Current language model training commonly applies multi-task Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) using a homogeneous compute budget across all sub-datasets. This approach is fundamentally sub-optimal: heterogeneous learning dynamics cause faster-learning tasks to overfit early while slower ones remain under-fitted. To address this, we introduce mSFT, an iterative, overfitting-aware search algorithm for multi-task data mixtures. mSFT trains the model on an active mixture, identifies and excludes the earliest overfitting sub-dataset, and reverts to that specific optimal checkpoint before continuing. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that mSFT consistently outperforms 4 baselines across 10 benchmarks and 6 base models. Further analysis confirms mSFT maintains robust gains across diverse dataset sizes, task granularities, and is insensitive to its single new hyperparameter (compute budget). Notably, at low compute budget, mSFT can improve performance while lowering training FLOPs. Ultimately, mSFT establishes a practical overfitting-aware algorithm for multi-task SFT that maximizes the potential of models across diverse data mixtures.
Figures & tables
Method
Type
Epochs
Magistral ( Rastogi et al., 2025 )
Homogenous
4
OLMo ( Groeneveld et al., 2024 )
Homogenous
3
OLMo 2 ( Walsh et al., 2025 )
Homogenous
2
OLMo 3 ( Ettinger et al., 2026 )
Homogenous
2
DeepSeek-V3 ( Liu et al., 2025 )
Homogenous
2
DeepSeek-R1 ( Guo et al., 2025 )
Homogenous
2-3
Table 1: Status quo. Frontier open-weight models continue to employ homogeneous SFT, where all sub-datasets are trained on the same amount of compute.
Figure 1: SFT is compute-light. Using OLMo 2 as an example, SFT is relatively compute-light, and therefore additional compute usage at this stage is negligible.
Figure 2: Heterogeneous learning dynamics. Multi-task SFT on Qwen3 8B demonstrates that underlying sub-datasets overfitting dynamics vary greatly. This observation is consistent across all other models; visualized in Appendix B .
Figure 3: Divergence of optimal compute upon dataset exclusion. Excluding a small fraction of the training mixture alters the optimization trajectory, shifting optimal stopping points for remaining tasks. (a) Δ optimal compute varies across individual sub-tasks. (b) This divergence is consistent across model families and scales, averaging an absolute shift of 0.91 epochs. Detailed decomposition across other models available in Appendix D
Model:
OLMo 2
Qwen2.5
Qwen3
Size:
1B
0.5B
1.5B
3B
7B
8B
Average
Acc.
Ep.
Acc.
Ep.
Acc.
Ep.
Acc.
Ep.
Acc.
Ep.
Acc.
Ep.
Acc.
Ep.
Science and Knowledge
Base
32.4
—
26.1
—
54.6
—
12.1
—
4.0
—
24.6
—
25.6
—
SFT
47.9
9.75
37.5
0.50
65.8
3.00
71.8
5.00
74.5
2.00
77.9
3.00
62.5
3.88
Continual SFT
48.5
1.90
24.6
1.95
66.6
2.08
71.4
1.80
72.9
1.40
77.5
1.15
60.2 -2.3
1.71
Table 2: Main results. Comparison of six methodologies across six underlying models ( OLMo 2 , Qwen2.5 , and Qwen3 ), evaluating performance across three major task categories. We report both accuracy (Acc.) and the epoch (Ep.) at which the best accuracy was achieved. Continual SFT’s Ep. is the average across benchmarks making values not in intervals of 1/4 epochs like others. The best scores are bolded , and second best underlined .
Figure 4: Further details of main results. [left] mSFT achieves the lowest levels of standard deviation across benchmarks (STD), indicating performance gains are not due to large outliers. [right] Across models, mSFT achieves 1st place the most. The 1st place count does not add up to 60 = 6 ⋅ 10 (models ⋅ benchmarks) as there are cases where 1st place is tied.
Figure 7
Average
Acc.
Ep.
