Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

AAPA: Adversarially Anchored Preference Alignment for Post-Training of Large Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A frozen discriminator scoring rollouts against offline expert answers improves SFT, GRPO, and CHORD on Qwen3-0.6B and 4B.

desk verdict A cheap and interesting post-training plug-in for small models, undermined by an unspecified gradient estimator and a 4B headline gain that the tables don't support. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.25148 v2 pith:WEDH3WNY submitted 2025-09-29 cs.AI

Faqiang Qian , Kang An , Weikun Zhang , Ziliang Wang , Xuhui Zheng , Liangjian Wen , Yong Dai , Mengya Gao
show 1 more author
Yichao Wu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords adversarialpreferencelearninginstructionfollowingGRPOsupervisedfine-tuningdistributionalmismatchpost-trainingalignmentlargelanguagemodelsdiscriminatorregularization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the standard SFT-then-RL post-training recipe is inefficient because the policy drifts away from the expert demonstrations it was tuned on, while online RL explores without access to that dense expert knowledge. The proposed fix, AAPA (called UniAPL in the full text), is a plug-in term that compares each policy rollout with an offline expert response using a fixed discriminator and adds the resulting scalar as an adversarial anchoring gradient to SFT, GRPO, or CHORD. The paper reports that this term improves instruction-following benchmarks across Qwen3-0.6B and Qwen3-4B, with the staged configuration beating a strong GRPO baseline by 5.77% and 3.75%, respectively, while keeping general English, coding, math, and Chinese capabilities roughly intact. A sympathetic reader would take away that a frozen reference signal can regularize both imitation and preference optimization without extra teacher calls or discriminator updates during training.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a frozen, reference-based discriminator adapted from POLAR. Given a prompt $x$, a teacher response $y_{\mathrm{teacher}}$, and a student rollout $y$, it returns a scalar coefficient $coef = 1 - 8(\sigma(r) - 0.5)^2$, where $r$ is the POLAR Bradley-Terry score and $\sigma$ is the sigmoid. The paper treats this coefficient as the discriminator output $D_\phi(x, y_{\mathrm{teacher}}, y)$, feeds it into the adversarial loss $L_{\mathrm{ADV}} = -\mathbb{E}[D_\phi(x, y_{\mathrm{teacher}}, y)]$, and adds the resulting gradient $g_{\mathrm{ADV}} = \nabla_\theta L_{\mathrm{ADV}}$ to the base objective with a small weight $\lambda_{\mathrm{adv}}$. In the unified formulation, one update is written as the weighted sum of an imitation gradient, a preference-seeking gradient, and the adversarial grounding gradient; that sum is what the paper calls the mechanism that prevents ungrounded policy drift.

What would settle it

Open the public implementation and locate where the discriminator coefficient is computed. If the coefficient is detached and used only as a scalar reward, reproduce the main A-GRPO result with a version that backpropagates through the sampled tokens; the central claim collapses if the only working version is detached.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper frames alignment as a constrained optimization problem: maximize a preference reward subject to staying close to an expert policy, and it argues that the sequential SFT-then-RL pipeline solves this problem badly. Its claim is that adding a sentence-level adversarial anchor makes the solution better: a frozen discriminator $D_\phi(x, y_{\mathrm{teacher}}, y)$ scores each student rollout against an offline teacher response, and the policy is trained to maximize that score through the adversarial loss $L_{\mathrm{ADV}} = -\mathbb{E}[D_\phi(x, y_{\mathrm{teacher}}, y)]$, while the original SFT, GRPO, or CHORD loss is kept. Across the reported instruction-following benchmarks, the staged A-SFT to A-GRPO configuration reaches an average of 43.31 on Qwen3-0.6B versus 40.93 for GRPO, and the paper reports 5.77% and 3.75% improvements over the GRPO baseline on the 0.6B and 4B Qwen3 models. The paper also shows that models trained with the anchor have response-length and log-probability distributions closer to the teacher than GRPO-trained models, which it reads as evidence of semantic grounding rather than reward hacking.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the frozen discriminator's scalar output can be turned into a genuine gradient for the policy update, even though the paper does not specify how that gradient flows through discrete token sampling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same fixed anchor can be bolted onto SFT, GRPO, and CHORD without changing their pipelines, so the claimed gain is tied to the anchor, not to a specific optimizer.
  • In the reported experiments A-GRPO matches the instruction-following level of an SFT-then-GRPO sequence, implying the anchor can act as a surrogate warm-up.
  • The anchor does not require online teacher inference or discriminator co-training, so the cost per rollout is one forward pass through the frozen discriminator.
  • The mixed-batch unified objective lets post-training run as a single stage, removing the multi-run hand-off of staged pipelines while retaining the instruction-following gain.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the public implementation detaches the discriminator scalar and uses it only as a reward, the method reduces to a form of reward shaping, and the adversarial-gradient interpretation is a relabeling; checking that implementation is the decisive test.
  • Because the teacher is frozen and no minimax game is played, the method is a fixed reference-based regularizer rather than a true adversarial procedure; comparing it against simply adding a fixed reference reward to the verifiable reward would separate these two explanations.
  • The paper only tests students far smaller than the 235B teacher, so whether the anchor still helps when the student approaches the teacher is an open prediction, not a demonstrated result.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript (submitted under the title AAPA; the body title is UniAPL) proposes a plug-in adversarial anchoring term for LLM post-training. A frozen POLAR discriminator scores pairs of teacher and student responses, and the resulting scalar coefficient is added to SFT, GRPO, and CHORD objectives. The authors report consistent instruction-following gains, with headline improvements of 5.77% on Qwen3-0.6B and 3.75% on Qwen3-4B over GRPO, and they include ablations, response-length distributions, log-probability analyses, and a code release.

