Source-linked AI summary
GIFT: Gradient Informed Filtering for Distillation Augmented Reasoning RL
Shijie Li, Yilin Gao, Tieyuan Chen, Yun Luo, Weiyao Lin, Hang Yu
TL;DR
Sparse outcome-based RL and dense distillation offer complementary supervision, but teacher imitation can conflict with the outcome-driven objective. GIFT filters token-level guidance using gradient geometry and progressively shrinks its coverage; it consistently outperforms strong baselines on complex reasoning benchmarks.
Problem
Outcome-based RL provides sparse supervision and dense distillation can conflict with the RL objective, while existing hybrids lack a principled way to allocate teacher updates.
Source: §1 · pp. 1–2Method
GIFT scores token-level teacher guidance by decomposing its gradient into components parallel and orthogonal to the RL gradient, then progressively shrinks the distillation-token budget.
Source: §1 · p. 2, §3.4 · p. 6Results
GIFT consistently outperforms strong baselines on complex reasoning benchmarks, with the introduction reporting the highest average scores across four model scales on challenging mathematical reasoning tasks.
Source: §1 · p. 2, §5 · p. 10Takeaways & Limitations
Coverage annealing retains the most complementary teacher contributions as the token budget contracts, before training reaches a pure outcome-grounded RL objective.
Source: §3.4 · p. 6, §5 · p. 10
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
Training large language models for complex reasoning tasks relies on two complementary signals: sparse, outcome-grounded reinforcement learning (RL) for correctness, and dense, token-level distillation for guidance. However, complementarity in supervision does not guarantee compatibility in optimization; imitation-focused distillation can conflict with the outcome-driven RL objective, and existing hybrids lack a principled resolution. We propose \textbf{GIFT} (\textbf{G}radient-\textbf{I}nformed \textbf{F}il\textbf{T}ering for Distillation-Augmented Reasoning RL), a novel method that directly addresses the allocation problem of which teacher updates to apply. GIFT performs a token-level geometric analysis, decomposing the distillation gradient into a component \textbf{parallel} to the RL gradient, which measures first-order conflict and provides a \textbf{safety} filter, and a component \textbf{orthogonal} to it, which quantifies novel directional guidance and provides a measure of \textbf{value}. This decomposition yields a principled scoring rule to rank token-level guidance. We combine this with a progressive \textbf{coverage annealing} schedule that shrinks the budget of tokens receiving distillation, ensuring that the most conflicting updates are discarded first while the most complementary ones are retained at full strength. This facilitates a smooth transition from dense, geometrically-filtered guidance to a pure, outcome-grounded objective at convergence. Extensive experiments on mathematical and logical reasoning benchmarks show that GIFT consistently outperforms strong baselines across multiple model scales, achieving relative gains of up to 9.5\% on difficult mathematical reasoning tasks. Code: https://github.com/lilifree/GIFT
1 INTRODUCTION
Outcome-grounded reinforcement learning supplies correctness signals, while token-level distillation supplies denser guidance, but their optimization directions may conflict. GIFT ranks teacher updates by their geometry relative to the RL gradient and progressively narrows the tokens receiving distillation.
1 INTRODUCTION
- Sparse outcome rewards offer little guidance about intermediate decisions, while imitation-focused distillation can introduce information leakage and late-stage instability.GRPO’s group-relative signal vanishes when all responses receive the same reward.Source: §1 · p. 1
- Existing hybrids leave unresolved which teacher updates should survive: uniform withdrawal can discard complementary guidance, while disagreement-based selection can retain conflicting updates.Teacher signals that only modulate verifier-based advantages cannot add directions outside the RL gradient’s logit-space span.Source: §1 · pp. 1–2
- GIFT decomposes each token’s distillation gradient into a parallel component measuring conflict or assistance and an orthogonal component representing novel guidance.The method prioritizes guidance that is both non-conflicting and directionally novel.Source: §1 · p. 2
- A progressive coverage-annealing schedule shrinks the token budget, retaining the most geometrically complementary guidance before transitioning to pure outcome-grounded RL.The schedule manages privileged teacher guidance because it targets imitation rather than guaranteed correctness.Source: §1 · p. 2
- GIFT achieves the highest average scores on challenging mathematical reasoning benchmarks across four model scales, outperforming eight strong baselines; ablations identify geometric selection and coverage annealing as critical.The introduction reports gains over simpler selection criteria and withdrawal strategies.Source: §1 · p. 2
2 RELATED WORK
Related work combines outcome-based RL with dense teacher supervision, selects tokens using heuristics, analyzes gradient interactions, and withdraws teacher influence in different ways. GIFT distinguishes itself through token-level geometric selection and a shrinking coverage budget.
