A Unifying Lens on Supervised Fine-Tuning Through Target Distribution Design
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) typically maximizes the likelihood of every token in a demonstrated trajectory. However, an observed token can be non-unique, noisy, or misaligned with the model prior. Strictly fitting toward this one-hot target may be suboptimal, especially when the pretrained model encodes a rich knowledge prior. In this work, we reinterpret SFT as target distribution design: instead of studying only the loss objective, we analyze the token-level target that the loss drives the model to match. We introduce the Q-target framework, which decomposes SFT supervision into two explicit choices: (1) how strongly to rely on the observed token, and (2) how to allocate the remaining probability mass over alternatives. This perspective unifies many existing SFT variants as implicit choices of the target distribution Q. Building on this view, we propose Target-SFT which constructs the training objective directly from the desired target distribution. This method consistently outperforms across the ten reasoning dataset-model settings evaluated, showing the effectiveness of this target-based approach. Overall, our formulation reveals a more fundamental design principle for SFT training and opens a broader search space for SFT objectives.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jun 2026.
Builds on
22 of 30 references.
References · 22
- 2015Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Networkcited by 10,324
- 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,371
- 2020What Disease does this Patient Have? A Large-scale Open Domain Question Answering Dataset from Medical Examscited by 1,356
- 2019PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answeringcited by 1,288
- 2025Beyond the 80/20 Rule: High-Entropy Minority Tokens Drive Effective Reinforcement Learning for LLM Reasoningcited by 559
- 2023Scaling Relationship on Learning Mathematical Reasoning with Large Language Modelscited by 427
- 2025RL's Razor: Why Online Reinforcement Learning Forgets Lesscited by 176
- 2025A Minimalist Approach to LLM Reasoning: from Rejection Sampling to Reinforcecited by 145
- 2025On the Generalization of SFT: A Reinforcement Learning Perspective with Reward Rectificationcited by 127
- 2024Benchmarking Large Language Models on Answering and Explaining Challenging Medical Questionscited by 109
- 2024Self-Distillation Bridges Distribution Gap in Language Model Fine-Tuningcited by 96
- 2025Retaining by Doing: The Role of On-Policy Data in Mitigating Forgettingcited by 94
10 more
- 2024A Survey on Data Selection for LLM Instruction Tuningcited by 77
- 2024Preserving Diversity in Supervised Fine-Tuning of Large Language Modelscited by 70
- 2025The Best Instruction-Tuning Data are Those That Fitcited by 52
- 2025m1: Unleash the Potential of Test-Time Scaling for Medical Reasoning with Large Language Modelscited by 46
- 2025Supervised Fine Tuning on Curated Data is Reinforcement Learning (and can be improved)cited by 38
- 2025Enhancing Large Language Model Reasoning via Selective Critical Token Fine-Tuningcited by 20
- 2025Beyond Log Likelihood: Probability-Based Objectives for Supervised Fine-Tuning across the Model Capability Continuumcited by 18
- 2026ProFit: Leveraging High-Value Signals in SFT via Probability-Guided Token Selectioncited by 18
- 2026Entropy-Adaptive Fine-Tuning: Resolving Confident Conflicts to Mitigate Forgettingcited by 16
- 2025Calibrated Language Models and How to Find Them with Label Smoothingcited by 7
Built on by
Not cited yet.