Knowing When Not to Reuse: Conditional Experience Transfer in Autonomous LLM Post-Training
Organizations: Alibaba Cloud Computing
Abstract
Large language models offer broad capabilities, but adapting them to evolving domains, tools, and requirements often entails repeated post-training. Autonomous systems automate parts of this process by proposing updates, training candidates, and using evaluation feedback to select subsequent proposals. As evidence accumulates, a central problem emerges: which past update evidence remains actionable after subsequent training has changed the parent model? An update's effect depends on its parent, data, and training stage. Treating past success as context-free permission can waste compute. If the resulting child is promoted, it can also degrade the subsequent training trajectory. We formulate this problem as conditional experience transfer and introduce Boundary-Calibrated Intervention Transfer (BCIT), a method that authorizes experience reuse before weight-changing training. BCIT binds an observed effect to its source context, checks applicability conditions, vetoes candidates with named hard conflicts, and obtains current-state evidence through a bounded training trial when needed. Fully trained candidates still face a shared adoption rule, and only observed events extend memory. On one 4B model adapted across finance reasoning, text-to-SQL, and function calling, candidate updates exhibit heterogeneous target and retention effects across the evaluated contexts. Under matched candidates, evidence, and compute, BCIT authorizes fewer harmful updates and attains higher equal-budget final-model quality than the evaluated alternatives. These results support treating experience authorization as a distinct problem in autonomous post-training.
Figures & tables
| Policy | Authorized B/H/N | All auth. | Harmful auth. | Beneficial kept | Harmful share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reuse all | 10/8/6 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 33.3 |
| Source evidence only | 9/6/4 | 79.2 | 75.0 | 90.0 | 31.6 |
| Applicability only | 8/5/4 | 70.8 | 62.5 | 80.0 | 29.4 |
| Flat-Additive | 8/5/3 | 66.7 | 62.5 | 80.0 | 31.3 |
| BCIT | 9/2/3 | 58.3 | 25.0 | 90.0 | 14.3 |
| BCIT w/o candidate-specific applicability | 9/6/3 | 75.0 | 75.0 | 90.0 | 33.3 |
| Method | TAT | BIRD | BFCL | Mean | Min. | IFEval P/I | GPUh | AUC |
| Base | 31.3 | 39.0 | 57.2 | 42.5 | 0.0 | 76.5/82.7 | 0.0 | 42.5 |
| Fin. specialist | 39.6 | – | – | – | – | – | 36.0 | – |
| SQL specialist | – | 49.3 | – | – | – | – | 36.0 | – |
| Func. specialist | – | – | 65.1 | – | – | – | 36.0 | – |
| Flat-Add. | 33.4 | 41.2 | 58.5 | +1.3 | 75.0/80.9 | 43.6 | ||
| Validate-All | 34.6 | 42.5 | 59.3 | +2.1 | 75.6/81.7 | 44.2 |
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Study | Scientific role | Outcome access and sampling unit | Material reported here |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retrospective-24 | Diagnose effect heterogeneity | Outcomes exposed before analysis; 24 matched candidate–context pairs | All target and retention deltas; semantic intervention labels |
| Audit-24 | Compare authorization decisions from matched information | Decisions frozen before full outcomes open; 24 decision units | Policy counts, structural ablations, exact intervals, and paired discordance table |
| ShortFull-24 | Measure bounded-validation fidelity | Every short/full pair executed; no pass-only filtering; 24 candidates | Full short/full ledger, sign reversals, confusion counts, and budget sensitivity |