2 RELATED WORK
- RLVR provides outcome-grounded but sparse learning signals, while OPSD supplies dense token-level feedback; hybrid methods such as RLSD and RLCSD modulate RL advantages but cannot add directions beyond the RL gradient’s span.GRPO’s group-relative signal vanishes for rollout groups in which all responses are correct or all are incorrect.Source: §2 · p. 2
- GIFT prioritizes complementary guidance under exact quotas without excluding all conflicts.This contrasts with approaches that rely on coarse or heuristic token selection.Source: §2 · p. 3
- Token-selection methods use entropy, divergence, or disagreement heuristics, but these statistics do not directly establish compatibility with the current outcome-driven update.GIFT instead assesses the teacher and RL gradients’ first-order interaction at each token.Source: §2 · p. 3
- GIFT uses gradient geometry for discrete token selection rather than continuous gradient modification, with an O(M) token-level logit-space solution and orthogonality treated as valuable novel guidance.ATTITTUD is identified as the direct intellectual predecessor, but it treats the orthogonal component as neutral.Source: §2 · p. 3
- Coefficient annealing dilutes guidance for all tokens, while sequential training forgoes joint-training benefits; GIFT shrinks the selected-token quota while keeping retained-token loss weights fixed.At each ranking, positive residual scores precede zero scores and conflicts, with less normalized opposition prioritized among conflicts.Source: §2 · p. 3
3 METHOD
GIFT addresses the allocation of token-level distillation by analyzing its gradient geometry relative to the outcome-driven RL gradient. It uses that geometry to rank guidance and progressively withdraw it as training proceeds.
3.1 A GEOMETRIC APPROACH TO GUIDANCE
- At each token, GIFT decomposes the teacher distillation gradient into a parallel component a_i and an orthogonal component b_i relative to the RL gradient.The parallel component measures first-order assistance or conflict; the orthogonal component measures novel directional guidance.Source: §3.1 · pp. 3–4
3.2 SAFETY: THE ROLE OF THE PARALLEL COMPONENT (ai)
- The sign of a_i distinguishes assistance, neutrality, and conflict, while negative a_i marks guidance for lowest priority.Unlike divergence heuristics, this criterion distinguishes productive orthogonal disagreement from destructive opposition to the RL gradient.Source: §3.2 · p. 4
3.3 VALUE: WHY THE ORTHOGONAL COMPONENT (bi) MATTERS
- Among safe tokens, larger b_i prioritizes orthogonal guidance that adds directions unavailable through token-local rescaling of the RL gradient.A positive b_i is sufficient, but not necessary, to certify irreducibility; b_i also gives the maximal first-order distillation decrease among unit-norm perturbations locally neutral to the primary surrogate.Source: §3.3 · pp. 4–5
3.4 SCORING AND PROGRESSIVE SELECTION
- GIFT scores safe tokens by b_i and conflicting tokens negatively, then shrinks the token budget so conflicting guidance is discarded before complementary guidance.High-b_i tokens with a_i ≥ 0 are retained longest as the budget contracts.Source: §3.4 · p. 6
3.5 THE GIFT OBJECTIVE
- The objective applies selected distillation at full strength, normalizes over all valid tokens, and reduces to native GRPO when the budget reaches zero.The mask becomes zero at or after Texit, removing the auxiliary term.Source: §3.5 · pp. 6–7
4 EXPERIMENTS
GIFT is evaluated across mathematical and logical reasoning, multiple model scales, and in-distribution and out-of-distribution settings. It outperforms strong baselines, while ablations show that geometric token selection, coverage annealing, and broader token-budget allocation each contribute distinct advantages.
