SFT Overtraining Predicts Rank Inversion via Entropy Collapse Under RLVR

SFT-then-RLVR is widely used for post-training reasoning models, but why this specific ordering, and why RLVR-only stalls at cold start, have lacked a unifying theoretical account. We provide that account under a unified loss family $J_Q$ using the Tsallis $q$-logarithm. $J_Q$ is a single-parameter family that interpolates between RLVR (at $q{=}0$, the \textit{exploitation pole}) and the log-marginal-likelihood over latent trajectories (at $q{=}1$, the \textit{density-estimation pole}), under which the standard pipeline corresponds to a stepwise $q{=}1 \to 0$ schedule. All members share the same per-example gradient direction, differing only by a per-instance amplification $P_θ^{-q}$ that reweights each instance independently of the learning rate. Under gradient flow analysis, we show that the exploitation pole requires $Ω(\frac{1}{p_0})$ time to escape cold start but is robust to label noise, while the density-estimation pole escapes in $Θ\big(\log(\frac{1}{p_0})\big)$ but memorizes label noise. This separation explains how SFT ($q{=}1$) first moves the model out of the cold-start regime, followed by the more robust RLVR ($q{=}0$), under the SFT-then-RLVR paradigm. We further derive two Monte Carlo estimators that directly optimize fixed-$q$ on the $J_Q$ continuum, without annotated rationales: Gradient-Amplified RL (GARL) and Posterior-Attenuated Fine-Tuning (PAFT), with shared bias $O\big(\frac{q}{M P_θ^q}\big)$ but different variance and stability properties. On FinQA, HotPotQA, and MuSiQue, GARL at sufficiently high $q$ substantially mitigates cold-start stalling, escaping cold start where GRPO fails entirely. In warm start, GARL at low $q$ dominates FinQA where training is stable; on HotPotQA and MuSiQue, GARL destabilizes and PAFT at $q{=}0.75$ remains stable, reaching $47.9$ \texttt{m@16} on HotPotQA ($+13.9$ over GRPO).

Adaptive rank allocation for LoRA, allocating more parameters to important layers and fewer to unimportant ones, consistently improves efficiency under supervised fine-tuning (SFT). We investigate whether this success transfers to reinforcement learning, specifically Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). Using gradient-magnitude profiling on Qwen 2.5 1.5B with GSM8K, we find that it does not: proportional rank allocation degrades accuracy by 4.5 points compared to uniform allocation (70.0% vs. 74.5%), despite using identical parameter budgets. We identify two mechanisms behind this failure. First, the gradient landscape under GRPO is fundamentally flatter than under SFT, the max-to-min layer importance ratio is only 2.17x, compared to >10x reported in SFT literature. All layers carry meaningful gradient signal; none are truly idle. Second, we discover a gradient amplification effect: non-uniform allocation widens the importance spread from 2.17x to 3.00x, creating a positive feedback loop where high-rank layers absorb more gradient while low-rank layers are progressively silenced. Our results suggest that gradient importance does not predict capacity requirements under RL, and that naive transfer of SFT-era rank allocation to alignment training should be avoided.

Language-model checkpoints are commonly selected by pretraining loss or benchmark scores, assuming that the highest-scoring checkpoint will remain the best starting point for subsequent training. We show that this assumption can fail in a full 30B mixture-of-experts training pipeline. The checkpoints that perform better after the full downstream training stack also have higher solution density, i.e., retain downstream performance under local weight perturbations.