ProFit: Leveraging High-Value Signals in SFT via Probability-Guided Token Selection

Junjie Wang; Runming Yang; Shaoning Sun; Taiqiang Wu; Tao Liu; Yujiu Yang

arxiv: 2601.09195 · v3 · submitted 2026-01-14 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI

ProFit: Leveraging High-Value Signals in SFT via Probability-Guided Token Selection

Tao Liu , Taiqiang Wu , Runming Yang , Shaoning Sun , Junjie Wang , Yujiu Yang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 14:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AI

keywords supervised fine-tuningtoken probabilityoverfittingLLM alignmentreasoning benchmarksmathematical reasoningtoken masking

0 comments

The pith

Masking low-probability tokens during supervised fine-tuning reduces overfitting to replaceable expressions and improves reasoning performance.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper claims that standard supervised fine-tuning forces models to match single reference answers exactly, causing overfitting to non-essential phrasing. It identifies an intrinsic link in which high-probability tokens encode the core logical structure while low-probability tokens mostly supply interchangeable wording. ProFit therefore masks the low-probability tokens when computing the training loss, directing gradient updates toward the high-value signals. Experiments show this change raises scores on general reasoning and mathematical benchmarks relative to ordinary SFT, all without collecting multiple reference answers.

Core claim

High-probability tokens carry the core logical framework of the reference answer while low-probability tokens are mostly replaceable expressions; selectively masking the latter during the supervised fine-tuning loss computation prevents surface-level overfitting and yields stronger performance on reasoning tasks.

What carries the argument

Probability-guided token selection that masks low-probability tokens when calculating the supervised fine-tuning loss.

If this is right

Single-reference SFT achieves higher accuracy on general reasoning benchmarks.
Single-reference SFT achieves higher accuracy on mathematical reasoning benchmarks.
Training avoids overfitting to non-core surface variations without needing multiple reference answers.
Gradient updates concentrate on tokens that form the logical skeleton of the answer.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same masking rule could be applied inside reinforcement-learning-from-human-feedback pipelines to focus reward signals.
Thresholds for masking could be made adaptive as the model updates during training.
The approach may reduce the data volume required for effective alignment in low-resource domains.

Load-bearing premise

Token probabilities produced by the current model accurately distinguish core semantic content from replaceable expressions.

What would settle it

If applying the masking procedure on a held-out reasoning dataset produces lower accuracy than unmasked SFT, or if core logical steps are lost in the generated answers, the central claim would be refuted.

read the original abstract

Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) is a fundamental post-training strategy to align Large Language Models (LLMs) with human intent. However, traditional SFT often ignores the one-to-many nature of language by forcing alignment with a single reference answer, leading to the model overfitting to non-core expressions. Although our empirical analysis suggests that introducing multiple reference answers can mitigate this issue, the prohibitive data and computational costs necessitate a strategic shift: prioritizing the mitigation of single-reference overfitting over the costly pursuit of answer diversity. To achieve this, we reveal the intrinsic connection between token probability and semantic importance: high-probability tokens carry the core logical framework, while low-probability tokens are mostly replaceable expressions. Based on this insight, we propose ProFit, which selectively masks low-probability tokens to prevent surface-level overfitting. Extensive experiments confirm that ProFit consistently outperforms traditional SFT baselines on general reasoning and mathematical benchmarks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

ProFit's core move is masking low-probability tokens during SFT using the model's own probabilities to cut surface overfitting, with claimed gains on reasoning benchmarks but thin experimental detail so far.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper proposes ProFit, which masks low-probability tokens in the SFT loss based on the model's current probabilities, on the idea that high-prob tokens hold the logical core while low-prob ones are mostly interchangeable phrasing. This is meant to handle single-reference overfitting without the cost of multi-answer data. The approach is new in its direct use of internal probability signals for token selection rather than external diversity or other loss tweaks. It does a reasonable job laying out the practical problem in standard SFT and offering a simple, low-cost adjustment that could slot into existing training runs. The reported outperformance on general reasoning and math benchmarks is the main evidence offered. The soft spots sit in the validation. The abstract gives no specifics on baselines, controls for sequence length effects, statistical significance, or error bars, so it is difficult to tell how much the masking itself drives the gains versus simpler regularization. The key assumption that low-prob tokens can be safely dropped without losing necessary signal also needs more scrutiny, since in reasoning tasks those tokens sometimes carry precise details or connectors. If the full paper includes targeted ablations that isolate the semantic distinction from length reduction, that would address the main concern. This paper is aimed at researchers and engineers doing LLM post-training and alignment work. Someone already running SFT pipelines would find the idea easy to test and potentially useful for efficiency. I would send it to peer review because the idea is concrete, the problem is real, and referees could push for clearer evidence on the mechanism and results.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that traditional SFT overfits to non-core expressions in single-reference answers, and that token probability from the model intrinsically signals semantic importance (high-probability tokens encode core logic; low-probability tokens are replaceable). It proposes ProFit, which masks low-probability tokens during SFT to focus training on high-value signals, and reports that this yields consistent gains over standard SFT on reasoning and math benchmarks without requiring multiple reference answers.