| 36-GPU-hour episodes | Compare complete sequential policies under equal compute | Six matched episodes for the primary and protocol-amendment comparisons | Seed-level endpoints, paired intervals, component directions, process counts, and aggregate endpoints |
| Method | Historical library | New proposals | Pre-full-training policy | Candidate stream and adoption |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCIT | frozen | at most 3 | product, hard veto, selective validation | matched stream; shared |
| Flat-Additive | same as BCIT | same as BCIT | additive no-veto score; otherwise matched | matched stream; shared |
| Validate-All | same candidates | same as BCIT | validate every executable candidate | matched stream; shared |
| Additive+Veto | same as BCIT | same as BCIT | additive score with hard veto and BCIT validation | matched stream; shared |
| BCIT-Retrieve | frozen | disabled | BCIT authorization | retrieved library candidates only; shared |
| No-memory search | disabled | target-only | every new proposal requires current-parent validation | method-specific proposal stream; shared |
| Illustrative update | Decision | Reason | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rationale-first SQL SFT in a matched execution setting | 1.00 | .80 | 0 | 1 | Train | and replicated source evidence permits direct training |
| Low-rate finance continuation with single-run evidence | .45 | .90 | 0 | 0 | Validate | is not rejected, but grade B evidence cannot bypass current-state validation |
| Function-calling update under an incompatible output schema | .90 | .80 | 1 | 1 | Reject | The named protocol conflict is non-compensable even though the positive score is high |
| Family | Source | Target | Metric / count |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finance | FinQA | TAT-QA | Official F1 / 1,663 |
| Text-to-SQL | Spider | BIRD | Exec. acc. / 400 |
| Function calling | xLAM | BFCL | Full match / 444 |
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Base model | Qwen3-4B |
| Framework | LlamaFactory / PyTorch |
| Precision | bfloat16 |
| Distributed optimizer | DeepSpeed ZeRO-2 |
| Context length | 4,096 tokens |
| Learning rate |
| Field | Frozen value |
|---|---|
| Semantic update | Rationale-first SQL SFT |
| Atomic change | Add 260 train-only SQL rationale examples to the base-plus-retention SFT recipe |
| Required conditions | Executable SQLite databases and schema context; execution accuracy as the primary metric; compatible parent family and training stage |
| Named conflicts | Dialect/backend mismatch; incompatible output schema; missing required database access |
| Provenance | Training data, configuration, evaluator, source outcome, and run identifier each carry a content digest |
| Decision-time visibility | Source record, evidence grade, applicability fields, and provenance; no target full-run metric or held-out target error case |
| Family | Semantic update | Target | P | I | Family | Semantic update | Target | P | I |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fin. | Balanced numeric repair | SQL | Complex-query replay | ||||||
| Fin. | Strict-CoT repair | SQL | Execution-reward GRPO | ||||||
| Fin. | CoT cold start | SQL | Mixed execution GRPO | ||||||
| Fin. | Exact-reward GRPO | SQL | Hard-query GRPO | ||||||
| Fin. | Extended SFT | SQL | Rationale-first SFT | ||||||
| Fin. | Precision replay | SQL | Rejection distillation |
| Policy | Auth. B/H/N | Coverage | HER | BCov | Harm/Auth. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reuse all | 10/8/6 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 33.3% | |
| Source only | 9/6/4 | 79.2% | 75.0% | 90.0% | 31.6% | |
