Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Privileged self-distillation degrades thinking models by suppressing reasoning forks

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Privileged-context on-policy self-distillation degrades thinking models' long-budget accuracy by suppressing forking and self-correction behaviors, while helping instruction-tuned models.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-08 challenge →

load-bearing objection Privileged-context self-distillation degrades thinking models at long rollout budgets; the mechanism is plausible but not causally established. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05184 v1 pith:AE7JSO7U submitted 2026-07-06 cs.AI cs.LG

Rethinking On-Policy Self-Distillation for Thinking Models

Simran Kaur , Narutatsu Ri , Yinghui He , Liam Fowl , Sanjeev Arora This is my paper
classification cs.AI cs.LG
keywords self-distillationthinking modelsprivileged contextfork suppressionon-policy distillationtest-time reasoningreasoning tracesknowledge distillation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports a negative result: when a thinking model serves as its own teacher and is given privileged information (like a gold solution to a math problem), the resulting self-distillation training degrades the student's performance on long reasoning traces by up to 17% relative accuracy. This happens across five Qwen3 and OLMo thinking models on AIME and HMMT math competitions. The degradation is specific to privileged teacher context: vanilla on-policy distillation without privileged information improves the same students, and adding a gold demonstration to the teacher reverses those gains. The harm scales with how much privileged context the teacher receives (full solution hurts more than final answer alone) and is most pronounced at long rollout budgets, where thinking models normally get their biggest gains. The authors propose a mechanism they call fork suppression: thinking-model rollouts contain high-entropy decision points (forks) where multiple continuations are plausible and lead to different reasoning paths. When the teacher is conditioned on privileged information, the per-token distillation signal at these fork positions flips sign, penalizing self-correction and uncertainty markers like 'wait,' 'hmm,' and 'maybe.' The trained student then produces fewer verification, backtracking, and hedging markers, even after controlling for response length. Instruction-tuned models, which do not rely on this exploratory branching behavior, are not harmed and can even benefit from privileged distillation.

Core claim

The central discovery is a dichotomy in how privileged-context distillation interacts with model type. For instruction-tuned models, giving the teacher extra information helps the student. For thinking models, the same procedure suppresses the deliberative branching behavior that makes them effective at test time. The mechanism is a sign reversal in the per-token learning signal at forking positions: tokens that carry positive advantage under vanilla distillation (supporting exploration and self-correction) receive negative advantage when the teacher sees the answer, because the teacher's distribution shifts toward confident, direct continuations and away from reconsideration. The student继承了

What carries the argument

The central object is the forking position: a high-entropy point in a model's rollout where multiple continuations remain plausible and may lead to different reasoning paths. The paper uses a top-candidate dominance heuristic to classify positions as forks (top candidate probability below 0.25) or locks (top candidate probability above 0.65), then tracks how privileged teacher context changes fork rates, per-token log-ratios at self-correction cues, and realized deliberation marker densities in trained students.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's mechanistic explanation depends on fork suppression being the primary driver of the accuracy loss, but the authors acknowledge their analysis is correlational, not causal. The fork/lock classification uses an unvalidated probability-threshold heuristic, and the link between reduced fork rates, fewer deliberation markers, and actual accuracy degradation is observed co-occurrence rather than demonstrated causation. An alternative explanation, such as distributional

