02

Who generated the supervised state?

The sampled token becomes part of the next state. Provenance travels with that collection event.

Who generated the supervised state?

OPD-TOY-001 · invented teaching fixture At prefix x, vocabulary order is [A,B] and the student distribution is [0.75,0.25]. The contract fixes a uniform draw at 0.8. Its inverse-CDF interval selects B, so the next visited prefix is xB.

Student draw at x
TokenStudent probabilitySampling intervalResult
A0.75[0, 0.75)not selected
B0.25[0.75, 1)0.8 → B → xB

The same contract also supplies a fixed teacher demonstration whose first token is A, reaching xA. In this comparison, the occurrence of xA is fixed/off-policy and the occurrence of xB is student-generated/on-policy at collection. A prefix string alone cannot reveal who generated it.

Paper trails branch from one shared path while a magnifying glass follows one branch.
OPD-HD-FIG-001 · metaphor only. A shared prompt can branch toward xA or xB. The trace—not the artwork—records who generated the continuation.

Keep collection, supervision, and update distinct

OPD-FIG-002 · teaching decompositionCollection first; local differentiation later
Sample to update pipeline Five connected steps show the student sampling token B, visiting prefix xB, querying teacher and student at xB, computing a chosen local divergence, and updating student parameters while the sampled path remains detached. 01 · SAMPLEstudent draws Bu = 0.8 · detached 02 · VISITprefix xBstate now fixed 03 · QUERYp(.|xB), q(.|xB)same prefix 04 · COMPAREdeclared Dscalar in nats 05 · UPDATEstudent θlocal gradient trajectory collection establishes provenance same-prefix supervision and local update
  1. Sample: student draw 0.8 → B.
  2. Visit: the next prefix is xB.
  3. Query: teacher and student both return distributions at xB.
  4. Compare: the chosen divergence returns nats.
  5. Update: local student parameters receive a gradient; the sampled path stays detached.
The solid chain records data and state flow. The final dashed edge marks the update boundary. The five-step wording is a teaching decomposition of the canonical equations and algorithm.

The five labels are a teaching decomposition. Implementations may fuse forward passes, but the logic remains: sampling determines the states; the teacher supplies feedback at those states; the objective turns feedback into a scalar; the update differentiates the declared estimator.

Detach the draw, not the student

The canonical GKD-style toy does not backpropagate through the discrete 0.8 → B draw. During the local update, the realized path [x,xB] is treated as fixed. The student distribution evaluated at x or xB is still differentiable through its logits and parameters.

Boundary. A fixed prompt collection is compatible with on-policy completion sampling. Reusing old responses after the student changes may not be. Record the behavior-policy snapshot instead of inferring freshness from a method name.

Now that xB exists, what exactly does the teacher provide there?