Significance. If the mechanism is well defined, the idea of a frozen offline discriminator as a distributional regularizer is attractive and practical: it avoids co-training an online discriminator and does not reuse target-benchmark labels in the training signal, so the central numerical claim is not circular in the narrow sense. The reported gains on Qwen3-0.6B, the ablation separating reward injection from a separate adversarial loss, and the public code are assets. However, the mechanism's central gradient is never defined for discrete text, and key reported numbers are mutually inconsistent, so the paper cannot currently support its headline claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Algorithm 1] The adversarial gradient g_ADV = ∇θ L_ADV is not computable as written. L_ADV = -E[Dϕ(x, y_teacher, y)] depends on y sampled from πθ, and Dϕ is a scalar function of a complete text; the manuscript never states how the gradient through the sampling process is estimated. If the POLAR coefficient is detached and added to the GRPO reward or advantage, the method is reward shaping, not an adversarial gradient; if a REINFORCE-style estimator is intended, the baseline and variance-reduction term must be written; if Gumbel-Softmax or straight-through is used, it must be stated. Table 4 distinguishes 'adding to the reward' from 'a separate adversarial loss' and reports the latter as best, but the separate loss is never defined. Without this estimator, the numbers in Tables 2–4 cannot be attributed to the claimed mechanism.
  2. [Algorithm 1 and Appendix A.3] The mapping coef = 1 - 8(p - 0.5)^2 is inconsistent with the paper's description of p as a similarity score and with the stated goal of maximizing Dϕ. Under this mapping, coef = +1 at p = 0.5 and coef = -1 as p approaches 0 or 1, so both 'same' and 'different' receive the most negative anchoring weight; maximizing L_ADV would then push p away from 0.5, that is, away from the configuration described as indistinguishable. The semantics of p (distance vs. similarity) and the direction of the transformation must be corrected, otherwise the sign of the proposed anchor is reversed.
  3. [Section 4.2, Table 2, and Appendix B.3 Table 8] The SFT→A-GRPO row for Qwen3-4B reports Avg = 68.11 in Table 2 but 66.10 in Table 8. In addition, the abstract's claim of a 3.75% improvement over GRPO is not traceable to any staged row in Table 2: GRPO Avg is 68.11, A-GRPO is 68.39, SFT→A-GRPO is 68.11, and A-SFT→A-GRPO is 67.93. Please correct the tables and specify which configuration and which baseline produce the 3.75% figure.
  4. [Table 3 and Section 4.2] The claim that AAPA consistently improves the corresponding base objectives across model scales is not supported by the unified experiments: on Qwen3-4B, A-CHORD (Avg 69.27) is slightly below CHORD (Avg 69.30), with the overall decrease driven by drops in Coding and Chinese. The paper should either qualify the universality claim, report run-to-run variance or statistical significance, or provide the missing supporting results.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and abstract] The submission title and abstract use AAPA, while the body title, Section 3, and Figure captions use UniAPL; please unify the naming throughout.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Section 4.3] There is a recurring typo, 'adversaril loss', which should be 'adversarial loss'.
  3. [Table 4 and caption] The table and text use inconsistent labels for the proposed method (RLVR+ADVcoef, wADV coef, and w Acoef); please clarify which setting corresponds to the separate adversarial loss described in setting (iii).
  4. [Figure 2] Figure 2 states that UniAPL-0.6B is 'on par' with Qwen3-32B, but no Qwen3-32B benchmark numbers appear in Table 2; please add the supporting comparison or remove the claim.
  5. [Appendix B.2, Table 6] The row 'With GT Response, NO KL' shows a sharp collapse in mathematics (GSM8K 12.64, MATH-500 8.34); the main text's remark that disabling KL 'may lead to collapse' should be quantified and explicitly tied to this row.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported gains are external benchmark measurements driven by a frozen POLAR anchor, and no target quantity is reused as an input.