| Applicability only | 8/5/4 | 70.8% | 62.5% | 80.0% | 29.4% | |
| Flat-Additive | 8/5/3 | 66.7% | 62.5% | 80.0% | 31.3% | |
| BCIT | 9/2/3 | 58.3% | 25.0% | 90.0% | 14.3% | |
| BCIT w/o candidate-specific applicability | 9/6/3 | 75.0% | 75.0% | 90.0% | 33.3% |
| Metric | BCIT | Flat-Additive |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage | ||
| HER | ||
| BCov | ||
| Harm/Auth. |
| ID | Type | Label | Short | Full | Action | ID | Type | Label | Short | Full | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S01 | SFT | H | Fail | G01 | GRPO | H | Fail | ||||
| S02 | SFT | H | Fail | G02 | GRPO | H | Fail | ||||
| S03 | SFT | H | Fail | G03 | GRPO | H | Fail | ||||
| S04 | SFT | H | Pass | G04 | GRPO | H | Pass | ||||
| S05 | SFT | N | Fail | G05 | GRPO | N | Fail | ||||
| S06 | SFT | B | Pass | G06 | GRPO | N | Fail |
| Budget | P/F/I | Sign agree | Median cost/full | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5% | 9/7/8 | 62.5% | .42 | .06 |
| 10% | 10/8/6 | 75.0% | .61 | .11 |
| 20% | 10/9/5 | 83.3% | .72 | .17 |
| Method | Seed | TAT-QA | BIRD | BFCL | Mean | IFEval-P | IFEval-I | GPUh | Pair |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCIT | S1 | 35.400 | 44.000 | 60.586 | 46.662 | 76.895 | 83.094 | 34.7 | |
| BCIT | S2 | 36.500 | 44.500 | 61.261 | 47.420 | 76.710 | 82.854 | 35.3 | |
| BCIT | S3 | 35.800 | 43.750 | 60.811 | 46.787 | 76.710 | 82.974 | 35.0 | |
| BCIT | S4 | 36.100 | 44.500 | 60.811 | 47.137 | 76.525 | 82.614 | 34.8 | |
| BCIT | S5 | 35.100 | 44.000 | 60.360 | 46.487 | 76.895 | 83.094 | 35.6 | |
| BCIT | S6 | 36.400 | 44.750 | 61.261 | 47.470 | 76.710 | 82.854 | 34.9 |
| Policy | Seed | TAT-QA | BIRD | BFCL | Mean | IFEval-P | IFEval-I | GPUh | AUC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Validate-All | S1 | 34.720 | 42.600 | 59.350 | 45.557 | 75.620 | 81.740 | 35.74 | 44.280 | |
| S2 | 34.300 | 42.180 | 59.110 | 45.197 | 75.310 | 81.420 | 35.91 | 44.050 | ||
| S3 | 34.880 | 42.740 | 59.440 | 45.687 | 75.800 | 81.910 | 35.62 | 44.370 | ||
| S4 | 34.510 | 42.350 | 59.280 | 45.380 | 75.440 | 81.580 | 35.96 | 44.130 | ||
| S5 | 35.020 | 42.810 | 59.520 | 45.783 | 75.930 | 82.030 | 35.68 | 44.420 | ||
| S6 | 34.460 | 42.490 | 59.200 | 45.383 | 75.550 | 81.690 | 35.83 | 44.190 |
| Policy | Seed | TAT-QA | BIRD | BFCL | Mean | IFEval-P | IFEval-I | GPUh | AUC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCIT w/o hard veto | S1 | 35.000 | 42.650 | 59.600 | 45.750 | 75.420 | 81.520 | 35.46 | 44.230 | |
| S2 | 34.400 | 42.150 | 59.000 | 45.183 | 74.960 | 81.080 | 35.71 | 43.960 | ||
| S3 | 34.700 | 42.420 | 59.300 | 45.473 | 75.210 | 81.310 | 35.58 | 44.100 | ||
| BCIT-Reject-Unresolved | S1 | 34.700 | 42.500 | 59.000 | 45.400 | 76.220 | 82.300 | 32.84 | 44.030 | |
| S2 | 34.150 | 42.050 | 58.700 | 44.967 | 75.910 | 82.020 | 33.12 | 43.790 | ||
| S3 | 34.450 | 42.280 | 58.900 | 45.210 | 76.080 | 82.180 | 32.96 | 43.910 |
| Method | TAT-QA | BIRD | BFCL | Mean | Worst | IFEval-P | IFEval-I | GPUh | AUC |
| Base | 31.3 | 39.0 | 57.2 | 42.5 | 0.0 | 76.5 | 82.7 | 0.0 | 42.5 |
| Single-task specialists (36 GPU-hours each) | |||||||||
| Finance specialist | 39.6 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 36.0 | – |
| SQL specialist | – | 49.3 | – | – | – | – | – | 36.0 | – |
| Function specialist | – | – | 65.1 | – | – | – | – | 36.0 | – |
| Shared-model baselines | |||||||||
LLM Post-Training
Large language model post-training adapts pretrained models into more useful, reliable, and specialized assistants through supervised and preference-based learning.
See all 249 papers