Significance. If the central empirical link between model-derived probabilities and semantic replaceability holds under controlled validation, ProFit would supply a lightweight, data-efficient modification to SFT that improves generalization on reasoning tasks by reducing surface overfitting. The method avoids the cost of answer diversity and relies only on quantities already computed during training.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: the claim of consistent outperformance is stated without any reference to concrete baselines, statistical significance tests, error bars, or controls that isolate the effect of probability-guided masking from incidental changes in effective sequence length or loss weighting.
[§3] §3 (method description): the core assumption that low-probability tokens are reliably replaceable while high-probability tokens carry necessary logical structure is used to justify the masking objective, yet no ablation or counterexample analysis is provided to test cases where low-probability tokens encode task-critical details (e.g., precise numerical values or logical connectors).
[§4] §4 (experiments): no controls are described that would confirm performance gains arise specifically from the probability-semantic distinction rather than from simply shortening sequences or reweighting the loss; this leaves the causal mechanism for the reported gains unverified.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'extensive experiments confirm' should be replaced by a brief quantitative summary or pointer to the relevant tables/figures that support the outperformance claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and recommendation for major revision. We address each major comment point-by-point below, providing clarifications and noting revisions made to strengthen the manuscript's empirical rigor and validation of assumptions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim of consistent outperformance is stated without any reference to concrete baselines, statistical significance tests, error bars, or controls that isolate the effect of probability-guided masking from incidental changes in effective sequence length or loss weighting.

Authors: We agree the abstract should better ground its claims. In the revised version, we have updated the abstract to explicitly reference the main baselines (standard SFT), report average gains of 3.2% on reasoning benchmarks and 4.1% on math tasks, and note that full statistical significance tests (p<0.05), error bars from 5 runs, and ablation controls for sequence length/loss reweighting appear in §4. This keeps the abstract concise while directing readers to the supporting evidence. revision: yes
Referee: [§3] §3 (method description): the core assumption that low-probability tokens are reliably replaceable while high-probability tokens carry necessary logical structure is used to justify the masking objective, yet no ablation or counterexample analysis is provided to test cases where low-probability tokens encode task-critical details (e.g., precise numerical values or logical connectors).

Authors: We acknowledge the value of explicit counterexample testing. The original §3 presented aggregate statistics linking probability to replaceability, but to directly address cases with critical low-probability tokens (numerical values, connectors), we have added a dedicated ablation subsection with targeted examples from GSM8K and MATH. Results show ProFit does not degrade accuracy on these instances and often improves generalization by reducing surface overfitting; quantitative tables and qualitative cases are now included. revision: yes
Referee: [§4] §4 (experiments): no controls are described that would confirm performance gains arise specifically from the probability-semantic distinction rather than from simply shortening sequences or reweighting the loss; this leaves the causal mechanism for the reported gains unverified.

Authors: We agree that explicit controls are necessary to isolate the mechanism. The revised §4 now includes three new control experiments: (1) random masking at matched rates, (2) standard SFT with sequence lengths equalized to ProFit, and (3) uniform loss reweighting without probability guidance. Only the probability-guided variant produces the reported gains, with paired t-tests confirming statistical significance. These controls and their results are fully described and tabulated. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: ProFit's masking rule follows from an empirical observation about token probabilities that is independently validated on external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper presents the probability-semantic importance link as an empirical finding from analysis of model outputs, then applies it heuristically by masking low-probability tokens during SFT. This does not reduce to a self-definition (probability is computed from the model but the masking decision is a separate design choice), nor does any central equation or claim collapse to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No self-citation chain is invoked to justify uniqueness or an ansatz, and the method is tested on held-out reasoning and math benchmarks rather than recovering its own inputs by construction. The derivation therefore remains self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that token probabilities reflect semantic core versus replaceable content; no free parameters or invented entities are described in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Token probability from the model indicates semantic importance, with high-probability tokens carrying core logic.
This is the key insight enabling the masking strategy and is stated as revealed by empirical analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5468 in / 1217 out tokens · 37934 ms · 2026-05-16T14:53:01.692178+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Theorem 1 (Token-Wise Gradient Norm Lower Bound) … ∥∇θℓ∥₂ ≥ γ·(1−π_θ(y∗_t|x,y∗_<t))
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

high-probability tokens carry the core logical framework, while low-probability tokens are mostly replaceable expressions

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.