Unlock the Correlation between Supervised Fine-Tuning and Reinforcement Learning in Training Code Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Automatic code generation has been a longstanding research topic. With the advancement of general-purpose large language models (LLMs), the ability to code stands out as one important measure to the model's reasoning performance. Usually, a two-stage training paradigm is implemented to obtain a Code LLM, namely the pretraining and the fine-tuning. Within the fine-tuning, supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement learning (RL) are often used to improve the model's zero-shot ability. A large number of work has been conducted to improve the model's performance on code-related benchmarks with either modifications to the algorithm or refinement of the dataset. However, we still lack a deep insight into the correlation between SFT and RL. For instance, what kind of dataset should be used to ensure generalization, or what if we abandon the SFT phase in fine-tuning. In this work, we make an attempt to understand the correlation between SFT and RL. To facilitate our research, we manually craft 100 basis python functions, called atomic functions, and then a synthesizing pipeline is deployed to create a large number of synthetic functions on top of the atomic ones. In this manner, we ensure that the train and test sets remain distinct, preventing data contamination. Through comprehensive ablation study, we find: (1) Both atomic and synthetic functions are indispensable for SFT's generalization, and only a handful of synthetic functions are adequate; (2) Through RL, the SFT's generalization to target domain can be greatly enhanced, even with the same training prompts; (3) Training RL from scratch can alleviate the over-fitting issue introduced in the SFT phase.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 37 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Jun 2024.
Builds on
37 of 52 references.
References · 37
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,441
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,747
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,634
- 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
- 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,065
- 2023Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Codecited by 2,105
25 more
- 2015High-Dimensional Continuous Control Using Generalized Advantage Estimationcited by 1,916
- 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 1,906
- 2021Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalizationcited by 1,462
- 2022Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCodecited by 1,427
- 2020Big Self-Supervised Models are Strong Semi-Supervised Learnerscited by 1,375
- 2024DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming -- The Rise of Code Intelligencecited by 1,154
- 2023WizardLM: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructionscited by 1,116
- 2023LIMA: Less Is More for Alignmentcited by 1,080
- 2021A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignmentcited by 1,023
- 2021CodeT5: Identifier-aware Unified Pre-trained Encoder-Decoder Models for Code Understanding and Generationcited by 890
- 2023StarCoder: may the source be with you!cited by 790
- 2023WizardCoder: Empowering Code Large Language Models with Evol-Instructcited by 728
- 2024StarCoder 2 and The Stack v2: The Next Generationcited by 484
- 2022DS-1000: A Natural and Reliable Benchmark for Data Science Code Generationcited by 442
- 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 389
- 2023What Makes Good Data for Alignment? A Comprehensive Study of Automatic Data Selection in Instruction Tuningcited by 354
- 2022CodeRL: Mastering Code Generation through Pretrained Models and Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 342
- 2023Large Language Models for Software Engineering: Survey and Open Problemscited by 178
- 2023Software Testing with Large Language Models: Survey, Landscape, and Visioncited by 163
- 2015Yara Parser: A Fast and Accurate Dependency Parsercited by 110
- 2023RLTF: Reinforcement Learning from Unit Test Feedbackcited by 110
- 2023Execution-based Code Generation using Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 95
- 2024StepCoder: Improve Code Generation with Reinforcement Learning from Compiler Feedbackcited by 74
- 2024Stable Code Technical Reportcited by 16
- 2014In Defense of MinHash Over SimHashcited by 11
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.