SFT
61.9
3.88
SRO SFT
63.4
3.75
Soft SRO SFT
62.1
3.79
mSFT ( ours )
63.7
4.12
Table 3: Ablation study results. Comparison of our proposed method ( mSFT ) against two naïve alternative heterogeneous early-stopping algorithms averaged across six underlying models.
Figure 7: Performance on further granular decompositions. Evaluating mSFT across MedMCQA sub-categories using Qwen2.5 3B demonstrates an average accuracy improvement of +1.86% over the SFT baseline, outperforming IES (+0.29%).
Figure 8: Decomposition of performance gains. mSFT ’s accuracy improvement over SFT is decomposed into overfitting prevention benefits and dataset exclusion effects. Minor catastrophic forgetting from hard exclusion is outweighed by gains from mitigating heterogeneous overfitting.
Figure 9: Training loss curve comparison at 8B . Smoothed with moving average with sliding window 10. Dashed vertical lines denote roll-back where a sub-dataset is excluded. Numerical annotation at the bottom indicate the number of remaining sub-datasets at each interval.
Model:
Gemma 3 4B
Science and Knowledge
Commonsense and Language
Mathematic and Quantitative
Average
SFT
59.2
69.0
38.5
59.0
mSFT ( ours )
63.0 +3.8
74.1 +5.1
39.5 +1.0
62.7 +3.7
Table 4: Results on a different model family. mSFT ( C=3 ) on Gemma 3 4B . Average denotes the average accuracy across 10 benchmarks. Subscripts denote Δ relative to SFT.
Model:
OLMo 2
Qwen2.5
Qwen3
Size:
1B
0.5B
1.5B
3B
7B
8B
Average
Average Accuracy Across 10 Benchmarks
SFT
43.6
33.0
64.1
73.2
76.8
80.8
61.9
CoBa
46.1
36.8
64.6
72.5
77.4
80.9
63.1 +1.2
mSFT ( ours )
46.3
37.4
65.0
74.2
78.0
81.4
63.7 +1.8
Table 5: Comparison with loss-reweighting. mSFT against CoBa across six underlying models. Subscripts denote Δ relative to SFT. The best scores are bolded .
Source
FLOPs
Stage
7B
13B
32B
7B
13B
32B
Pre-training
paper §2.3
1.64×1023
3.90×1023
1.16×1024
Mid-training
paper §4.5
6.30×1021
4.68×1022
1.04×1023
SFT
HF dataset
2.97×1019
5.52×1019
1.24×1020
DPO
HF dataset
1.89×1019
3.61×1019
1.28×1020
RLVR-grad
tulu3.md script
7.15×1019
1.33×1020
3.27×1020
Table 6: OLMo 2 training FLOPs by stage. “Post” denotes the sum of SFT, DPO, RLVR-grad, and RLVR-roll. Post/Total is the ratio of total post-training FLOPs to total training FLOPs. SFT/Post is the fraction of post-training compute spent on SFT.
Table 7: Benchmarks used in our experiments. All datasets are English. Assigned Category denotes the grouping used to report results in Tab. 2 . Each sub-dataset contributes 1,800 training and 200 validation examples.
Hyperparameter
Value
Learning Rate
1×10−5
Learning Rate Schedule
Constant
Batch Size
64
Seed
20
Sub-dataset Size (train)
1800
Sub-dataset Size (validation)
200
Appendix
Table 8: Overlapping hyperparameters.
Model:
Qwen2.5
Size:
3B
7B
SFT
mSFT
SFT
mSFT
Average Accuracy Across 10 Benchmarks
Seed 20
73.25
74.25
76.80
78.05
Seed 30
73.05
74.05
76.90
78.85
Seed 40
72.65
73.25
76.80
78.05
Appendix
Table 9: Seed stability on Qwen2.5 3B and 7B . Subscripts in the Mean row denote Δ relative to SFT. p -values are from a two-sided paired t -test against SFT ( ∗p<0.05 ).
Figure 13: Training instances across epochs on IES. Percentage of active training instances per epoch, relative to the initial dataset size at Epoch 1. All models process the complete dataset for the first three epochs, after which the proportion of active instances consistently decreases.
