Recent studies have observed that parameter changes during language-model post-training can be concentrated in a small subset of coordinates. This phenomenon has been reported in reinforcement learning, on-policy distillation, and supervised fine-tuning on near-policy data. Its recurrence across different post-training paradigms suggests shared structure in training dynamics. In this paper, we examine this pattern through the diagonal model Fisher, which measures the sensitivity of the model's output distribution to individual parameters and is independent of any particular reward or teacher signal. Theoretically, we show that small diagonal Fisher leads to small expected gradients across a range of training objectives, providing a common explanation for sparse gradient updates. Empirically, we test this connection in RL and OPD. We find that Fisher identifies where gradients are concentrated, and fixed sparse masks selected from the initial Fisher retain a large proportion of the improvement from full training. Finally, we investigate the mechanisms underlying low Fisher in on-policy training. Our results show that high-probability next tokens tend to have similar parameter sensitivities, contributing to low Fisher. Together, these results establish the diagonal model Fisher as a unifying perspective linking update sparsity to on-policy training dynamics in LLM post-training.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Logical chain of how on-policy training gives rise to low Fisher and concentrated learning. Section 4.1 studies the first two links, showing how on-policy sampling can produce small token Fisher and how these token-level contributions accumulate into small model Fisher. Section 3.1 establishes the third link, showing theoretically how small model Fisher limits expected gradients. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 empirically verify whether Fisher identifies where gradients and effective learning are concentrated.
Figure 2: Fisher identifies a small set of parameters that supports learning. (a) Before training, the top 1% Fisher coordinates contain 47.40% of the top 1% gradient coordinates, compared with a 1.00% random baseline. (b) Updating only this Fisher-selected subset achieves much of the performance gain from updating all parameters (Full) and substantially outperforms an equally sized random subset. Results are for Qwen3-1.7B-Base trained with RL for mathematical reasoning.
Method
Response distribution μ
Learning signal Rθ
SFT
ν(y∣x)
logπθ(y∣x)
On-policy RL
πθ(y∣x)
r(x,y)
PG-style OPD
πθ(y∣x)
RT(x,y)
Full-vocabulary OPD
πθ(y∣x)
−∑tDKL(πT(⋅∣st)∥pθ(⋅∣st))
Table 1: Post-training objectives and update conventions. The demonstration distribution ν , teacher πT , and reward r are fixed, and RT(x,y)=∑tlog[πT(yt∣st)/pθ(yt∣st)] . For PG-style OPD, RT is treated as a fixed reward in the policy-gradient estimator. For full-vocabulary OPD, the rollout distribution is held fixed during differentiation, and gradients are taken only through the student’s next-token probabilities.
Method
Effective signal a(x,y)
Squared scale
SFT
wν(x,y)−1
Ex,y∼πθ[(wν−1)2]
On-policy RL
r(x,y)−rˉ(x)
ExVarπθ(r∣x)
PG-style OPD
RT(x,y)−RˉT(x)
ExVarπθ(RT∣x)
Full-vocabulary OPD
AT(x,y)
Ex,y∼πθ[AT(x,y)2]
Table 2: Effective signals and squared scales Ex,y∼πθ[a2] in Equation ( 4 ). Here wν(x,y)=ν(y∣x)/πθ(y∣x) , rˉ(x)=Eπθ[r∣x] , RˉT(x)=Eπθ[RT∣x] , and AT(x,y)=∑t(πT(yt∣st)/pθ(yt∣st)−1) .
Figure 3: (a) Gradient-support recall (%) across selection percentages q . Initial denotes the pretrained policy. Checkpoint rows average independent full-parameter training runs. Random is the analytic baseline. (b) Final MATH-500 mean reward across fixed-mask budgets. Fisher and Random denote fixed Fisher-selected and uniformly random masks, respectively, while Full updates all parameters. The dashed line marks the initial policy’s score ( 22.65% ).
Current low-Fisher group (%)
Checkpoint
Metric
All
99.95
99.9
99.5
99
95
Initial
Real
22.19
4.48
3.98
3.06
2.72
1.87
Uniform
141.21
41.81
39.36
34.43
32.48
27.87
Ratio
0.16
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
Step 250
Real
11.57
3.00
2.71
2.13
1.90
1.32
Uniform
184.21
46.77
43.07
35.72
32.89
26.01
Table 3: Average token Fisher under the model’s probabilities (Real), the uniform reference (Uniform), and their ratio. Fisher values are in units of 10−6 . Low-Fisher groups are selected from each checkpoint. Checkpoint values average four training runs. The initial policy is shared.
