Supervised Fine-Tuning
Also known as SFT
Overview
Supervised fine-tuning trains a pretrained model to follow examples of desired behavior, from answering questions to reasoning, using tools, and interpreting images, audio, or other domain-specific inputs. Common approaches curate or generate instruction and agent-trajectory data, distill teacher outputs, and use methods such as LoRA or selective token and layer updates to control training cost and influence. Current work also adjusts what the model learns through token weighting, self-distillation, and constraints that preserve its original output distribution. The central tension is gaining reliable task performance without losing general capabilities or limiting later learning; how SFT should complement reinforcement learning depends on the data, task, and model.
Latest papers
214 papers29 papers in the last four weeks, up 12% on the four weeks before. 0.2% of all new papers.
Annotations Mitigate Post-Training Mode Collapse
FocuSFT: Bilevel Optimization for Dilution-Aware Long-Context Fine-Tuning
Modeling Atomic Conformational Ensembles of Proteins via Test-Time Supervision of Boltz-2 on Cryo-EM Density Maps
Memorize Theorems, Not Instances: Probing SFT Generalization through Mathematical Reasoning
Large Language Models for Sequential Decision-Making: Improving In-Context Learning via Supervised Fine-Tuning
Preserving Foundational Capabilities in Flow-Matching VLAs through Conservative SFT
Rotation-Preserving Supervised Fine-Tuning
On Distinguishing Capability Elicitation from Capability Creation in Post-Training: A Free-Energy Perspective
Goal-Conditioned Supervised Learning for LLM Fine-Tuning
Dr. Post-Training: A Data Regularization Perspective on LLM Post-Training
Optimizer-Model Consistency: Full Finetuning with the Same Optimizer as Pretraining Forgets Less
Crafting Reversible SFT Behaviors in Large Language Models
One Algorithm, Two Goals: Dual Scoring for Parameter and Data Selection in LLM Fine-Tuning
Navigating by Old Maps: The Pitfalls of Static Mechanistic Localization in LLM Post-Training
D-OPSD: On-Policy Self-Distillation for Continuously Tuning Step-Distilled Diffusion Models
Stabilizing LLM Supervised Fine-Tuning via Explicit Distributional Control
OpenSeeker-v2: Pushing the Limits of Search Agents with Informative and High-Difficulty Trajectories
Reference-Sampled Boltzmann Projection for KL-Regularized RLVR: Target-Matched Weighted SFT, Finite One-Shot Gaps, and Policy Mirror Descent
Iterative Finetuning is Mostly Idempotent
Diversity in Large Language Models under Supervised Fine-Tuning
How Fast Should a Model Commit to Supervision? Training Reasoning Models on the Tsallis Loss Continuum
m@16 on HotPotQA ( over GRPO).Distilling Self-Consistency into Verbal Confidence: A Pre-Registered Negative Result and Post-Hoc Rescue on Gemma 3 4B
Preserving Long-Tailed Expert Information in Mixture-of-Experts Tuning
Parallel-SFT: Improving Zero-Shot Cross-Programming-Language Transfer for Code RL
Compatibility-Aware Dynamic Fine-Tuning for Large Language Models
When Can LLMs Learn to Reason with Weak Supervision?
Generalization Boundaries of Fine-Tuned Small Language Models for Graph Structural Inference
Post-training is (Massive) Supervised Learning
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''.