4.1 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
- Experiments span Qwen3 1.7B, 4B, and 8B, OLMo-3-7B-Think, three mathematical benchmarks, and logical puzzles with 4–8 training roles and 9–11 OOD roles.Mathematics is scored by mean@12 and logic by pass@1; reported averages equally weight the three math benchmarks or four logical splits.Source: §4.1 · p. 7, §4 · p. 7
4.2 MAIN RESULTS
- GIFT consistently outperforms existing methods across tasks and model scales, with the highest mathematical average on all three Qwen3 models and gains on logical OOD splits.Relative gains over BASE on mathematics are 5.03%, 3.39%, and 2.99% for Qwen3 1.7B, 4B, and 8B; the logical OOD average gain is 4.70%.Source: §4.2 · pp. 8–9, Table 2 · p. 8
4.3 ABLATION STUDY
- On challenging AIME25, GIFT’s complete geometric score outperforms isolated selection heuristics, while simpler conflict-only or conflict-free rules can suffice on easier benchmarks.Residual-only selection underperforms across settings; GIFT can admit the least-opposing conflicting tokens when its quota requires them.Source: §4.3 · p. 9, Table 4 · p. 9
- Coverage annealing outperforms sequential training and uniform loss-weight decay, by average gains of 1.59 and 2.87 percentage points, respectively.It retains valuable teacher signals at full strength while selectively pruning unhelpful ones.Source: §4.3 · p. 9
- Allocating the token budget across the whole training sub-batch outperforms per-rollout and per-prompt selection scopes.This lets tokens compete across prompts and responses for the limited supervision budget.Source: §4.3 · p. 9, Table 5 · p. 9
5 CONCLUSION
GIFT filters teacher guidance using token-level gradient geometry and coverage annealing, transitioning from selective distillation to a pure RL objective. Supporting lemmas characterize the score’s computation and gradient diversity as a measure of redundancy and cancellation.
5 CONCLUSION
- GIFT filters teacher updates using parallel and orthogonal gradient components, then anneals coverage toward a pure RL objective.The conclusion describes the parallel component as conflict and the orthogonal component as novelty.Source: §5 · p. 10
A MAIN NOTATION
- Table 6 summarizes the main notations used in GIFT.Source: Table 6 · p. 14, A MAIN NOTATION · p. 14
B SUPPORTING LEMMAS
- The scoring quantities are computable from probabilities and O(M) sums over teacher support, without materializing a vocabulary-wide gradient or using an auxiliary backward pass.The score is also invariant to support size and positive rescaling of the token weight under stated branch and threshold conditions.Source: B SUPPORTING LEMMAS · p. 15
B.1 GRADIENT DIVERSITY
- Gradient diversity is lowest for duplicate gradients, equals 1 for mutually orthogonal gradients, and exceeds 1 when gradients partially cancel.The paper notes that preferring large diversity without constraint is unsafe in the cancellation regime.Source: §B.1 · p. 15
C.1 THEOREM 1 (NON-INTERFERENCE)
Theorem 1 analyzes how adding the teacher update changes the primary loss to first order. The sign of the parallel component determines whether the teacher update assists or opposes RL descent.
C.1 THEOREM 1 (NON-INTERFERENCE)
- When ai = 0, the primary-loss slope equals the GRPO-only slope, regardless of the teacher-gradient magnitude.The orthogonal component has no first-order effect in this case.Source: §C.1 · p. 16
- When ai ≥ 0, the primary descent cannot be cancelled by the teacher contribution at first order.Source: §C.1 · p. 16
- When ai < 0, the teacher contribution reduces the first-order decrease in the primary loss, and it can eliminate that decrease when λ|ai| ≥ ∥ri∥2.Strict reversal occurs when λ|ai| > ∥ri∥2.Source: §C.1 · p. 16
C.2 THEOREM 2 (COMPLEMENTARITY)
The results characterize GIFT’s token-level geometry, selection rule, and coverage behavior. They also delimit the scope of the geometric claims and distinguish nominal exposure from realized exposure.
C.2 THEOREM 2 (COMPLEMENTARITY)
- A selected teacher field with a nonzero orthogonal residual cannot be represented by token-local scalar rescalings of the fixed GRPO reference field.This is a result about independent token blocks in logit space; distinct token-level fields may still induce the same parameter gradient through shared model Jacobians.Source: §C.2 · pp. 16–17
C.3 THEOREM 3 (SELECTION)
- When the token quota exceeds the number of non-conflicting eligible tokens, GIFT admits conflicting tokens with the smallest normalized opposition.When the quota fits within the non-conflicting set, GIFT and the Conflict-Free ablation coincide.Source: §C.3 · p. 18
D BEHAVIOUR AT GRPO STATIONARITY
- At uniformly correct or incorrect groups, the result establishes only that GIFT assigns tokens neutral rather than negative priority; whether teacher supervision is useful there remains empirical.Source: D BEHAVIOUR AT GRPO STATIONARITY · p. 18
E TERMINATION AND BOUNDED EXPOSURE
- After Texit, all masks vanish and the objective is identical to native GRPO; nominal exposure is only an upper bound on realized token-step coverage.Realized exposure can be smaller because the exact-quota budget may select fewer tokens.Source: E TERMINATION AND BOUNDED EXPOSURE · pp. 18–19
F COVERAGE ANNEALING DOES NOT RENORMALIZE SURVIVORS
- Coverage annealing leaves each retained token’s auxiliary-gradient coefficient unchanged, unlike coefficient annealing or selected-set normalization.The aggregate auxiliary gradient norm need not decrease monotonically because retained tokens concentrate on the largest bi.Source: F COVERAGE ANNEALING DOES NOT… · p. 19
G BASELINES
The baselines span outcome-based optimization, distributional self-distillation, verifier-guided token-level credit assignment, and demonstration-guided training. The appendix identifies OLMo-3-7B-Think as the configuration for the model-specific settings it reports.