What would settle it

If preventing fork suppression — for example, by masking distillation loss at forking positions or explicitly up-weighting self-correction tokens — does not eliminate or substantially reduce the accuracy degradation, then fork suppression is a secondary epiphenomenon rather than the primary cause.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Self-distillation methods designed for instruction-tuned models cannot be directly transferred to thinking models without accounting for how privileged context reshapes the token-level learning signal at branching points.
  • The density of privileged context matters: sparse final-answer-only context preserves long-budget behavior better than full gold demonstrations, suggesting a design principle for privileged-feedback training recipes.
  • The train-evaluation budget gap is not the root cause: vanilla OPD under the same short training budget improves the student, so the harm is specifically from privileged teacher conditioning, not from short training rollouts.
  • Token-level signal at correction and reasoning steps may need explicit protection in distillation losses, rather than applying uniform divergence across all tokens.
  • Long-horizon agent training that uses privileged teacher-side hints may face analogous fork-suppression risks if the agent's effectiveness depends on exploratory branching.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports a negative result: privileged-context on-policy self-distillation (OPSD) degrades thinking models on long reasoning traces, while helping instruction-tuned models. Across five Qwen3 and OLMo thinking models evaluated on AIME24, AIME25, and HMMT25, OPSD causes relative drops of up to 17% in avg@16 accuracy. The degradation scales with the density of privileged teacher context (full solution > final answer only), is most pronounced at long rollout budgets (32k–38k tokens), and is specific to privileged teacher context—vanilla on-policy distillation (OPD) with an unprivileged larger teacher improves the same student. The authors propose a mechanistic explanation termed 'fork suppression': privileged context lowers fork rates (high-entropy decision points) in thinking-model rollouts, reverses the per-token distillation signal on self-correction markers (e.g., 'wait', 'but', 'maybe'), and reduces deliberation markers in trained students. The paper includes controlled ablations (thinking-enabled vs. disabled training, sparse vs. dense context, conciseness prompt), paired bootstrap confidence intervals, and token-level analyses.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and practically important question: whether self-distillation methods designed for instruction-tuned models transfer to thinking models that rely on long deliberation traces. The empirical design is strong—five models across two families, three external math benchmarks, paired bootstrap CIs (excluding zero for 4/5 main comparisons), and a well-constructed OPD control that isolates privileged context as the causal variable. The budget-curve analysis (Figure 1) showing degradation concentrated at long rollout budgets is a clean and falsifiable finding. The token-level log-ratio analysis (Figure 5) provides concrete, inspectable evidence of signal reversal on self-correction tokens. The conciseness-prompt control (Figure 9) and the CRISP comparison further strengthen the claim that the issue is not mere compression. The paper does not ship reproducible code or machine-checked proofs, but the experimental protocol is described in sufficient detail for replication.

