Rethinking Privileged Information in On-Policy Self-Distillation

On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) trains a student on its own responses using token-level supervision from the same model conditioned on privileged reference information. We investigate whether performance gains from OPSD show that the student learned the information in the reference or instead reflect recovery of reasoning behavior already present in the base model. We perform OPSD experiments on science and mathematics datasets using Qwen3 models ranging from 1.7B to 8B. Our analysis framework separates the supervision induced by the reference from the supervision provided by the teacher without the reference and measures how each aligns with changes in the student's predictions. The correct reference does not provide a consistent performance benefit across teacher generation modes, model sizes, and training datasets. Students can improve without the correct reference, and a solution from another problem can outperform the correct solution on several mathematical reasoning benchmarks. The student's predictions align more strongly with the base model's thinking behavior than with the supervision induced by the reference, but controls constructed from other problems reproduce much of both alignments. Moreover, stronger alignment attributable to the correct reference does not reliably coincide with a greater performance benefit from the reference. Performance gains and distributional alignment alone therefore cannot determine how privileged reference information contributes to student learning in OPSD.

CiteCheck: Retrieval-Grounded Detection of LLM Citation Hallucinations in Scientific Text

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate scientific reports, but they can produce references that appear plausible while containing corrupted metadata or pointing to papers that do not exist. We introduce CiteCheck, a hybrid framework for citation hallucination detection that verifies whether a citation corresponds to a real scholarly work and whether its metadata is faithful to that work. CiteCheck retrieves candidate publications from external scholarly sources, compares the citation against the retrieved candidate using a structured LLM verifier, and maps verifier scores into three labels: Exact, Minor, and Major. We also construct a 982-citation physics benchmark with controlled corruptions that capture both subtle metadata drift and fully fabricated references. On the held-out test set, CiteCheck achieves 88.7 macro-F1 and 88.9% accuracy, outperforming GPT, Claude, and Gemini baselines, including web-search and few-shot variants. These results show that reliable citation verification benefits from combining scholarly retrieval, structured LLM-based comparison, and calibrated decision rules.

DeepSciVerify: Verifying Scientific Claim--Citation Alignment via LLM-Driven Evidence Escalation

Misalignment between claims and their cited evidence is a common failure mode in reports generated by large language models, limiting their reliability in scientific and other high-stakes settings. We present DeepSciVerify, a two-stage pipeline for scientific claim-citation verification that combines abstract-level reasoning with selective escalation to passage-level evidence. The system first verifies claims using the abstract and defers uncertain cases, retrieving and analyzing full-text passages only when necessary. This design leverages complementary behaviors across LLMs, as some models are more conservative while others are more decisive under uncertainty. On the SCitance benchmark, DeepSciVerify achieves 86.7 Micro-F1, outperforming strong abstract-only baselines by +4.5 points while resolving 67% of instances without full-text retrieval. These results suggest that selective evidence escalation improves both accuracy and efficiency in claim-citation verification.