G BASELINES
- The comparison includes the initial checkpoint and pure verifier-based GRPO, alongside methods that add teacher-derived supervision.Source: G BASELINES · p. 19
- Distributional self-distillation baselines match self-teacher next-token distributions, while verifier-guided methods modulate or gate token-level signals derived from teacher information.The listed verifier-guided methods preserve or gate verifier-derived advantages or rewards.Source: G BASELINES · p. 19
- Demonstration-guided baselines incorporate reference trajectories into training samples or rollout contexts, including progressively shortened reference prefixes.Source: G BASELINES · p. 20
H DETAILED EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
- The model-specific optimization and systems settings in the appendix refer to OLMo-3-7B-Think and are listed separately from shared experimental-design settings.Source: H DETAILED EXPERIMENTAL SETUP · p. 20
H.1 TRAINING DATASETS
The training data comprise mathematical reasoning examples with reference answers and reasoning traces, plus synthetic Knights-and-Knaves puzzles used to train logical role assignment.
H.1 TRAINING DATASETS
- DeepMath-103K contains 103,022 English mathematical reasoning examples across six topics, each paired with an answer, difficulty score, topic label, and three reasoning traces.The data undergo semantic decontamination, question standardization, and answer-consistency filtering.Source: §H.1 · p. 20
- Knights-and-Knaves training puzzles contain 4–8 characters whose truth-telling or lying roles must be inferred from their statements.The task uses deterministic rules to verify the unique role assignment.Source: §H.1 · p. 20
H.2 EVALUATION BENCHMARKS
Evaluation covers mathematical benchmarks and in-distribution and larger-role Knights-and-Knaves puzzles; the configuration describes the self-teacher, sparse distillation, token allocation, and training schedule.
H.2 EVALUATION BENCHMARKS
- AMC23 contains 83 problems spanning five mathematical topics and is scored by matching generated final answers.The topics are algebra, geometry, number theory, counting, and probability.Source: §H.2 · p. 20
- AIME24 and AIME25 each contain 30 problems, with integer answers from 0 to 999, and results reported separately.Evaluation uses final-answer matching.Source: §H.2 · p. 20
- Knights-and-Knaves evaluation uses 500 in-distribution puzzles and 100 puzzles each at 9, 10, and 11 roles, beyond the 4–8-role training range.The larger-role splits assess generalization beyond the training range.Source: §H.2 · p. 20
H.3 GIFT CONFIGURATION
- The student generates responses without reference solutions, while a parameter-sharing self-teacher re-evaluates prefixes with the reference solution and answer; gradients stop through the teacher branch.The teacher is used only during training.Source: §H.3 · p. 20
- Sparse forward-KL distillation uses the teacher’s top-100 tokens and aggregates the remaining vocabulary into a tail probability for both student and teacher.Teacher probabilities are treated as fixed targets.Source: §H.3 · pp. 20–21
- Eligible response tokens are ranked by parallel conflict when negative and by orthogonal residual otherwise; tokens without a usable GRPO direction score zero.Conflicting tokens remain eligible but are withdrawn first as coverage shrinks, and the quota is exact when eligible tokens suffice.Source: §H.3 · p. 21
- Training uses 96 actor steps, keeps the distillation coefficient at λ = 1, and skips teacher evaluation from step 78 so optimization continues with GRPO alone.Selected tokens receive the full sparse forward-KL loss, normalized by all valid response tokens.Source: §H.3 · p. 21
H.4 ABLATION COVERAGE AND QUALITATIVE DIAGNOSTICS
The ablations vary token-scoring criteria, allocation scope, and teacher-withdrawal strategy, while a schedule sweep compares warm-up lengths, exit steps, and decay shapes.
