Embarrassingly Simple Self-Distillation Improves Code Generation
About
Can a large language model (LLM) improve at code generation using only its own raw outputs, without a verifier, a teacher model, or reinforcement learning? We answer in the affirmative with simple self-distillation (SSD): sample solutions from the model with certain temperature and truncation configurations, then fine-tune on those samples with standard supervised fine-tuning. SSD improves Qwen3-30B-Instruct from 42.4% to 55.3% pass@1 on LiveCodeBench v6, with gains concentrating on harder problems, and it generalizes across Qwen and Llama models at 4B, 8B, and 30B scale, including both instruct and thinking variants. To understand why such a simple method can work, we trace these gains to a precision-exploration conflict in LLM decoding and show that SSD reshapes token distributions in a context-dependent way, suppressing distractor tails where precision matters while preserving useful diversity where exploration matters. Taken together, SSD offers a complementary post-training direction for improving LLM code generation.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Science Question Answering | ScienceQA | Accuracy80.8 | 791 | |
| Question Answering | BBH | -- | 33 | |
| Tool Use | ToolAlpaca | Tool Use Success Rate55.9 | 26 | |
| Question Answering | MMLU | Answer-letter Accuracy73.5 | 20 | |
| Code Generation | CodeAlpaca 20k | NLL0.608 | 20 | |
| Expert-level Science Question Answering | GPQA | Accuracy33.7 | 14 | |
| Commonsense Reasoning | CoS-E | Accuracy79.9 | 14 |