发现强化学习中模仿学习的局部监督存在结果混淆问题

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.