full rationale

The empirical claims are self-contained against external benchmarks. The anchor signal is a fixed POLAR discriminator (Algorithm 1) applied to offline teacher rollouts; neither the discriminator nor the teacher is fitted to IFEval/MultiIF or to the other held-out evaluation suites, so the A-SFT/A-GRPO/CHORD improvements in Tables 2-4 are not predictions of the paper's own fitted values. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain: the only overlapping-author citations ([20], [25]) appear in general related-work lists and are not invoked to justify the method's correctness or uniqueness. Appendix A.1's Dirac-delta reformulation of SFT is a valid mathematical equivalence, not a circular derivation, because it constructs a reward that makes expected-reward maximization coincide with NLL minimization rather than assuming the SFT objective as input. The closest to a circular-framing concern is Lemma 1's abstract divergence being operationalized by whatever POLAR measures, and Section 3.2 defines g_ADV = grad_theta L_ADV without specifying the discrete-text gradient estimator; however, the tables are external measurements rather than consequences of that theoretical framing. That under-specification is a correctness and reproducibility risk, not a case of the claimed prediction being equivalent to its inputs by construction, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method depends on two unproven quantitative assumptions: that a frozen POLAR similarity score is a valid distributional divergence, and that a scalar version of that score can act as a gradient signal for policy optimization. The only fitted numbers are lambda_adv, alpha, and beta_KL, of which lambda_adv is tuned on the evaluation family. No new entities are invented.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda_adv (adversarial anchoring coefficient) = recommended 0.01 to 0.0001; ablated over 0.1 to 1e-5
    Controls strength of POLAR anchor relative to policy-gradient loss; selected by ablation on the same instruction-following benchmarks (Section 4.3, Figures 5-6).
  • alpha (unified SFT/RL weighting) = not reported
    Weights the A-SFT and A-GRPO terms in Eq. 2; no value or tuning procedure is given in the text.
  • KL penalty coefficient beta = 0.001 in ablations
    GRPO KL coefficient fixed at 0.001; taken from the CHORD default and affects drift and stability (Section 4.3).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Lemma 1 constrained-optimization characterization of optimal aligned policy
    Unproved modeling assumption that alignment should maximize preference reward subject to a KL ball around an expert policy; the entire unified objective rests on this formulation (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Frozen POLAR discriminator score approximates a semantic distributional distance between student and expert
    The method assumes POLAR's reference-based score is a valid, stable metric across tasks and model scales; no analysis of its bias, such as length or style, is provided (Section 4.1, Appendix A.3).
  • domain assumption Verifiable pass/fail rewards are a sufficient training signal for instruction following
    The RL stage uses a binary verification function as reward; the paper does not study reward noise or verification gaps (Section 4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AAPA: Adversarially Anchored Preference Alignment for Post-Training of Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WEDH3WNY

@misc{pith2026250925148,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AAPA: Adversarially Anchored Preference Alignment for Post-Training of Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WEDH3WNY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.25148}
}
read the original abstract