Selection q (%)
Checkpoint
Metric
All
0.05
0.1
0.5
1
5
Step 250
Retention
–
99.99 / 75.76
99.98 / 76.96
99.89 / 77.67
99.76 / 76.70
98.78 / 76.89
Mk/M0
0.70
0.92
0.92
0.93
0.93
0.92
Step 500
Retention
–
99.99 / 73.02
99.97 / 74.36
99.88 / 75.30
99.74 / 74.37
98.66 / 74.62
Mk/M0
0.73
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.01
0.99
Step 750
Retention
–
99.99 / 72.02
99.97 / 73.48
99.87 / 74.61
99.73 / 73.68
98.63 / 73.96
Table 4: Persistence of the initial Fisher pattern during full-parameter training. Retention reports low/high-Fisher set overlap (%), and Mk/M0 reports the Fisher magnitude of the fixed initial low-Fisher set relative to initialization. Values are averaged over four runs. Random gives the analytic retention baseline.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Setting
Value
Model
Qwen3-1.7B-Base
Policies
Shared Initial; Full training seeds 0–3 at steps 250, 500, 750, and 1000
Prompt source
The 8,513-problem RL training set
Fisher sample size
800 prompts, one response per prompt
Gradient sample size
300 prompts, eight responses per prompt
Generation
Temperature 1, top- p=1 , no top- k truncation
Appendix
Table 5: Test 1 measurement settings.
Setting
RL
OPD
Initial model
Qwen3-1.7B-Base
Qwen3-1.7B (post-trained)
Teacher
None
Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507, frozen
Training dataset
SimpleRL-Zoo, Abel levels 3–5
DAPO-Math-17k
Training data size
8,513 problems
17,183 problems after deduplication and removal of exact MATH-500 matches
Objective
Dr. GRPO
Token-local PG-style distillation
Optimizer updates
1,000
20
Appendix
Table 6: Training and evaluation settings for the reported Test 2 comparisons. All conditions within each column share these settings.
Setting
Value
Model and policies
Qwen3-1.7B-Base; shared Initial and Full seeds 0–3 at steps 250/500/750/1000
Prompts
200 prompts sampled without replacement from Test 1’s 300 gradient prompts, shared across policies
Responses
Each policy’s first saved on-policy response per prompt
Response generation
Temperature 1, top- p=1 , no top- k truncation; prompt/response limits 1,024/4,096
Positions
Eight uniformly selected positions per response; identical for Real and Uniform
Token pairs
Eight independent pairs per position per condition, sampled with replacement
Appendix
Table 7: Settings for the Real–Uniform token-Fisher comparison.
q (%)
Full
Fisher
R0
R1
Random
Recovery
Δ
0.05
56.41
49.65
22.75
23.66
23.21
79.98
26.44
0.1
56.41
51.41
24.36
23.44
23.90
85.21
27.51
0.5
56.41
54.00
26.39
26.45
26.42
92.87
27.58
1
56.41
55.03
30.93
31.21
31.07
95.90
23.96
5
56.41
56.01
47.58
47.60
47.59
98.82
8.43
Appendix
Table 8: RL on MATH-500: four-training-seed mean response accuracy (%). The initial model is Qwen3-1.7B-Base. All models are evaluated after 1,000 updates. Recovery is a percentage and Δ is in percentage points.
Checkpoint
q=0.5%
q=1%
q=5%
Initial (step 0)
37.12
35.66
37.84
Step 5
43.26
41.05
41.90
Step 10
47.64
45.63
47.64
Step 15
47.75
45.80
48.25
Step 20
49.98
47.86
50.11
Random
0.50
1.00
5.00
Appendix
Table 9: OPD Fisher–gradient support recall (%), supplementing Section 3.2 . At each policy, recall is the fraction of the top- q% gradient-magnitude coordinates captured by the top- q% Fisher coordinates. Checkpoint rows are equal-weight means over full-training seeds 0 and 1; the shared initial policy is measured once. Random gives the analytic expectation for a uniform subset of the same size.
q (%)
Metric
Full
Fisher
R0
R1
Random
Recovery
Δ
0.5
Avg@8
26.67
25.10
14.69
15.42
15.05
89.49
10.05
0.5
pass@8
47.50
52.50
33.33
30.83
32.08
156.25
20.42
1
Avg@8
26.67
26.15
15.00
16.46
15.73
99.47
10.42
1
pass@8
47.50
55.00
29.17
38.33
33.75
185.42
21.25
5
Avg@8
26.67
26.25
24.27
23.33
23.80
106.59
2.45
5
pass@8
47.50
50.83
49.17
45.83
47.50
147.92
3.33
Appendix
Table 10: OPD on AIME24: means over four training seeds after 20 updates. Scores and Recovery are percentages; Δ is in percentage points. Both metrics use the same eight responses per problem.
