Good SFT Optimizes for SFT, Better SFT Prepares for Reinforcement Learning
Dylan Zhang, Yufeng Xu, Haojin Wang, Qingzhi Chen, Hao Peng
Abstract
Post-training of reasoning LLMs is a holistic process that typically consists of an offline SFT stage followed by an online reinforcement learning (RL) stage. However, SFT is often optimized in isolation to maximize SFT performance alone. We show that, after identical RL training, models initialized from stronger SFT checkpoints can significantly underperform those initialized from weaker ones. We attribute this to a mismatch typical in current SFT-RL pipelines: the distribution that generates the offline SFT data can differ substantially from the policy optimized during online RL, which learns from its own rollouts. We propose PEAR (Policy Evaluation-inspired Algorithm for Offline Learning Loss Reweighting), an SFT-stage method that corrects this mismatch and better prepares the model for RL. PEAR uses importance sampling to reweight the SFT loss, with three variants operating at the token, block, and sequence levels. It can be used to augment standard SFT objectives and incurs little additional training overhead once probabilities for the offline data are collected. We conduct controlled experiments on verifiable reasoning games and mathematical reasoning tasks on Qwen2.5/3 and DeepSeek-distilled models. PEAR consistently improves post-RL performance over canonical SFT, with Pass@8 gains up to 30 percentage points on AIME-2025. Our results suggest that PEAR is an effective step toward more holistic LLM post-training by designing and evaluating SFT with downstream RL in mind rather than in isolation.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 935fce35-e9d6-4ef5-b14e-7faaaac3a9caBuilds on24
- DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at ScaleQiying Yu, Zheng Zhang, Ruofei Zhu, Yufeng Yuan et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 2,828 citations
- Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language ModelsAitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 2,039 citations
- Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?Zhiqi Chen, Rui Lu, Andrew Zhao, Zhaokai Wang et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 1,109 citations
- ToolRL: Reward is All Tool Learning NeedsCheng Qian, Emre Can Acikgoz, Qi He, Hongru Wang et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 387 citations
- SWE-RL: Advancing LLM Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning on Open Software EvolutionYuxiang Wei, Olivier Duchenne, Jade Copet, Quentin Carbonneaux et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 291 citations
Related papers
- Quagmires in SFT-RL Post-Training: When High SFT Scores Mislead and What to Use InsteadFeiyang Kang, Michael Kuchnik, Karthik Padthe, Marin Vlastelica et al.ICLR 2026 · 27 citations
- Does Math Reasoning Improve General LLM Capabilities? Understanding Transferability of LLM ReasoningMaggie Ziyu Huan, Yuetai Li, Tuney Zheng, Xiaoyu Xu et al.ICML 2026 · 102 citations
- Learnability-Informed Fine-Tuning of Diffusion Language ModelsShubham Parashar, Atharv Chagi, Jacob Helwig, Lakshmi Madhavarapu et al.ICML 2026
- AceReason-Nemotron: Advancing Math and Code Reasoning through Reinforcement LearningYang Chen, Zhuolin Yang, Zihan Liu, Chankyu Lee et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 79 citations
- Experience Augmented Policy Optimization for LLM ReasoningJinda Lu, Kexin Huang, Junkang Wu, Shuo Yang et al.ICML 2026 · 2 citations