Post-training alignment of large language models often combines supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on expert demonstrations with reinforcement learning (RL) from preference or verifiable feedback. SFT provides a useful behavioral anchor but can overfit to static demonstrations, whereas RL encourages exploration but may drift from expert behavior or exploit imperfect rewards. We propose \textbf{AAPA} (\emph{Adversarially Anchored Preference Alignment}), a plug-in framework that augments existing post-training objectives with a sentence-level adversarial anchoring signal. AAPA compares policy rollouts with offline, pre-collected expert responses using a fixed lightweight discriminator, and therefore requires neither online teacher inference nor discriminator co-training during policy optimization. The same anchoring term can be added to SFT, GRPO, and CHORD while preserving their original training pipelines. Experiments on instruction-following benchmarks show that AAPA consistently improves the corresponding base objectives across model scales. In particular, the staged AAPA configuration improves over a strong GRPO baseline by 5.77\% on \texttt{Qwen3-0.6B} and 3.75\% on \texttt{Qwen3-4B}. Further analyses on response length, log-probability distributions, and discriminator variants suggest that adversarial anchoring provides a stable semantic grounding signal for preference optimization. Code is available at \url{https://github.com/IsFaqq/AAPA}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.25148 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the UniAPL training framework. UniAPL unifies offline supervised data and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. UniAPL performance on the IFEval benchmark. Notably, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Response length distributions on the IFBench-38K dataset under teacher models and different training paradigms. Among them, SFT is most similar to the teacher, while UniAPL achieves a response length distribution more con￾sistent with the teacher than GRPO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation study of discriminator coeffi￾cients in UniAPL on instruction-following tasks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Shattering the Autoregressive Curse: Dynamic Epistemic Entropy Orchestrated Erasable Reinforcement Learning for LLMs

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    E³RL uses dynamic thresholds on epistemic entropy from autoregressive cross-entropy to enable erasable RL in LLM reasoning, reporting 5.349% and 6.514% gains on AIME for 4B and 8B models over prior SOTA.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Harnessing the power of llms in practice: A survey on chatgpt and beyond

    Jingfeng Yang, Hongye Jin, Ruixiang Tang, Xiaotian Han, Qizhang Feng, Haoming Jiang, Shaochen Zhong, Bing Yin, and Xia Hu. Harnessing the power of llms in practice: A survey on chatgpt and beyond. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, 18(6):1–32, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Sparks of artificial general intelligence: early experiments with gpt-4 (2023)

    Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, et al. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: early experiments with gpt-4 (2023). arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712, 1, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    \texttt{R$^\textbf{2}$AI}: Towards Resistant and Resilient AI in an Evolving World

    Youbang Sun, Xiang Wang, Jie Fu, Chaochao Lu, and Bowen Zhou.R2AI: Towards resistant and resilient ai in an evolving world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06786, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    A survey on post-training of large language models.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2503, 2025

    Guiyao Tie, Zeli Zhao, Dingjie Song, Fuyang Wei, Rong Zhou, Yurou Dai, Wen Yin, Zhejian Yang, Jiangyue Yan, Yao Su, et al. A survey on post-training of large language models.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2503, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:27730–27744, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences

    Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:53728–53741, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Yang Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Curriculum offline imitating learning

    Minghuan Liu, Hanye Zhao, Zhengyu Yang, Jian Shen, Weinan Zhang, Li Zhao, and Tie- Yan Liu. Curriculum offline imitating learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:6266–6277, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Offline imitation learning with suboptimal demonstrations via relaxed distribution matching

    Lantao Yu, Tianhe Yu, Jiaming Song, Willie Neiswanger, and Stefano Ermon. Offline imitation learning with suboptimal demonstrations via relaxed distribution matching. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 37, pages 11016–11024, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Offline reinforcement learning for llm multi-step reasoning

    Huaijie Wang, Shibo Hao, Hanze Dong, Shenao Zhang, Yilin Bao, Ziran Yang, and Yi Wu. Offline reinforcement learning for llm multi-step reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16145, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Grounding large language models in interactive environments with online reinforcement learning

    Thomas Carta, Clément Romac, Thomas Wolf, Sylvain Lamprier, Olivier Sigaud, and Pierre- Yves Oudeyer. Grounding large language models in interactive environments with online reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3676–3713. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Provably mitigating overoptimization in rlhf: Your sft loss is implicitly an adversarial regularizer

    Zhihan Liu, Miao Lu, Shenao Zhang, Boyi Liu, Hongyi Guo, Yingxiang Yang, Jose Blanchet, and Zhaoran Wang. Provably mitigating overoptimization in rlhf: Your sft loss is implicitly an adversarial regularizer. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:138663– 138697, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Entropic distribution matching in supervised fine-tuning of llms: Less overfitting and better diversity.(2024)