On-policy distillation (OPD) is increasingly used to improve large language model reasoning, but its training dynamics remain poorly understood. We characterize the trajectory of OPD updates in parameter space and compare it with supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR). A suite of parameter-space diagnostics consistently places OPD in a relaxed off-principal regime: compared with SFT, its updates affect fewer weights and avoid principal directions more strongly, while compared with RLVR, they remain less tightly constrained. Beyond this static localization, OPD exhibits subspace locking: its cumulative updates rapidly enter a narrow low-dimensional channel. Constraining training to the update subspace formed early in training preserves OPD performance but substantially degrades SFT, indicating that the locked subspace is functionally sufficient for OPD. Control experiments further show that sparsifying the update tokens and shifting rollout generation off-policy preserve the rank dynamics, whereas mixing the OPD objective with RLVR changes them. Overall, these results suggest that OPD is not merely an intermediate point between SFT and RLVR, but induces its own update geometry in parameter space.
Zhennan Shen, Yanshu Li, Qingyu Yin +6
1HKUST · 2Brown University · 3Zhejiang University +5
On-policy distillation (\textsc{OPD}) has recently become a prominent post-training recipe by combining two desirable ingredients: on-policy student trajectories and dense teacher supervision. However, how this hybrid changes a model's parameters remains unclear. Across several language and vision-language model pairs and \textsc{OPD} use cases, our analysis yields two main findings. On sparsity, \textsc{OPD} updates are small and coordinate-sparse. They are distributed across layers, with the largest relative movement usually appearing in FFN modules. This sparse structure is operationally useful: training only the discovered subnetwork nearly recovers full-training performance. The sparse support does not remove the need for adaptive optimization: SGD, previously reported to be competitive in \textsc{RLVR}, underperforms AdamW in our \textsc{OPD} optimizer ablation, suggesting that dense teacher supervision preserves useful momentum structure and heterogeneous second-moment scales. On geometry, the updates are numerically full-rank but spectrally concentrated; they lie mostly away from the principal singular subspaces of the source weights and fall disproportionately on coordinates where the source weights are close to zero. These findings suggest that dense teacher supervision does not turn \textsc{OPD} into ordinary dense parameter rewriting; instead, \textsc{OPD} retains important geometric signatures of on-policy post-training.
Guo Yu, Wenlin Liu, Yulan Hu +3
School of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University · National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University · Amap, Alibaba Group
The strong generalization performance of on-policy post-training paradigms has motivated studies of their parameter update behaviors. However, these studies treat the observed behaviors only as byproducts in on-policy training, overlooking their potential to serve as optimization principles for improving the generalization of other paradigms such as supervised fine-tuning (SFT). To address this limitation, we investigate whether there exists a specific on-policy update behavior that can achieve such improvements. First, our analyses reveal that SFT updates parameters along consistent directions, while the on-policy paradigm continuously adjusts the direction during training. This difference inspires us to focus on the cumulative update direction of each parameter as a promising behavior. Then, we evaluate its effectiveness for improving generalization by proposing On-Policy direction-constrained Supervised Fine-Tuning (OPSFT), which constrains SFT updates to the direction identified by on-policy paradigms. The strong performance of OPSFT indicates that the generalization advantage of on-policy paradigms can be transferred to SFT through the parameter update direction. Once such a direction is identified, even SFT can generalize with its updates constrained to this direction. This finding offers two practical benefits by combining the strong generalization of on-policy paradigms with the advantages of SFT, including the high training efficiency and ability to leverage high-quality trajectories. For efficiency, we identify update directions that support strong generalization using a few on-policy training steps, and subsequently apply OPSFT to achieve high training efficiency. For leveraging high-quality trajectories, OPSFT can utilize these trajectories to continue improving a post-trained model along its update direction without disrupting the ability learned from on-policy training.
Shufan Shen, Zhongni Hou, Junshu Sun +5
State Key Lab. of AI Safety, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of Chinese Academy Sciences · Meituan