mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

What Should SFT Learn? Conditional Information Gain for Generalizable Post-Training

arXiv 2610.12995 ↗First posted 9 Oct 2026cs.CL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) remains a widely used approach for post-training large language models, because fixed demonstrations can directly introduce desired reasoning strategies and behavioral patterns. Yet forcing a model to imitate externally provided trajectories may also interfere with behaviors already supported by pretraining, limiting generalization beyond the training distribution. Recent dynamic SFT methods mitigate this issue by reweighting token-level supervision according to model-side signals such as predictive probability, prior support, or distributional compatibility. However, model compatibility is not equivalent to learning value: a token that is weakly supported by the current model may either be an undesirable mismatch or precisely the task-specific decision that the demonstration is intended to teach. We propose CIG-SFT, an information-theoretic framework that estimates the task-conditioned information carried by each demonstrated token. Under teacher forcing, we compare the token likelihood from a frozen reference model with and without access to the task input while keeping the gold solution prefix fixed. The resulting conditional information gain quantifies how much the task itself reduces uncertainty about the demonstrated decision. We then convert this information into a KL-regularized projection of the current policy and derive an equivalent scalar-weighted SFT objective whose logit gradient exactly matches that of the projected target. Across mathematical reasoning and code-generation benchmarks, CIG-SFT consistently outperforms standard SFT and recent adaptive fine-tuning baselines, with particularly strong improvements in generalization to challenging evaluation distributions, while requiring neither additional training data nor online rollouts.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 38 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2026.

Builds on

38 of 45 references.

References · 38

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  3. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
  4. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
  5. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  6. 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,330
  7. 2022PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathwayscited by 5,326
  8. 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
  9. 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,780
  10. 2022Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Modelscited by 3,024
  11. 2025DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scalecited by 2,810
  12. 2015Trust Region Policy Optimizationcited by 2,580
26 more
  1. 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 2,004
  2. 2022Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Modelscited by 1,392
  3. 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,391
  4. 2024Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Reportcited by 1,203
  5. 2024OlympiadBench: A Challenging Benchmark for Promoting AGI with Olympiad-Level Bilingual Multimodal Scientific Problemscited by 1,136
  6. 2024Qwen2.5-Math Technical Report: Toward Mathematical Expert Model via Self-Improvementcited by 1,090
  7. 2024SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Rewardcited by 963
  8. 2022STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoningcited by 940
  9. 2023On-Policy Distillation of Language Models: Learning from Self-Generated Mistakescited by 939
  10. 2025SFT Memorizes, RL Generalizes: A Comparative Study of Foundation Model Post-trainingcited by 672
  11. 2024BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructionscited by 546
  12. 2025The Entropy Mechanism of Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning Language Modelscited by 485
  13. 2026Self-Distilled Reasoner: On-Policy Self-Distillation for Large Language Modelscited by 455
  14. 2022DS-1000: A Natural and Reliable Benchmark for Data Science Code Generationcited by 452
  15. 2021Understanding Dataset Difficulty with V-Usable Informationcited by 291
  16. 2020A Theory of Usable Information Under Computational Constraintscited by 162
  17. 2023Understanding Catastrophic Forgetting in Language Models via Implicit Inferencecited by 144
  18. 2022Offline RL for Natural Language Generation with Implicit Language Q Learningcited by 138
  19. 2025On the Generalization of SFT: A Reinforcement Learning Perspective with Reward Rectificationcited by 127
  20. 2024Revisiting Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Model Tuningcited by 99
  21. 2026ProFit: Leveraging High-Value Signals in SFT via Probability-Guided Token Selectioncited by 18
  22. 2025Anchored Supervised Fine-Tuningcited by 15
  23. 2026Towards On-Policy SFT: Distribution Discriminant Theory and its Applications in LLM Trainingcited by 11
  24. 2026InfoSFT: Learn More and Forget Less with Information-Aware Token Weightingcited by 4
  25. 2026Targeted Exploration via Unified Entropy Control for Reinforcement Learningcited by 3
  26. 2026PriFT: Prior-Support Guided Supervised Fine-Tuningcited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Supervised Fine-Tuning versus Reinforcement Learning: A Study of Post-Training Methods for Large Language Models
  2. 2026Theoretical Perspectives on Data Quality and Synergistic Effects in Pre- and Post-Training Reasoning Models
  3. 2025Why Reinforcement Fine-Tuning Enables MLLMs Preserve Prior Knowledge Better: A Data Perspective
  4. 2025Implicit Reward as the Bridge: A Unified View of SFT and DPO Connections
  5. 2025Scalpel vs. Hammer: GRPO Amplifies Existing Capabilities, SFT Replaces Them
  6. 2026On the Non-decoupling of Supervised Fine-tuning and Reinforcement Learning in Post-training
  7. 2025Debunk the Myth of SFT Generalization
  8. 2026Learning to Adapt SFT Data for Better Reasoning Generalization