A Comprehensive Framework for All Stages of Large-Model Training: From Data and Tokenization, through Pretraining, to Post-Training Alignment

Post-training has become central to turning pretrained large language models (LLMs) into aligned, capable, and deployable systems. Recent progress spans supervised fine-tuning (SFT), preference optimization, reinforcement learning (RL), process supervision, verifier-guided methods, distillation, and multi-stage pipelines. Yet these methods are often discussed in fragmented ways, organized by labels or objectives rather than by the behavioral bottlenecks they address. This survey argues that LLM post-training is best understood as structured intervention on model behavior. We organize the field first by trajectory provenance, which defines two primary regimes: off-policy learning on externally supplied trajectories and on-policy learning on learner-generated rollouts. We then interpret methods through two recurring roles -- effective support expansion, which makes useful behaviors more reachable, and policy reshaping, which improves behavior within already reachable regions -- together with a complementary systems-level role, behavioral consolidation, which preserves, transfers, and amortizes useful behavior across stages and model transitions. Under this view, SFT may serve either support expansion or policy reshaping; preference optimization is usually off-policy reshaping, though online variants move closer to learner-generated states. On-policy RL often improves behavior on learner-generated states, but stronger guidance can also make hard-to-reach reasoning paths reachable. Distillation is often better understood as consolidation rather than only compression, and hybrid pipelines emerge as coordinated multi-stage compositions. Overall, the framework helps diagnose post-training bottlenecks and reason about stage composition, suggesting that progress increasingly depends on coordinated systems design rather than any single dominant objective.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are pretrained on massive datasets and later instruction-tuned via supervised fine-tuning (SFT) or reinforcement learning (RL). Best practices emphasize large, diverse pretraining data, whereas post-training operates differently: SFT relies on smaller, high-quality datasets, while RL benefits more from scale, with larger amounts of feedback often outweighing label quality. Yet it remains unclear why pretraining and RL require large datasets, why SFT excels on smaller ones, and what defines high-quality SFT data. In this work, we theoretically analyze transformers trained on an in-context weight prediction task for linear regression. Our analysis reveals several key findings: $(i)$ balanced pretraining data can induce latent capabilities later activated during post-training, and $(ii)$ SFT learns best from a small set of examples challenging for the pretrained model, while excessively large SFT datasets may dilute informative pretraining signals. In contrast, RL is most effective on large-scale data that is not overly difficult for the pretrained model. We validate these theoretical insights with experiments on large nonlinear transformer architectures.

The prevailing paradigm for training LLMs has evolved to rely on a massive post-training phase consisting of SFT and RL. In this position paper, we argue that this methodology effectively marks a reversion to the pre-train then fine-tune'' approach of the BERT era, explicitly tailoring models to the desired behaviors and specific benchmarks on which they are evaluated. We begin with a historical overview of LLMs, describing the different phases of the LLM evolution. We argue that the current landscape is remarkably similar to the early days of LLMs, where task performance heavily relied on fitting the models to in-distribution datasets. To empirically demonstrate this, we compare pre-trained models to randomly initialized ones, by fine-tuning both variants on modern reasoning datasets and evaluating them on competitive math and code benchmarks. We show that models post-trained from scratch yield highly non-trivial performance. Our findings suggest that current post-training methodologies function primarily as a distribution-fitting mechanism. We finish by positing that developing generally capable models and systems requires moving beyond extensive post-training for predefined behaviors, shifting instead toward training procedures where models learn how to learn''.