major comments (2)
  1. §4.1, Figure 4: The fork/lock diagnostic uses a top-candidate dominance heuristic (fork: top candidate < 0.25; lock: top candidate > 0.65) borrowed from Zhang et al. [2026]. These thresholds are free parameters with no sensitivity analysis in the main text. Appendix D describes an alternative entropy-based classification (H_norm_K ≤ 0.20 for lock, ≥ 0.60 for fork) but does not cross-validate the two schemes on the same traces. Since the fork-suppression narrative is the primary mechanistic claim and appears in the abstract, the robustness of the diagnostic to threshold choice is load-bearing. A sensitivity analysis showing that the fork-rate reduction in thinking models (Figure 4, right column) persists under the entropy-based thresholds—or a direct comparison of the two classification schemes on the same rollouts—would substantially strengthen the claim.
  2. §4 and §7: The paper presents fork suppression as the primary mechanistic finding (abstract, §4, §6) but acknowledges in §7 that 'our analysis of failures is not perfectly isolated or proved to be causal.' The evidence is correlational: fork rates decrease, deliberation markers decrease, and accuracy decreases. The paper's own infrastructure supports a decisive causal intervention—Appendix E (Table 20) already implements token-masked OPD variants where the loss is applied only to specific token subsets. The natural experiment is privileged-context OPD with the loss excluded at fork positions. If fork suppression is the primary mechanism, masking fork positions from the privileged-context loss should preserve long-budget performance near vanilla OPD levels (0.392 for Qwen3-1.7B). If it does not, the degradation may stem from a broader signal (e.g., general response compression at all high
minor comments (6)
  1. Table 1: The OLMo-7B-Think degradation (0.612 → 0.604, a 0.8-point drop) is small, and the bootstrap CI in Table 15 includes zero ([−0.028, 0.011]). The abstract's claim of 'up to 17%' relative drop is accurate for the worst case (Qwen3-1.7B), but the paper could be more precise about which models show statistically significant degradation.
  2. Figure 5: The log-ratio values are informative, but the color scale and shading conventions are not fully self-explanatory. A brief note clarifying that 'darker shade = larger magnitude' applies to both positive and negative values would help readers.
  3. §2: The OPSD objective is written with a general divergence D, but the specific choice of JSD (α=0.5) is only mentioned in Appendix B (Table 9). Since the fork-suppression mechanism may depend on the divergence choice (forward KL vs. reverse KL vs. JSD can produce different teacher-student signal dynamics), a brief note in §2 on why JSD is the default and whether the results are expected to generalize would be useful.
  4. Table 3 caption mentions 'OpenThoughts 30k' while Table 1 and §2 describe training on 'OpenThoughts 15k.' This inconsistency should be clarified.
  5. §5: The concurrent work by Kim et al. [2026] on epistemic-verbalization suppression is discussed as complementary, but the relationship between the two findings could be sharper. Specifically, does the present paper claim that fork suppression is a strictly broader phenomenon than epistemic-marker suppression, or that they are the same mechanism viewed through different lenses? The current phrasing ('a visible lexical subset') suggests the former but does not make the distinction precise.
  6. Appendix D: The dense-condition traces are capped at 2048 tokens (reference) and 1536 tokens (student), shorter than the base/sparse conditions (3072 tokens). This asymmetry could affect fork/lock rate comparisons across conditions. A note acknowledging this limitation or a robustness check with matched trace lengths would be helpful.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive reading of our paper. The referee identifies two major concerns: (1) the fork/lock diagnostic thresholds in §4.1 lack a sensitivity analysis under the alternative entropy-based classification in Appendix D, and (2) the fork-suppression mechanism is correlational rather than causal, and the paper's existing token-masking infrastructure (Appendix E, Table 20) could support a decisive causal intervention—privileged-context OPD with the loss excluded at fork positions. Both points are well-taken. We address each below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4.1, Figure 4: The fork/lock diagnostic uses a top-candidate dominance heuristic (fork: top candidate < 0.25; lock: top candidate > 0.65) borrowed from Zhang et al. [2026]. These thresholds are free parameters with no sensitivity analysis in the main text. Appendix D describes an alternative entropy-based classification (H_norm_K ≤ 0.20 for lock, ≥ 0.60 for fork) but does not cross-validate the two schemes on the same traces. Since the fork-suppression narrative is the primary mechanistic claim and appears in the abstract, the robustness of the diagnostic to threshold choice is load-bearing. A sensitivity analysis showing that the fork-rate reduction in thinking models (Figure 4, right column) persists under the entropy-based thresholds—or a direct comparison of the two classification schemes on the same rollouts—would substantially strengthen the claim.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the main-text fork/lock diagnostic relies on the top-candidate dominance heuristic from Zhang et al. [2026] without a sensitivity analysis under the alternative entropy-based classification described in Appendix D. This is a fair gap, and we will address it in the revision. Specifically, we will re-run the fork/lock rate analysis from Figure 4 using the entropy-based thresholds (H_norm_K ≤ 0.20 for lock, ≥ 0.60 for fork) on the same traces used for the main-text analysis, and report the results either as a supplementary figure or in a table that directly cross-tabulates the two classification schemes on identical rollouts. We expect the qualitative pattern—dense privileged context lowers fork rates and raises lock rates in thinking-model rollouts but not in instruction-model rollouts—to persist, because the two schemes are designed to capture the same underlying phenomenon (high-entropy positions with multiple competitive continuations). However, we agree that this should be verified empirically rather than assumed, and we will report the comparison transparently. We will also add a brief note in the main text pointing to the sensitivity analysis. One caveat: the entropy-based analysis in Appendix D currently uses a different trace set (60 OpenMathReasoning prompts) than the main-text Figure 4 analysis. For the cross-validation to be meaningful, we will need to run both classification schemes on the same set of traces. This is computationally feasible and we will include it in the revision. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §4 and §7: The paper presents fork suppression as the primary mechanistic finding (abstract, §4, §6) but acknowledges in §7 that 'our analysis of failures is not perfectly isolated or proved to be causal.' The evidence is correlational: fork rates decrease, deliberation markers decrease, and accuracy decreases. The paper's own infrastructure supports a decisive causal intervention—Appendix E (Table 20) already implements token-masked OPD variants where the loss is applied only to specific token subsets. The natural experiment is privileged-context OPD with the loss excluded at fork positions. If fork suppression is the primary mechanism, masking fork positions from the privileged-context loss should preserve long-budget performance near vanilla OPD levels (0.392 for Qwen3-1.7B). If it does not, the degradation may stem from a broader signal (e.g., general response compression at all high

