Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Good SFT Optimizes for SFT, Better SFT Prepares for Reinforcement Learning

Dylan Zhang, Yufeng Xu, Haojin Wang, Qingzhi Chen, Hao Peng · Feb 1, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Post-training of reasoning LLMs is a holistic process that typically consists of an offline SFT stage followed by an online reinforcement learning (RL) stage. However, SFT is often optimized in isolation to maximize SFT performance alone. We show that, after identical RL training, models initialized from stronger SFT checkpoints can significantly underperform those initialized from weaker ones. We attribute this to a mismatch typical in current SFT-RL pipelines: the distribution that generates the offline SFT data can differ substantially from the policy optimized during online RL, which learns from its own rollouts. We propose PEAR (Policy Evaluation-inspired Algorithm for Offline Learning Loss Re-weighting), an SFT-stage method that corrects this mismatch and better prepares the model for RL. PEAR uses importance sampling to reweight the SFT loss, with three variants operating at the token, block, and sequence levels. It can be used to augment standard SFT objectives and incurs little additional training overhead once probabilities for the offline data are collected. We conduct controlled experiments on verifiable reasoning games and mathematical reasoning tasks on Qwen 2.5 and 3 and DeepSeek-distilled models. PEAR consistently improves post-RL performance over canonical SFT, with pass at 8 gains up to a 14.6 percent on AIME2025. Our results suggest that PEAR is an effective step toward more holistic LLM post-training by designing and evaluating SFT with downstream RL in mind rather than in isolation.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Post-training of reasoning LLMs is a holistic process that typically consists of an offline SFT stage followed by an online reinforcement learning (RL) stage."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Post-training of reasoning LLMs is a holistic process that typically consists of an offline SFT stage followed by an online reinforcement learning (RL) stage."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Post-training of reasoning LLMs is a holistic process that typically consists of an offline SFT stage followed by an online reinforcement learning (RL) stage."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Post-training of reasoning LLMs is a holistic process that typically consists of an offline SFT stage followed by an online reinforcement learning (RL) stage."

Reported Metrics

partial

Pass@8

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Post-training of reasoning LLMs is a holistic process that typically consists of an offline SFT stage followed by an online reinforcement learning (RL) stage."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Unit of annotation: Trajectory (inferred)
  • Expertise required: Math

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

pass@8

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Post-training of reasoning LLMs is a holistic process that typically consists of an offline SFT stage followed by an online reinforcement learning (RL) stage.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Post-training of reasoning LLMs is a holistic process that typically consists of an offline SFT stage followed by an online reinforcement learning (RL) stage.
  • However, SFT is often optimized in isolation to maximize SFT performance alone.
  • We show that, after identical RL training, models initialized from stronger SFT checkpoints can significantly underperform those initialized from weaker ones.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We show that, after identical RL training, models initialized from stronger SFT checkpoints can significantly underperform those initialized from weaker ones.
  • We propose PEAR (Policy Evaluation-inspired Algorithm for Offline Learning Loss Re-weighting), an SFT-stage method that corrects this mismatch and better prepares the model for RL.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We propose PEAR (Policy Evaluation-inspired Algorithm for Offline Learning Loss Re-weighting), an SFT-stage method that corrects this mismatch and better prepares the model for RL.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: pass@8

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.