Organizations: Department of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · Department of Applied Mathematics The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) is a key component of language model post-training, enabling effective task adaptation and serving as an important foundation for subsequent reinforcement learning. Recent methods seek to improve SFT by introducing token-level weights into the training objective, where these weights are typically derived from a model's output distribution at each token position. To better understand how such weighting schemes affect SFT, we analyze their optimization objectives and theoretically characterize the target distributions they induce. Our analysis shows that dynamic weighting methods, such as Dynamic Fine-Tuning (DFT), induce a heavily sharpened distribution, whereas static weighting methods fit a target distribution proportional to the product of the data distribution and a frozen prior. These findings suggest that static weighting provides a more stable training target, while its effectiveness critically depends on the quality of the prior distribution. Building on this observation, we propose Self-Privileged Fine-Tuning (SPFT), which uses a frozen copy of the initial model conditioned on privileged information (such as ground truth for mathematical questions) as a prior to provide guidance for token-level weighting during fine-tuning. Through a Bayesian decomposition, we further show that SPFT reweights the standard static prior according to how informative each target token is for predicting the ground-truth outcome, thereby assigning larger weights to more predictive tokens. Experiments on mathematical reasoning and code generation show that SPFT improves over standard SFT and other baselines across the main settings.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Next-token distribution evolution of SFT, DFT, and SPFT at four training steps.
Figure 2: Distributional evolution of SFT, DFT, and SPFT during training, measured by token-level entropy, top-1 confidence, and KL divergence from the initial model. DFT rapidly sharpens the output distribution and moves farthest from the base model, while SPFT produces a more controlled increase in confidence and reduction in entropy with substantially smaller distributional drift.
Model
Method
MATH-500
Minerva Math
OlympiadBench
AIME24
AMC23
Average
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Qwen2.5 Math (7B)
Base
60.38
87.40
16.18
42.28
27.76
54.07
14.58
36.67
49.69
85.00
33.72
61.08
SFT
67.85
89.40
24.45
47.43
30.96
55.85
5.42
20.00
40.62
75.00
33.86
57.54
DFT
68.32
81.20
25.46
35.66
33.04
48.00
6.25
16.67
46.56
67.50
35.93
49.81
ASFT
70.32
88.00
22.75
38.24
34.50
57.04
7.08
16.67
47.81
80.00
36.49
55.99
TALR
65.88
85.20
22.56
44.85
29.20
53.48
5.83
16.67
35.62
75.00
31.82
55.04
Table 1: Mathematical reasoning results across five benchmarks. Each benchmark reports Avg@8 / Pass@8, and the final pair gives the unweighted five-benchmark average. External baselines include ASFT ( Zhu et al., 2026 ) , TALR ( Lin et al., 2026 ) , and PriFT ( Wang et al., 2026 ) whenever a matched result is available.
Figure 3: Response-level sampling scaling on AMC 2023. Increasing k reveals whether a method can obtain a correct solution from multiple samples (Pass@k) and whether correct solutions become sufficiently dominant for majority voting (Maj@k). SPFT combines high discovery probability with strong consensus across the sampling budget.
Method
HumanEval
HumanEval+
MBPP
MBPP+
Code Avg
Δ vs SFT
Base
43.9
36.6
69.2
58.6
52.08
–
SFT
41.5
37.2
63.2
54.2
49.03
0.00
ASFT
49.4
43.3
67.2
55.8
53.92
+4.89
PriFT
56.1
50.6
67.7
57.4
57.95
+8.92
TALR
59.8
52.4
67.5
56.3
59.00
+9.97
SPFT
56.7
53.0
70.6
58.5
59.70
+10.67
Table 2: Qwen2.5-Coder-1.5B EvalPlus results. All values are greedy Pass@1 percentages; Δ reports the change in four-task Code Avg relative to SFT (49.03%).