    Authors: This is an excellent suggestion, and we agree it would substantially strengthen the paper. The referee correctly notes that our existing token-masking infrastructure (Appendix E, Table 20) can be extended to the decisive experiment: privileged-context OPD with the loss excluded at fork positions. We will run this experiment for the revision. Concretely, we will train Qwen3-1.7B with privileged gold-demonstration context but mask the distillation loss at positions classified as forks (using the top-candidate dominance heuristic from §4.1), and evaluate at long rollout budgets on AIME24, AIME25, and HMMT25. If fork suppression is the primary mechanism, we expect long-budget performance to recover toward vanilla OPD levels (0.392 average). If it does not recover, this would suggest the degradation stems from a broader signal, as the referee notes. Either outcome would be informative and we will report it honestly. We want to be transparent about one limitation: the fork-position mask is defined by the same threshold-based diagnostic discussed in the referee's first comment, so the causal experiment inherits the threshold-sensitivity concern. We will therefore run the fork-masking experiment under both the top-candidate heuristic and the entropy-based classification, and report both. We also note that the referee's comment was truncated ('general response compression at all high...'), but we infer the intended alternative explanation is that degradation may stem from general response compression at all high-entropy or high-importance positions, not specifically fork positions. Our existing conciseness-prompt control (Figure 9) and the CRISP comparison already provide partial evidence against pure compression as the explanation, but the fork-masking experiment would be more決 revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; one minor self-citation (SD-Zero) used for complementary evidence, not load-bearing

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim—that privileged-context OPD degrades thinking models—is tested against external benchmarks (AIME24, AIME25, HMMT25) not used in training, across five models from two families. The fork/lock diagnostic (§4.1) borrows from Zhang et al. [2026], which is NOT a self-citation (no author overlap). The token-level log-ratio analysis (Figure 5) is a direct computation on fixed trajectories, not a fitted prediction. The deliberation marker counts (Table 6) are independent lexical measurements on paired rollouts. None of these reduce to their inputs by construction. The paper explicitly acknowledges in §7 that 'our analysis of failures is not perfectly isolated or proved to be causal,' presenting fork suppression as a 'plausible explanation' and 'consistent behavioral pattern' rather than a proven mechanism. The one self-citation is He et al. [2026] (SD-Zero), used in Appendix F (Table 24) as complementary evidence that the OPSD stage hurts thinking models in a pipeline setting. This is not load-bearing for the central claim, which rests on the independent experiments in Tables 1–4. Score 1 reflects this minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces two ad-hoc thresholds (fork: 0.25, lock: 0.65) that are not sensitivity-tested, and relies on lexical markers as proxies for forking positions. The core domain assumptions (forking positions matter for reasoning; lexical markers proxy for them) are supported by correlational evidence and prior work but not by causal intervention. Training hyperparameters (LR, alpha, completion cap) are standard but not ablated. No new physical entities or forces are postulated; the invented entity is a named failure mode with multiple lines of correlational evidence.