    Ziniu Li, Congliang Chen, Tian Xu, Zeyu Qin, Jiancong Xiao, Ruoyu Sun, and Zhi-Quan Luo. Entropic distribution matching in supervised fine-tuning of llms: Less overfitting and better diversity.(2024). URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2408.16673

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Regularizing neural networks by penalizing confident output distributions

    Gabriel Pereyra, George Tucker, Jan Chorowski, Łukasz Kaiser, and Geoffrey Hinton. Regularizing neural networks by penalizing confident output distributions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06548, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model, 2023

    Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B Hashimoto. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model, 2023. 10

    2023

  9. [17]

    Ultrafeedback: Boosting language models with scaled ai feedback

    Ganqu Cui, Lifan Yuan, Ning Ding, Guanming Yao, Bingxiang He, Wei Zhu, Yuan Ni, Guotong Xie, Ruobing Xie, Yankai Lin, et al. Ultrafeedback: Boosting language models with scaled ai feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01377, 2023

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    On the diversity of synthetic data and its impact on training large language models,

    Hao Chen, Abdul Waheed, Xiang Li, Yidong Wang, Jindong Wang, Bhiksha Raj, and Marah I Abdin. On the diversity of synthetic data and its impact on training large language models,

  11. [19]

    Condor: Enhance llm alignment with knowledge-driven data synthesis and refinement

    Maosongcao Maosongcao, Taolin Zhang, Mo Li, Chuyu Zhang, Yunxin Liu, Conghui He, Haodong Duan, Songyang Zhang, and Kai Chen. Condor: Enhance llm alignment with knowledge-driven data synthesis and refinement. InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu...

    2025

  12. [20]

    Idgen: Item discrimination induced prompt generation for llm evaluation

    Fan Lin, Shuyi Xie, Yong Dai, Wenlin Yao, Tianjiao Lang, and Yu Zhang. Idgen: Item discrimination induced prompt generation for llm evaluation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:88557–88580, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Qwen3 technical report

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. Qwen3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Deepseek-v3 technical report

    Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, et al. Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology

    Gemma Team, Thomas Mesnard, Cassidy Hardin, Robert Dadashi, Surya Bhupatiraju, Shreya Pathak, Laurent Sifre, Morgane Rivière, Mihir Sanjay Kale, Juliette Love, et al. Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08295, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Adversarial preference optimization: Enhancing your alignment via rm-llm game

    Pengyu Cheng, Yifan Yang, Jian Li, Yong Dai, Tianhao Hu, Peixin Cao, Nan Du, and Xiaolong Li. Adversarial preference optimization: Enhancing your alignment via rm-llm game. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08045, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Tulu 3: Pushing frontiers in open language model post-training

    Nathan Lambert, Jacob Morrison, Valentina Pyatkin, Shengyi Huang, Hamish Ivison, Faeze Brahman, Lester James V Miranda, Alisa Liu, Nouha Dziri, Shane Lyu, et al. Tulu 3: Pushing frontiers in open language model post-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15124, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards: Grpo’s effective loss, dynam- ics, and success amplification

    Youssef Mroueh. Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards: Grpo’s effective loss, dynam- ics, and success amplification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06639, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Autoglm: Autonomous foundation agents for guis

    Xiao Liu, Bo Qin, Dongzhu Liang, Guang Dong, Hanyu Lai, Hanchen Zhang, Hanlin Zhao, Iat Long Iong, Jiadai Sun, Jiaqi Wang, et al. Autoglm: Autonomous foundation agents for guis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00820, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dapo: An open-source llm reinforcement learning system at scale, 2025

    Qiying Yu, Zheng Zhang, Ruofei Zhu, Yufeng Yuan, Xiaochen Zuo, Yu Yue, Tiantian Fan, Gaohong Liu, Lingjun Liu, Xin Liu, et al. Dapo: An open-source llm reinforcement learning system at scale, 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2503.14476, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Sft memorizes, rl generalizes: A comparative study of foundation model post-training

    Tianzhe Chu, Yuexiang Zhai, Jihan Yang, Shengbang Tong, Saining Xie, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V Le, Sergey Levine, and Yi Ma. Sft memorizes, rl generalizes: A comparative study of foundation model post-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17161, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Q-sft: Q-learning for language models via supervised fine-tuning