H.4 ABLATION COVERAGE AND QUALITATIVE DIAGNOSTICS
- The ablation defines token scores using the signed parallel component a_i and orthogonal residual norm b_i, while comparing alternative selection criteria.Alternatives include entropy–KL, gradient cosine, conflict-only, residual-only, and teacher-gradient norm; the cosine criterion does not separately account for residual magnitude.Source: §H.4 · p. 21
- Conflict-Free excludes every token with a_i < 0, whereas GIFT can admit conflicting tokens when the budget exceeds non-conflicting and unclassified positions.GIFT orders conflicting tokens by opposition as coverage decreases.Source: §H.4 · pp. 21–22
- Allocation scope determines which tokens compete: per-rollout within a response, per-prompt across responses to one prompt, or per-training-sub-batch across its responses and prompts.Budgets remain independent across training sub-batches.Source: §H.4 · p. 22
- Withdrawal comparisons include sequential OPSD then GRPO, global coefficient decay, and coverage annealing with fixed λ = 1 and full distillation strength on selected positions.Coverage annealing becomes pure GRPO when coverage reaches zero.Source: §H.4 · p. 22
- The preliminary sweep tests linear schedules with warm-up H = 0, 10, or 20 and exit steps 50, 78, or 90, plus cosine schedules with H = 0 or 10 and exit step 78.Schedule comparisons do not imply matched cumulative teacher exposure or training cost.Source: §H.4 · p. 22
I ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTS
Additional experiments test model-family transfer, teacher-withdrawal alternatives, schedule sensitivity, and qualitative solution differences. GIFT leads on the reported OLMo-3-7B-Think averages and outperforms the tested withdrawal alternatives.
I ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTS
- 80.70% average mean@12 on OLMo-3-7B-Think exceeds Base by 2.34 percentage points and RLCSD by 1.12 points across AMC23 and AIME25.The gain over Base is 3.50 points on AIME25 and 1.18 points on AMC23.Source: I ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTS · p. 22
- GIFT outperforms sequential OPSD→GRPO and weight annealing by 1.59 and 2.87 percentage points on average, respectively.GIFT keeps GRPO active while retaining full distillation strength at selected tokens, then continues with pure GRPO after coverage reaches zero.Source: I ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTS · p. 23, Table 7 · p. 23
- With Texit = 78, the average falls from 78.96% to 78.03% without warm-up or 77.26% with a 20-step warm-up; with H = 10, exit at step 50 or 90 gives 77.46% or 77.64%.The default configuration performs best among the tested linear schedules.Source: I ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTS · p. 23, Table 8 · p. 23
- The evidence concerns reasoning performance and observed selection behavior, not direct measurements of parameter-space gradient compatibility or optimization plasticity.Source: I ADDITIONAL EXPERIMENTS · p. 23
- In Figure 3’s combinatorial counting example, the displayed GIFT solution is correct, whereas the displayed GRPO and OPSD solutions contain counting errors; correct-sample counts summarize 12 generations per method.Source: Figure 3 · p. 24
J QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
The qualitative analyses compare reasoning accuracy and visualize how GIFT’s shrinking coverage budget concentrates distillation on selected token positions. Together, they illustrate a transition from broad teacher supervision to selective guidance while valid response tokens remain in the GRPO objective.
J QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
- Across 12 sampled responses, GIFT produced 12 correct answers, versus 7 for GRPO and 6 for OPSD on the combinatorial counting problem.The displayed examples show GRPO undercounting the no-4 case and OPSD miscalculating inclusion–exclusion terms.Source: J QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS · p. 24
- 69, 40, and 17 displayed tokens receive distillation at steps 10, 40, and 70, respectively, with selection sparse within sentences rather than removed sentence by sentence.Selected positions retain the full distillation loss, while all valid tokens remain in the GRPO objective.Source: J QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS · p. 24, Figure 4 · p. 25
- At step 40, conflicting-token retention is zero, while 97.4% of non-conflicting and 60.9% of neutral tokens remain selected; by step 70, those latter rates are 21.0% and 10.8%.The figure encodes signed parallel and orthogonal residual components, with colors showing retention fractions and bottom bars reporting neutral-token retention.Source: J QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS · p. 25, Figure 5 · p. 25
- The displayed retention pattern follows GIFT’s piecewise ranking: conflicting tokens receive negative scores, non-conflicting tokens are prioritized by orthogonal residual magnitude, and neutral tokens remain eligible with zero scores.Competition within each training sub-batch withdraws supervision selectively rather than uniformly attenuating it; retained tokens receive the full, unprojected distillation loss.Source: J QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS · pp. 25–26
Related papers
This paper cites
- TIP: Token Importance in On-Policy Distillation2026
- Rebellious Student: Reversing Teacher Signals for Reasoning Exploration with Self-Distilled RLVR2026
- On-policy Distillation with Verifiable Reward2026
- Sequential Beats Joint: On the Interplay between On-Policy Distillation and RLVR2026
- Distill Where You Fail: Recovering Learning Signals of Negative RL-Groups from Adaptive Teacher Guidance2026