free parameters (5)
  • Fork threshold (top candidate probability < 0.25) = 0.25
    Chosen by hand in §4.1 / Appendix D to classify high-entropy positions. Not validated against an external standard or sensitivity-tested.
  • Lock threshold (top candidate probability > 0.65) = 0.65
    Chosen by hand in §4.1 / Appendix D to classify low-entropy positions. Not validated or sensitivity-tested.
  • Training completion cap (4,096 tokens) = 4096
    Fixed training rollout length. The paper argues this is not the sole cause of degradation (Table 4 ablation), but it is a free parameter that affects the training distribution.
  • Distillation mixture alpha (JSD) = 0.5
    JSD distillation mixture parameter from Table 9. Standard choice but not ablated.
  • Learning rates per model = 5e-6 (most models), 2e-6 (Qwen3-8B)
    Set in Table 10. Not ablated; could interact with degradation magnitude.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Forking positions (high-entropy decision points) are causally important for thinking models' test-time reasoning ability.
    Invoked in §1 and §4. The paper's mechanistic explanation depends on this, but it is supported by correlational evidence (§4.3) and prior work [Bigelow et al. 2024, Zhang et al. 2026], not by a causal intervention that prevents fork suppression and shows accuracy recovery.
  • domain assumption Lexical markers (wait, hmm, but, maybe) are adequate proxies for forking positions.
    Used in §4.2-4.3 and Tables 5-6. The authors acknowledge these are 'lexical proxies, not direct measurements' (§4.2), but the marker-density analysis is load-bearing for the fork-suppression narrative.
  • domain assumption AIME24, AIME25, and HMMT25 (30 problems each) are adequate benchmarks for measuring thinking-model degradation.
    These are the sole out-of-domain evaluation benchmarks. Small sample sizes (30 problems) with 16 samples each. Bootstrap CIs (Appendix C.1) partially address this but do not cover training-seed variability.
  • ad hoc to paper The fork/lock entropy thresholds (H_norm_K <= 0.20 for lock, >= 0.60 for fork) capture meaningful structural positions.
    Defined in Appendix D. These specific thresholds are introduced for this paper's diagnostic and are not validated against an external standard or sensitivity-tested.
invented entities (1)
  • Fork suppression (as a named failure mode) independent evidence
    purpose: Names the mechanism by which privileged context lowers fork rates and reverses self-correction token signal, causing degradation.
    The paper provides multiple independent lines of evidence for this pattern: fork-rate changes (Figure 4), token-level sign reversal (Figure 5), marker-density shifts (Tables 5-6), and budget-dependent degradation (Figure 1). However, the causal link to accuracy loss is not established.

reviewed 2026-07-08 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rethinking On-Policy Self-Distillation for Thinking Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AE7JSO7U

@misc{pith2026260705184,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rethinking On-Policy Self-Distillation for Thinking Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AE7JSO7U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05184}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Self-distillation is a promising recipe for self-improvement in language models. In this setting, a model can serve as its own teacher when given privileged information, such as a solution to a math problem. This seems especially appealing for thinking models, which can use test-time reasoning to absorb the privileged information. Surprisingly, we show that privileged self-distillation degrades thinking models on long reasoning traces: across five Qwen3 and OLMo thinking models evaluated on AIME24, AIME25, and HMMT25, privileged-context distillation causes a relative drop of up to 17% in avg@16 accuracy. The degradation scales with the amount of privileged context withheld from the student and is most pronounced at long rollout budgets, where thinking models otherwise obtain their largest gains. This failure mode is not specific to self-distillation: on-policy distillation (OPD) improves thinking models, but privileged OPD reverses these gains. Our diagnostics link this failure mode to how privileged teacher context reshapes learning at high-entropy forking positions, where multiple continuations remain plausible and may lead to different reasoning paths. Privileged context lowers fork rates in thinking-model rollouts but not in instruction-model rollouts. This leads to an interesting dichotomy, where privileged context can help instruction-tuned models but hurts stronger thinking models. The effect is visible when the student begins a self-correction branch, where privileged OPD penalizes sampled reconsideration tokens that vanilla OPD supports. Thinking models trained with a privileged teacher produce fewer verification, backtracking, and hedging markers, even after length normalization. These findings indicate that self-distillation for strong thinking models requires attention to token-level signal, especially around correction and reasoning steps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05184 by Liam Fowl, Narutatsu Ri, Sanjeev Arora, Simran Kaur, Yinghui He.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: For thinking models, OPSD can improve short-budget performance via compression but can hurt long-budget reasoning. We evaluate OpenThoughts-trained Qwen3-4B, Qwen3-8B, and OLMo-3-7B thinking models across rollout budgets. Models are trained with a 4,096-token completion cap and evaluated at generation caps from 4,096 to 38,912 tokens. Top row: pass@1 and pass@16, averaged over AIME24, AIME25, and HMMT25. B… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: OPSD students inherit the teacher’s shorter response lengths, but not the pass@k benefits at longer rollout budgets. For each Qwen3 thinking-model size (1.7B, 4B, and 8B), we compare three settings: the base model; the same base model given a gold demonstration in context, matching the setup of the OPSD teacher; and the OPSD student, evaluated without the gold demonstration in context. Top row: pass@1 and … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: In thinking models, sparse privileged context preserves long-budget behavior better than dense demonstrations. We plot OPSD minus each model’s base performance across rollout budgets, averaged over the thinking models in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Dense privileged context lowers fork rates in thinking rollouts but has little effect on instruction-style rollouts. We compute fork and lock rates using the SSD-style diagnostic of Zhang et al. [2026]: fork positions are high-entropy decision points with multiple plausible continuations, while lock positions are locally determined continuations. Panels show the OPSD side of the diagnostic for base, sparse… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Privilege flips credit on self-correction cues, even when they lead to the correct answer. Three windows from rollouts of a Qwen3-1.7B (Thinking) student trained against a Qwen3-8B (Thinking) teacher on OpenThoughts; the trajectory is identical under both teachers; only the teacher differs. Cells show the sign and magnitude of the per-token log-ratio log πT (yt | y<t, x)−log πS(yt | y<t, x). Top: a rollout… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Per-model pass-rate budget curves separate the accuracy effects in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Per-model response-length budget curves show where OPSD compresses long thinking rollouts. This companion to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: OPD with gold-demonstration context shortens response lengths while vanilla OPD preserves the base length profile. This budget-curve companion to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A CRISP-style conciseness prompt compresses Qwen3-8B responses but does not recover the long-budget gains. We compare base Qwen3-8B thinking, OPSD with full gold demonstrations, OPSD with final-answer-only privileged context, and a conciseness-instruction condition with no gold context, following the CRISP prompt direction of [Sang et al., 2026]. Top panels report pass@1 and pass@16 averaged over AIME24, A… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. DAPD: Dual-Anchored Policy Distillation