    Joey Hong, Anca Dragan, and Sergey Levine. Q-sft: Q-learning for language models via supervised fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05193, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    On-policy rl meets off-policy experts: Harmonizing supervised fine- tuning and reinforcement learning via dynamic weighting

    Wenhao Zhang, Yuexiang Xie, Yuchang Sun, Yanxi Chen, Guoyin Wang, Yaliang Li, Bolin Ding, and Jingren Zhou. On-policy rl meets off-policy experts: Harmonizing supervised fine- tuning and reinforcement learning via dynamic weighting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.11408, 2025

    2025

  26. [35]

    Learning to reason under off-policy guidance

    Jianhao Yan, Yafu Li, Zican Hu, Zhi Wang, Ganqu Cui, Xiaoye Qu, Yu Cheng, and Yue Zhang. Learning to reason under off-policy guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14945, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Bread: Branched rollouts from expert anchors bridge sft & rl for reasoning

    Xuechen Zhang, Zijian Huang, Yingcong Li, Chenshun Ni, Jiasi Chen, and Samet Oymak. Bread: Branched rollouts from expert anchors bridge sft & rl for reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.17211, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Srft: A single-stage method with supervised and reinforcement fine-tuning for reasoning

    Yuqian Fu, Tinghong Chen, Jiajun Chai, Xihuai Wang, Songjun Tu, Guojun Yin, Wei Lin, Qichao Zhang, Yuanheng Zhu, and Dongbin Zhao. Srft: A single-stage method with supervised and reinforcement fine-tuning for reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.19767, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Self-play with execution feedback: Improving instruction-following capabilities of large language models

    Guanting Dong, Keming Lu, Chengpeng Li, Tingyu Xia, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, and Jingren Zhou. Self-play with execution feedback: Improving instruction-following capabilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13542, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Magpie: Alignment data synthesis from scratch by prompting aligned llms with nothing, 2024

    Zhangchen Xu, Fengqing Jiang, Luyao Niu, Yuntian Deng, Radha Poovendran, Yejin Choi, and Bill Yuchen Lin. Magpie: Alignment data synthesis from scratch by prompting aligned llms with nothing, 2024

    2024

  31. [40]

    Generalizing verifiable instruction following, 2025

    Valentina Pyatkin, Saumya Malik, Victoria Graf, Hamish Ivison, Shengyi Huang, Pradeep Dasigi, Nathan Lambert, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Generalizing verifiable instruction following, 2025

    2025

  32. [41]

    Instruction-following evaluation for large language models

    Jeffrey Zhou, Tianjian Lu, Swaroop Mishra, Siddhartha Brahma, Sujoy Basu, Yi Luan, Denny Zhou, and Le Hou. Instruction-following evaluation for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07911, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Multi-if: Benchmarking llms on multi-turn and multilingual instructions following

    Yun He, Di Jin, Chaoqi Wang, Chloe Bi, Karishma Mandyam, Hejia Zhang, Chen Zhu, Ning Li, Tengyu Xu, Hongjiang Lv, et al. Multi-if: Benchmarking llms on multi-turn and multilingual instructions following. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15553, 2024

    arXiv

  34. [43]

    Measuring massive multitask language understanding

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300, 2020

    2009 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Mmlu-pro: A more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark

    Yubo Wang, Xueguang Ma, Ge Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, Abhranil Chandra, Shiguang Guo, Weiming Ren, Aaran Arulraj, Xuan He, Ziyan Jiang, et al. Mmlu-pro: A more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:9...

    2024

  36. [45]

    Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark

    David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R Bowman. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024

    2024

  37. [46]

    Evaluating large language models trained on code

    Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde De Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Program synthesis with large language models

    Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, et al. Program synthesis with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    arXiv

  40. [49]

    Let’s verify step by step

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let’s verify step by step. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  41. [50]

    Theoremqa: A theorem-driven question answering dataset

    Wenhu Chen, Ming Yin, Max Ku, Pan Lu, Yixin Wan, Xueguang Ma, Jianyu Xu, Xinyi Wang, and Tony Xia. Theoremqa: A theorem-driven question answering dataset. In The 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2023

    2023

  42. [51]

