# Rethinking Cross-Tokenizer On-Policy Distillation: From Alignment Coverage to Supervision Reliability

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.08448 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.08448/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in On-policy and self-distillation for LLMs, one of 12 directions in Knowledge distillation.
- Builds on 17 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 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, 17 of 17)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [Phi-4-Mini Technical Report: Compact yet Powerful Multimodal Language Models via Mixture-of-LoRAs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.01743/) (2025)
- [Rethinking On-Policy Distillation of Large Language Models: Phenomenology, Mechanism, and Recipe](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.13016/) (2026)
- [Learning beyond Teacher: Generalized On-Policy Distillation with Reward Extrapolation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.12125/) (2026)
- [Entropy-Aware On-Policy Distillation of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.07079/) (2026)
- [A Survey of On-Policy Distillation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.00626/) (2026)
- [Revisiting On-Policy Distillation: Empirical Failure Modes and Simple Fixes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.25562/) (2026)
- [Beyond Benchmarks: MathArena as an Evaluation Platform for Mathematics with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.00674/) (2026)
- [TIP: Token Importance in On-Policy Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.14084/) (2026)
- [SimCT: Recovering Lost Supervision for Cross-Tokenizer On-Policy Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.07711/) (2026)
- [Cross-Tokenizer LLM Distillation through a Byte-Level Interface](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.07466/) (2026)
- [Cross-Tokenizer On-Policy Distillation via Byte-Prefix Marginalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.22334/) (2026)
- [KDFlow: A User-Friendly and Efficient Knowledge Distillation Framework for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.01875/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

On-Policy Distillation (OPD) trains a student on its own generations using teacher feedback. With different tokenizers, comparing teacher and student predictions requires alignment at both sequence and vocabulary levels. In this paper, we examine whether expanding this alignment coverage improves learning. Across three heterogeneous teacher--student pairs on mathematical reasoning and code generation, strict 1:1 groups already cover most student-generated tokens despite substantial vocabulary mismatch. On responses sampled from the students before distillation, the shared vocabulary retains nearly all teacher and student probability mass at strictly aligned positions on average. Restricting reverse KL to a student-selected top-16 subset of the shared vocabulary at each strict position achieves accuracy comparable to full shared-vocabulary OPD, outperforming the evaluated cross-tokenizer baselines. Adding mean squared error supervision on span log-probabilities in mismatch groups gives complete supervision coverage, yet reduces accuracy. At checkpoints from training with only the strict loss, the span gradients show weak or negative directional agreement with the strict gradients and grow in magnitude relative to them. These diagnostics may help explain the accuracy drop from adding span supervision. Our findings motivate a shift from maximizing alignment coverage to prioritizing supervision reliability: compact supervision at strict positions can be more effective than broader coverage that introduces weakly aligned or conflicting training signals.