Soft
mSFT
Model
SFT
Cont.
Dynamix
IES
SRO
SRO
(C=1)
(C=3)
OLMo 2 1B
157.19
124.52
263.22
112.05
218.66
273.35
74.06
210.11
Qwen2.5 0.5B
58.10
47.41
103.54
37.19
80.35
120.93
31.24
105.78
Qwen2.5 1.5B
207.90
308.98
363.97
135.80
374.98
443.58
144.21
416.26
Qwen2.5 3B
461.48
727.13
760.17
313.30
652.51
879.80
320.14
770.21
Qwen2.5 7B
1089.42
965.96
1742.91
663.91
1717.30
2057.52
–
1654.26
Appendix
Table 10: Total PFLOPs for each method across model scales.
Multi-task supervised fine-tuning (SFT) often casts a heterogeneous data mixture as a single optimization problem, even though different tasks may reach their best generalization at different times. msft exposes this mismatch through task-wise roll-out, exclusion, and rollback, but its original formulation materializes the scheduler state as full-model checkpoints, making stage transitions costly to store, restore, and deploy. This paper introduces AuroSFT, a parameter-efficient framework that recasts the carried state of overfitting-aware multi-task SFT as a compact, mergeable adapter state. AuroSFT freezes the pretrained backbone, trains only injected adapters, rolls back adapter checkpoints at task-wise peaks, and continues on the remaining active mixture. At the layer level, each adapter applies an AuroRA-inspired adaptive nonlinear layer to a low-rank weight factor rather than to the sample representation. The resulting update remains linear in the input, rank-bounded, and exactly mergeable into the frozen projection. Under the retained-backbone comparison protocol, AuroSFT achieves 61.36% average accuracy, compared with 59.85% for the corresponding msft reference row, and obtains higher accuracy on all five backbones. Our code is available at the anonymous repository: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/AuroSFT-80D1.
Yue Han, Ziniu Liu
College of Systems Engineering, National University of Defense Technology · College of Computer Science and Technology, National University of Defense Technology
Supervised fine-tuning performance for large language models depends strongly on how training budget is distributed across a heterogeneous set of tasks. In practice, mixtures are often fixed using simple heuristics (e.g., uniform or size-proportional sampling) that ignore task interactions, which can hurt transfer and waste budget on redundant sources. We introduce TaskPGM, a framework for learning continuous task mixtures via an energy-based model over tasks. Tasks form the nodes of a Markov random field: unary potentials capture per-task utility, and pairwise potentials encode inter-task relationships using behavioral divergences computed from predictive distributions of single-task fine-tuned models (e.g., Jensen--Shannon divergence and pointwise mutual information). Optimizing this objective yields mixtures that balance coverage against redundancy. We show that the resulting set function is weakly submodular under budget constraints, enabling approximation guarantees for discrete selection variants. Across multiple model families (LLaMA-7B, Qwen2-7B) and evaluation suites (BIG-Bench Hard), TaskPGM improves over standard mixing strategies and provides interpretable structure over task interactions.
Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning (RL) exhibit fundamentally different behaviors in enhancing multi-task reasoning for large language models (LLMs). Our preliminary experiments revealed a phenomenon: SFT suffers from severe task conflicts under multi-stage training, whereas RL enables stable coexistence across diverse tasks. Empirically, we trace this to the parameter level, observing that RL induces sparse and approximately orthogonal updates across tasks. We provide a theoretical explanation for this mechanism by analyzing multi-task gradient interference. Our results reveal a distinction: interference in SFT is norm-limited, scaling with the absolute gradient magnitude, whereas interference in RL is variance-limited, bounded by the gradient variance induced by advantage normalization and on-policy optimization. This small variance bound yields near-orthogonal optimization directions across tasks. Leveraging this insight, we propose Parallel-RL, a paradigm that decouples multi-task training, significantly improving efficiency and flexibility.
Kejian Zhu, Zhuoran Jin, Shangqing Tu +5
The Key Laboratory of Cognition and Decision Intelligence for Complex Systems, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · Tsinghua University, Beijing, China