    Cmmlu: Measuring massive multitask language understanding in chinese, 2023

    Haonan Li, Yixuan Zhang, Fajri Koto, Yifei Yang, Hai Zhao, Yeyun Gong, Nan Duan, and Timothy Baldwin. Cmmlu: Measuring massive multitask language understanding in chinese, 2023

    2023

  43. [52]

    C-eval: 12 A multi-level multi-discipline chinese evaluation suite for foundation models

    Yuzhen Huang, Yuzhuo Bai, Zhihao Zhu, Junlei Zhang, Jinghan Zhang, Tangjun Su, Junteng Liu, Chuancheng Lv, Yikai Zhang, Jiayi Lei, Yao Fu, Maosong Sun, and Junxian He. C-eval: 12 A multi-level multi-discipline chinese evaluation suite for foundation models. In Advances in Neur...

    2023

  44. [53]

    Pre-trained policy discriminators are general reward models

    Shihan Dou, Shichun Liu, Yuming Yang, Yicheng Zou, Yunhua Zhou, Shuhao Xing, Chenhao Huang, Qiming Ge, Demin Song, Haijun Lv, et al. Pre-trained policy discriminators are general reward models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05197, 2025

    2025

  45. [54]

    Swift:a scalable lightweight infrastructure for fine-tuning, 2025

    Yuze Zhao, Jintao Huang, Jinghan Hu, Xingjun Wang, Yunlin Mao, Daoze Zhang, Hong Zhang, Zeyinzi Jiang, Zhikai Wu, Baole Ai, Ang Wang, Wenmeng Zhou, and Yingda Chen. Swift:a scalable lightweight infrastructure for fine-tuning, 2025

    2025

  46. [55]

    Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework

    Guangming Sheng, Chi Zhang, Zilingfeng Ye, Xibin Wu, Wang Zhang, Ru Zhang, Yanghua Peng, Haibin Lin, and Chuan Wu. Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework. In Proceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Computer Systems, EuroSys ’25, page 1279–1297. ACM, March 2025

    2025

  47. [56]

    preference

    Xuchen Pan, Yanxi Chen, Yushuo Chen, Yuchang Sun, Daoyuan Chen, Wenhao Zhang, Yuex- iang Xie, Yilun Huang, Yilei Zhang, Dawei Gao, Yaliang Li, Bolin Ding, and Jingren Zhou. Trinity-rft: A general-purpose and unified framework for reinforcement fine-tuning of large language mod...

    2025

  48. [58]

    The standard reinforcement learning objective is to maximize the expected reward for a responseysampled from the policyπ θ(·|x): max θ Ey∼πθ(·|x)[R(y|x)]

  49. [59]

    Substituting our Dirac delta reward function: max θ Ey∼πθ(·|x)[δ(y−y ∗)]

  50. [60]

    Due to the properties of the Dirac delta function, the integral is non-zero only at the single point y=y ∗

    The expectation is an integral (or sum) of the reward of each possible output y weighted by its probability πθ(y|x). Due to the properties of the Dirac delta function, the integral is non-zero only at the single point y=y ∗. Therefore, the expectation collapses to be proportio...

  51. [61]

    To maximize this expectation, one must maximize the probability term: max θ πθ(y∗|x)

  52. [62]

    Since the logarithm is a monotonic function, this is equivalent to maximizing its logarithm: max θ logπθ(y∗|x)

  53. [63]

    Finally, maximizing a function is equivalent to minimizing its negation: min θ (−logπ θ(y∗|x)) This final expression is precisely the NLL loss for SFT. We have formally shown that the objective of SFT is a special case of the general reward-maximization objective, where the re...

  54. [64]

    This provides a cohesive narrative for the entire post-training pipeline, viewing it not as a sequence of disparate steps but as a unified process

    Establishes a Coherent Theoretical Framework.It places SFT, DPO, and online RL under a single, elegant objective function,J(θ) . This provides a cohesive narrative for the entire post-training pipeline, viewing it not as a sequence of disparate steps but as a unified process

  55. [65]

    winner" (preferred) response andyl is the

    Reveals a Curriculum of Reward Signals.It frames post-training as a principled progres- sion where the nature of the reward signal evolves. Stage 1 (SFT) uses a sharp, sparse Dirac delta signal to instill absolute knowledge. Subsequent stages (DPO/GRPO) replace this sharp sign...

  56. [2024]

    org/abs/2410.15226, 2016

    URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2410.15226, 2016

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.