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0

    DAPD uses a self-conditioned bridge and bidirectional anchoring to match information between teacher and student during on-policy self-distillation, improving reasoning, coding, and instruction-following benchmarks over OPSD.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 11 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Forking Paths in Neural Text Generation

    URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= AiZxn84Wdo. Eric Bigelow, Ari Holtzman, Hidenori Tanaka, and Tomer Ullman. Forking paths in neural text generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07961,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2501.12948. Ken Ding. Hdpo: Hybrid distillation policy optimization via privileged self-distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.23871,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Chakravarthy, Anikait Singh, Nathan Lile, and Noah D

    Kanishk Gandhi, Ayush K. Chakravarthy, Anikait Singh, Nathan Lile, and Noah D. Goodman. Cognitive behaviors that enable self-improving reasoners, or, four habits of highly effective STaRs. InProceedings of the 2nd Conference on Language Modeling (COLM 2025),

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Self-Distillation Zero: Self-Revision Turns Binary Rewards into Dense Supervision

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2604.12002. Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network.arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    Reinforcement Learning via Self-Distillation

    Jonas Hübotter, Frederike Lübeck, Lejs Behric, Anton Baumann, Marco Bagatella, Daniel Marta, Ido Hakimi, Idan Shenfeld, Thomas Kleine Buening, Carlos Guestrin, and Andreas Krause. Reinforcement learning via self-distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20802,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Why Does Self-Distillation (Sometimes) Degrade the Reasoning Capability of LLMs?

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.24472. Dhireesha Kudithipudi, Mario Aguilar-Simon, Jonathan Babb, Maxim Bazhenov, Douglas Blackiston, Josh Bongard, Andrew P Brna, Suraj Chakravarthi Raja, Nick Cheney, Jeff Clune, et al. Biological underpinnings for lifelong learning machines.Nature Machine Intelligence, 4(3):196–210,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    Critical Tokens Matter: Token-Level Contrastive Estimation Enhances LLM's Reasoning Capability

    Zicheng Lin, Tian Liang, Jiahao Xu, Qiuzhi Lin, Xing Wang, Ruilin Luo, Chufan Shi, Siheng Li, Yujiu Yang, and Zhaopeng Tu. Critical tokens matter: Token-level contrastive estimation enhances llm’s reasoning capability.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19943,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    Accessed: 2026-05-07

    URL https://openai.com/index/ learning-to-reason-with-llms/. Accessed: 2026-05-07. 12 Yuxiao Qu, Amrith Setlur, Virginia Smith, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Aviral Kumar. Pope: Learning to reason on hard problems via privileged on-policy exploration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18779,

    work page arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Setlur, Z

    Amrith Setlur, Zijian Wang, Andrew Cohen, Paria Rashidinejad, and Sang Michael Xie. Reuse your flops: Scaling rl on hard problems by conditioning on very off-policy prefixes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.18795,

    work page arXiv

  10. [10]

