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Yonatan Bisk, Adam Trischler, and Matthew Hausknecht. 2020. ALFWorld: Aligning text and em- bodied environments for interactive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03768 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[26]

Charlie Snell, Dan Klein, and Ruiqi Zhong. 2022. Learning by distilling context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.15189(2022)

2022 arXiv
[27]

Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal
[28]

Vladimir Vapnik and Akshay Vashist. 2009. A new learning paradigm: Learning using privileged information.Neural networks22, 5-6 (2009), 544–557

2009
[29]

HaoWang,GuozhiWang,HanXiao,YufengZhou,YuePan,JichaoWang,KeXu, Yafei Wen, Xiaohu Ruan, Xiaoxin Chen, et al. 2026. Skill-SD: Skill-Conditioned Self-Distillation for Multi-Turn LLM Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.10674 (2026)

2026 arXiv
[30]

Jiaqi Wang, Wenhao Zhang, Weijie Shi, Yaliang Li, and James Cheng. 2026. TCOD:ExploringTemporalCurriculuminOn-PolicyDistillationforMulti-Turn Autonomous Agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.24005(2026)

2026 arXiv
[31]

Zihan Wang, Kangrui Wang, Qineng Wang, Pingyue Zhang, Linjie Li, Zhengyuan Yang, Xing Jin, Kefan Yu, Minh Nhat Nguyen, Licheng Liu, et al
[32]

Peng Xia, Jianwen Chen, Hanyang Wang, Jiaqi Liu, Kaide Zeng, Yu Wang, Siwei Han, Yiyang Zhou, Xujiang Zhao, Haifeng Chen, et al. 2026. SkillRL: Evolving Agents via Recursive Skill-Augmented Reinforcement Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08234 (2026)

2026 arXiv
[33]

Hongling Xu, Qi Zhu, Heyuan Deng, Jinpeng Li, Lu Hou, Yasheng Wang, Lifeng Shang, Ruifeng Xu, and Fei Mi. 2025. KDRL: Post-Training Reasoning LLMs via Unified Knowledge Distillation and Reinforcement Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02208 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[34]

Yuanda Xu, Hejian Sang, Zhengze Zhou, Ran He, Zhipeng Wang, and Alborz Geramifard. 2026. TIP: Token Importance in On-Policy Distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.14084(2026)

2026 arXiv
[35]

Qwen3technical report

An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, BowenYu,ChangGao,ChengenHuang,ChenxuLv,etal.2025. Qwen3technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388(2025)

2025 arXiv
[36]

Self-DistilledRLVR

Chenxu Yang, Chuanyu Qin, Qingyi Si, Minghui Chen, Naibin Gu, Dingyu Yao, ZhengLin,WeipingWang,JiaqiWang,andNanDuan.2026. Self-DistilledRLVR. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.03128(2026)

2026 arXiv
[37]

Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. InProceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language p...

2018
[38]

WebShop: Towards scalable real-world web interaction with grounded language agents

ShunyuYao,HowardChen,JohnYang,andKarthikNarasimhan.2022. WebShop: Towards scalable real-world web interaction with grounded language agents. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35 (2022), 20744–20757

2022
[39]

Tianzhu Ye, Li Dong, Xun Wu, Shaohan Huang, and Furu Wei. 2026. On-policy context distillation for language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.12275(2026)

2026 arXiv
[40]

Siyan Zhao, Zhihui Xie, Mengchen Liu, Jing Huang, Guan Pang, Feiyu Chen, and Aditya Grover. 2026. Self-Distilled Reasoner: On-Policy Self-Distillation for Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18734(2026). 10 Agentic Reinforcement Learning with Self-Distilled Reward ...

2026 arXiv
[2017]

Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[2022]

Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics10 (2022), 539–554

MuSiQue: Multihop Questions via Single-Hop Question Composition. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics10 (2022), 539–554

2022
[2025]

RAGEN: Understanding Self-Evolution in LLM Agents via Multi-Turn Re- inforcement Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.20073(2025)

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Rishabh Agarwal, Nino Vieillard, Yongchao Zhou, Piotr Stanczyk, Sabela Ramos Garea, Matthieu Geist, and Olivier Bachem. 2024. On-policy distillation oflanguagemodels:Learningfromself-generatedmistakes.In InternationalCon- ference on Learning Representations, Vol. 2024. 21246–21263

work page 2024

[2] [2]

JoseAArjona-Medina,MichaelGillhofer,MichaelWidrich,ThomasUnterthiner, Johannes Brandstetter, and Sepp Hochreiter. 2019. Rudder: Return decomposi- tion for delayed rewards.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems32 (2019)

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Kevin Chen, Marco Cusumano-Towner, Brody Huval, Aleksei Petrenko, Jack- son Hamburger, Vladlen Koltun, and Philipp Krähenbühl. 2025. Reinforce- ment Learning for Long-Horizon Interactive LLM Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01600 (2025)

arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

Ken Ding. 2026. HDPO: Hybrid Distillation Policy Optimization via Privileged Self-Distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.23871(2026)

arXiv 2026

[5] [5]

Lang Feng, Zhenghai Xue, Tingcong Liu, and Bo An. 2026. Group-in-group policy optimization for LLM agent training. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems38 (2026), 46375–46408

work page 2026

[6] [6]

Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network.arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531(2015)

arXiv 2015

[7] [7]

Xanh Ho, Anh-Khoa Duong Nguyen, Saku Sugawara, and Akiko Aizawa. 2020. Constructing a multi-hop qa dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reason- ing steps. InProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 6609–6625

2020

[8] [8]

Jonas Hübotter, Frederike Lübeck, Lejs Behric, Anton Baumann, Marco Bagatella, Daniel Marta, Ido Hakimi, Idan Shenfeld, Thomas Kleine Buening, Carlos Guestrin, et al. 2026. Reinforcement Learning via Self-Distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20802(2026)

arXiv 2026