mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Goal-Conditioned Supervised Learning for LLM Fine-Tuning

arXiv 2605.16345 ↗First posted 8 May 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → LLM preference optimization methods

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models often require fine-tuning to better align their behavior with user intent at deployment. Existing approaches are commonly divided into online and offline paradigms. Online methods, such as RL-based alignment, can directly optimize outcome quality but typically rely on external reward models and iterative rollouts, making them costly and difficult to deploy in many cases. Offline methods are more efficient, but prevailing approaches such as supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and direct preference optimization (DPO) remain limited: SFT typically collapses graded feedback into binary supervision, while DPO depends on paired preference data that is often unavailable or expensive to construct. In this paper, we propose goal-conditioned supervised learning (GCSL) as an offline fine-tuning framework for LLMs. Our core idea is to treat feedback signals directly as an explicit goal and train the model, purely through supervised learning, to generate responses that achieve that goal. To better exploit graded feedback, we further introduce a novel goal formulation that defines learning as consistently pursuing outcomes above a target quality threshold, rather than imitating samples from a selected high-quality subset. This design mitigates the bounded-learning effect by learning transferable patterns of meeting or exceeding quality thresholds. We also propose natural-language goal representations to further connect these patterns to the LLM's pretrained knowledge and generalization capabilities. We evaluate our method on three tasks: non-toxic generation, code generation, and LLM for recommendation. Results show that our approach consistently outperforms standard offline fine-tuning baselines while retaining the efficiency, scalability, and simple data requirements of supervised learning.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in LLM preference optimization methods, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 42 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 May 2026.

Builds on

42 of 48 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024AlphaDPO: Adaptive Reward Margin for Direct Preference Optimization14 Oct
  2. 2024SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Reward23 May
  3. 2024KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimization2 Feb
  4. 2023Aligning Language Models with Offline Learning from Human Feedback23 Aug

Other references · 38

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  2. 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,380
  3. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
  4. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
  5. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
  6. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  7. 2021Decision Transformer: Reinforcement Learning via Sequence Modelingcited by 1,546
  8. 2020RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Modelscited by 1,255
  9. 2018Self-Attentive Sequential Recommendationcited by 1,184
  10. 2020LightGCN: Simplifying and Powering Graph Convolution Network for Recommendationcited by 1,139
  11. 2022Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimizationcited by 1,095
  12. 2019Plug and Play Language Models: A Simple Approach to Controlled Text Generationcited by 799
26 more
  1. 2023RAFT: Reward rAnked FineTuning for Generative Foundation Model Alignmentcited by 686
  2. 2021Offline Reinforcement Learning as One Big Sequence Modeling Problemcited by 644
  3. 2016Ups and Downs: Modeling the Visual Evolution of Fashion Trends with One-Class Collaborative Filteringcited by 520
  4. 2023RRHF: Rank Responses to Align Language Models with Human Feedback without tearscited by 463
  5. 2021DExperts: Decoding-Time Controlled Text Generation with Experts and Anti-Expertscited by 441
  6. 2022Quark: Controllable Text Generation with Reinforced Unlearningcited by 237
  7. 2024Many-Shot In-Context Learningcited by 206
  8. 2022A New Generation of Perspective API: Efficient Multilingual Character-level Transformerscited by 185
  9. 2022Goal-Conditioned Reinforcement Learning: Problems and Solutionscited by 158
  10. 2019Reinforcement Learning Upside Down: Don't Predict Rewards -- Just Map Them to Actionscited by 125
  11. 2023SteerLM: Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHFcited by 111
  12. 2022When does return-conditioned supervised learning work for offline reinforcement learning?cited by 76
  13. 2023A Bi-Step Grounding Paradigm for Large Language Models in Recommendation Systemscited by 73
  14. 2024On Softmax Direct Preference Optimization for Recommendationcited by 64
  15. 2025Supervised Fine Tuning on Curated Data is Reinforcement Learning (and can be improved)cited by 38
  16. 2024Mercury: A Code Efficiency Benchmark for Code Large Language Modelscited by 35
  17. 2025Evolution Strategies at Scale: LLM Fine-Tuning Beyond Reinforcement Learningcited by 34
  18. 2024Optimal Design for Reward Modeling in RLHFcited by 25
  19. 2024Unified Parameter-Efficient Unlearning for LLMscited by 25
  20. 2024SPRec: Self-Play to Debias LLM-based Recommendationcited by 18
  21. 2025Planning without Search: Refining Frontier LLMs with Offline Goal-Conditioned RLcited by 11
  22. 2025Offline RL by Reward-Weighted Fine-Tuning for Conversation Optimizationcited by 10
  23. 2024RosePO: Aligning LLM-based Recommenders with Human Valuescited by 9
  24. 2024Does Few-Shot Learning Help LLM Performance in Code Synthesis?cited by 6
  25. 2022Learning Relative Return Policies With Upside-Down Reinforcement Learningcited by 3
  26. 2024Learning Goal-Conditioned Representations for Language Reward Modelscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Preference Fine-Tuning of LLMs Should Leverage Suboptimal, On-Policy Data
  2. 2024Understanding Forgetting in LLM Supervised Fine-Tuning and Preference Learning -- A Convex Optimization Perspective
  3. 2026Supervised Fine-Tuning versus Reinforcement Learning: A Study of Post-Training Methods for Large Language Models
  4. 2024A Framework for Fine-Tuning LLMs using Heterogeneous Feedback
  5. 2025Self-Rewarding PPO: Aligning Large Language Models with Demonstrations Only
  6. 2025Massive Supervised Fine-tuning Experiments Reveal How Data, Layer, and Training Factors Shape LLM Alignment Quality
  7. 2026Application-Driven Pedagogical Knowledge Optimization of Open-Source LLMs via Reinforcement Learning and Supervised Fine-Tuning
  8. 2024Reinforcement Learning for LLM Post-Training: A Survey