    Self-Distillation Enables Continual Learning

    Idan Shenfeld, Mehul Damani, Jonas Hübotter, and Pulkit Agrawal. Self-distillation enables continual learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.19897,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    Olmo 3

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2512.13961. Jean Vassoyan, Nathanaël Beau, and Roman Plaud. Ignore the kl penalty! boosting exploration on critical tokens to enhance rl fine-tuning. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025, pages 6123–6133,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Understanding reasoning in thinking language models via steering vectors

    Constantin Venhoff, Iván Arcuschin, Philip Torr, Arthur Conmy, and Neel Nanda. Understanding reasoning in thinking language models via steering vectors. InWorkshop on Reasoning and Planning for Large Language Models at ICLR 2025,

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Qwen3 Technical Report

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09388. Chenxu Yang, Chuanyu Qin, Qingyi Si, Minghui Chen, Naibin Gu, Dingyu Yao, Zheng Lin, Weiping Wang, Jiaqi Wang, and Nan Duan. Self-distilled rlvr.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.03128,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Embarrassingly Simple Self-Distillation Improves Code Generation

    Ruixiang Zhang, Richard He Bai, Huangjie Zheng, Navdeep Jaitly, Ronan Collobert, and Yizhe Zhang. Embarrassingly simple self-distillation improves code generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.01193,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2601.18734. 13 A Expanded Related Work Continual Learning.Model weights are updated during pre-training and post-training, but are then often deployed as static artifacts for months to serve traffic. This can quickly lead to a gap between in-weight knowledge and relevant real-world skills and information.Continual learningaims t...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    focuses on reducing thinking trace lengths by distilling a teacher’s concise reasoning into a student model. Self-distillation has also been attempted where the teacher, instead of being given privileged information or different steering prompts, is instead sampled at different temperatures Zhang et al. [2026]. Approaches like Self-Distillation Policy Opt...

    work page 2026

  17. [17]

    also use privileged information but augment the teacher policy with environmental feedback like error messages instead of gold, ground-truth information like OPSD or SDFT. Self-Distillation Failure Modes.Concurrent work [Kim et al., 2026] studies why self-distillation can sometimes degrade mathematical reasoning, and attributes the degradation to suppress...

    work page 2026

  18. [18]

    The Average column averages the three benchmarks

    Entries report pass@1 / pass@16 on AIME24, AIME25, and HMMT25. The Average column averages the three benchmarks. Model AIME24 AIME25 HMMT25 Average Qwen3-1.7B Base0.502 /0.800 0.398/0.6670.215 / 0.467 0.372 / 0.644 +OPSD0.435 /0.8000.302 / 0.600 0.185 / 0.433 0.308 / 0.611 +OPD 0.540/0.8000.385 /0.667 0.252/ 0.5670.392/ 0.678 +OPD gold demo0.467 /0.8000.3...

    work page 2048

  19. [19]

    Epistemic-token OPD applies the same loss only to tokens in the epistemic-marker set

    Vanilla OPD applies the unprivileged teacher’s loss to all sampled response tokens. Epistemic-token OPD applies the same loss only to tokens in the epistemic-marker set. Random-fraction OPD is a token-count-matched control: if x is the average fraction of epistemic tokens in student responses, then each rollout receives OPD loss on a uniformly sampled x% ...

    work page 2026

  20. [20]

    Relation to CRISP-style reasoning compression.CRISP [Sang et al., 2026] studies a comple- mentary setting in which the teacher is conditioned on a conciseness instruction rather than on a gold answer or reference solution. Thus, unlike gold-context OPSD, CRISP does not give the teacher task-answer information, but its token-level supervision can still act...

    work page 2026

  21. [21]

    Blue curves are base thinking models, orange curves are OPSD with full gold-demonstration context, and green curves are OPSD with final-answer-only privileged context

    Solid lines show mean response length and dashed lines show median response length. Blue curves are base thinking models, orange curves are OPSD with full gold-demonstration context, and green curves are OPSD with final-answer-only privileged context. At 32k–38k token budgets, full-demonstration OPSD generally produces shorter responses than the correspon...

    work page 2026

This paper was first reviewed by glm-5.2 on July 8, 2026.