Reference
MATH-500
Minerva Math
OlympiadBench
AIME24
AMC23
Average
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Online ( θt )
60.30
84.00
21.65
51.10
23.61
47.70
5.42
16.67
38.12
75.00
29.82
54.89
Frozen ( θ0 )
64.75
87.40
20.82
40.44
28.94
51.26
7.08
16.67
43.12
82.50
32.94
55.65
Frozen − Online
+4.45
+3.40
-0.83
-10.66
+5.33
+3.56
+1.66
0.00
+5.00
+7.50
+3.12
+0.76
Table 3: Frozen versus online privileged reference for Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B. Each benchmark reports Avg@8 / Pass@8, and the final pair gives the unweighted five-benchmark average.
Privileged information
HumanEval
HumanEval+
MBPP
MBPP+
Code Avg
SPFT (Clean Rule)
56.7
53.0
70.6
58.5
59.70
SPFT (Full Code)
58.5
54.3
63.9
54.1
57.70
SPFT (Unit Tests)
53.0
48.2
68.2
56.6
56.50
SPFT (Suffix-Half)
57.3
51.8
66.2
56.9
58.05
Table 4: Privileged-information form ablation for Qwen2.5-Coder-1.5B. All rows use the same SPFT training objective; only the privileged prompt content changes.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Objective
MATH-500
Minerva Math
OlympiadBench
AIME24
AMC23
Average
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
SPFT
64.75
87.40
20.82
40.44
28.94
51.26
7.08
16.67
43.12
82.50
32.94
55.65
Forward KL
41.23
81.80
9.97
37.50
19.02
46.37
3.75
16.67
20.00
65.00
18.79
49.47
Reverse KL
31.55
76.40
8.36
32.35
15.96
44.59
1.67
6.67
16.88
60.00
14.88
44.00
Appendix
Table 5: Direct token weighting versus full-vocabulary KL for Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B. Each benchmark reports Avg@8 / Pass@8, and the final pair gives the unweighted five-benchmark average.
Configuration Item
Mathematical Reasoning
Code Generation
Training dataset
NuminaMath-CoT 10K (9,637 verified pairs)
OpenCodeInstruct 10K (10,000 verified pairs)
Backbone models
Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B, Qwen2.5-Math-7B, Qwen3-8B-Base
Qwen2.5-Coder-1.5B
Privileged prompt style ( c )
opsd_answer (boxed final answer)
code_rule_paradigm (Clean Rule AST summary)
Global batch size
32
16
Peak learning rate
1.0×10−5
5.0×10−5
LR schedule & warmup
Cosine decay, 5% linear warmup
Cosine decay, 5% linear warmup
Appendix
Table 6: Summary of training and evaluation hyperparameters for mathematical reasoning and code generation.
Model
Method
MATH-500
Minerva Math
OlympiadBench
AIME24
AMC23
Average
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Avg@8
Pass@8
Qwen2.5-Math 1.5B
Base
44.15
82.20
8.04
26.84
23.81
50.37
6.25
13.33
25.00
67.50
21.45
48.05
SFT
55.88
82.40
15.40
37.87
22.37
49.48
5.00
23.33
31.25
60.00
25.98
50.62
DFT
62.92
80.00
22.24
38.60
24.41
43.56
4.58
10.00
34.06
60.00
29.64
46.43
ASFT
59.20
82.40
18.98
40.81
23.28
46.52
4.17
13.33
32.81
70.00
27.69
50.61
TALR
56.60
82.60
17.97
41.54
22.22
48.00
1.67
6.67
31.56
62.50
26.00
48.26
Appendix
Table 7: Additional mathematical reasoning results in the same format as Table 1 .
Model
Method
MATH-500
Minerva
Olympiad
AIME24
AMC23
Average
Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B
Base
56.20
6.62
31.11
13.33
27.50
26.95
SFT
68.00
20.59
30.07
6.67
42.50
33.57
DFT
67.20
25.37
27.85
6.67
35.00
32.42
ASFT
67.60
24.26
30.07
3.33
42.50
33.55
TALR
68.20
25.74
31.26
3.33
45.00
34.71
PriFT
69.20
14.34
33.63
6.67
40.00
32.77
Appendix
Table 8: Majority-vote accuracy (Maj@8) across all five mathematical reasoning benchmarks and their unweighted average for the main comparisons and the additional Qwen3-1.7B-Base model-scale comparison.
Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) is an efficient approach for downstream task adaptation and often serves as the initialization stage for reinforcement learning (RL), but it can show weaker generalization than RL. A key limitation is its off-policy objective: SFT fits fixed demonstrations token by token, including targets poorly aligned with the model's pretrained distribution, which can lead to overfitting. A recent line of work addresses this issue by assigning larger training weights to tokens better aligned with the current model's predictive distribution, with the intuition that fitting these tokens are less distortive to the model's knowledge and representations. However, computing the token weights from the model that is currently fine-tuned entangles token weights with the optimization trajectory, inducing a self-reinforcing loop which concentrates the supervision signal to a narrow set of initially preferred tokens. To address this, we propose PriFT (Prior-support guided Fine-Tuning), which derives token weights from a frozen pretrained reference to obtain a stable reweighting signal unaffected by fine-tuning. This signal estimates prior support: the extent to which each target token is supported by the pretrained distribution. By reweighting tokens according to their prior support, PriFT limits excessive adaptation to targets requiring substantial deviation from the pretrained distribution and improves SFT generalization. We introduce two instantiations: PriFT-prob uses pretrained target-token probability, while PriFT-mass selects tokens by cumulative probability mass under the pretrained distribution. Across mathematical reasoning, code generation, and medical QA, PriFT achieves state-of-the-art results among SFT baselines, while also providing a stronger initialization for subsequent RL.
Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) typically maximizes the likelihood of every token in a demonstrated trajectory. However, an observed token can be non-unique, noisy, or misaligned with the model prior. Strictly fitting toward this one-hot target may be suboptimal, especially when the pretrained model encodes a rich knowledge prior. In this work, we reinterpret SFT as target distribution design: instead of studying only the loss objective, we analyze the token-level target that the loss drives the model to match. We introduce the Q-target framework, which decomposes SFT supervision into two explicit choices: (1) how strongly to rely on the observed token, and (2) how to allocate the remaining probability mass over alternatives. This perspective unifies many existing SFT variants as implicit choices of the target distribution Q. Building on this view, we propose Target-SFT which constructs the training objective directly from the desired target distribution. This method consistently outperforms across the ten reasoning dataset-model settings evaluated, showing the effectiveness of this target-based approach. Overall, our formulation reveals a more fundamental design principle for SFT training and opens a broader search space for SFT objectives.
Tong Xie, Yuanhao Ban, Yunqi Hong +3
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) · Arena
Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) applies a uniform cross-entropy loss to all target tokens, even though different tokens provide unequal learning signals for mathematical reasoning. This uniform treatment can over-sharpen already mastered tokens while amplifying learning pressure on uncertain, low-confidence tokens, leading to suboptimal training dynamics. We propose Trimmed Logit-Gap SFT (TrimSFT), a simple token-level reweighting method that scales the SFT loss according to the logit gap between the gold token and its strongest competitor. TrimSFT trims supervision away from both extremes: tokens already mastered (large logit gap) and tokens weakly supported by the current model (small or negative logit gap), concentrating learning within an intermediate logit-gap region between them. We instantiate this principle with a Gaussian weight centered at margin m with bandwidth τ, requiring no reference model or additional forward pass. We evaluate TrimSFT on six base models from the Llama, Qwen, and DeepMath families across five mathematical reasoning benchmarks. TrimSFT consistently improves over standard SFT, achieving the best average performance on five out of six models, with gains of up to +26.9 points over SFT on MATH500. Further analyses show that the bandwidth τ matters more than the exact margin location, and that half-trim variants that remove supervision pressure from only one side yield inferior trade-offs. A token-level logit-gap distribution analysis suggests that TrimSFT reshapes model confidence in a more balanced way than uniform SFT or monotonic reweighting methods. These results suggest that reasoning SFT can benefit from trimming both extremes rather than treating all tokens uniformly.