# Outcome-Confounded Local Supervision in On-Policy Distillation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.23731 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.23731/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in On-policy and self-distillation for LLMs, one of 12 directions in Knowledge distillation.
- Builds on 11 of its 14 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- Knowledge distillation / [On-policy and self-distillation for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/distill/on-policy-and-self-distillation-for-llms/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1503.02531/) (2015)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.14476/) (2025)
- [On-Policy Distillation of Language Models: Learning from Self-Generated Mistakes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13649/) (2023)
- [Sequence-Level Knowledge Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.07947/) (2016)
- [Rethinking On-Policy Distillation of Large Language Models: Phenomenology, Mechanism, and Recipe](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.13016/) (2026)
- [A Survey of On-Policy Distillation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.00626/) (2026)
- [MOPD: Multi-Teacher On-Policy Distillation for Capability Integration in LLM Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.30406/) (2026)
- [Demystifying On-Policy Distillation: Roles, Pathologies, and Regulations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.13399/) (2026)
- [Escaping the KL Agreement Trap in On-Policy Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.09471/) (2026)
- [Multi-Rollout On-Policy Distillation via Peer Successes and Failures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.12652/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Solving Without Stopping: On-Policy Distillation at Small Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.37326/) (2026)
- [A Shared Learning Rate Is Not a Neutral Control in Selective On-Policy Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.22109/) (2026)
- [Reward-Aligned Reweighting for On-Policy Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.35517/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

On-policy distillation (OPD) trains a student on its own trajectories while a teacher supplies dense token-level likelihoods at student-visited prefixes. These likelihoods are often read locally: agreement appears safe to imitate, whereas disagreement appears to identify an error. We show that both readings are confounded by the outcome of the completed trajectory. We introduce an outcome-resolved diagnostic that crosses pointwise teacher-student divergence with final-answer correctness, separating safe imitation, productive divergence, harmful divergence, and agreement-on-failure. In an eight-seed mathematical-reasoning study with a Qwen3-8B student and Qwen3-32B teacher, agreement-on-failure constitutes 67.84% of pooled response-token mass; with a Qwen2.5-7B/32B pair it remains 67.68%. The result persists across threshold, sequence-level, format, and truncation audits. Even on prompts that the Qwen3 teacher solves in all four independent attempts, student accuracy rises to 86.91% but agreement-on-failure remains 14.76%. We then run three matched training probes that use the available signals to imitate, mask, or contrast whole trajectories; none consistently reduces agreement-on-failure. The result points to a localization limitation: local divergence paired with a trajectory-level outcome does not identify where a failed trajectory became unrecoverable. Addressing this limitation requires additional positional information, such as process labels, teacher continuations from student prefixes, or token-level alignment across rollouts. Our contribution is therefore diagnostic rather than a new training method.