pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.26184 · v1 · pith:AEF36MJKnew · submitted 2026-05-25 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI

GAC: Noise-Aware Adaptive Mixing for Hybrid SFT-RL Post-Training

Yuelin Hu , Zhenbo Yu , Zhengxue Cheng , Wei Liu , Li Song This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 22:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AI
keywords adaptive mixinghybrid post-trainingSFT-RLgradient variancenoise-aware controllermodel fine-tuningreinforcement learning
0
0 comments X

The pith

GAC derives adaptive mixing weights for SFT-RL post-training from online gradient variance and signal disagreement.

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

The paper proposes GAC to solve the limitation of fixed mixing schedules in hybrid supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning. It computes mixing weights dynamically from estimates of gradient variance and disagreement between the two signals, while adding smoothing, prior guidance, and bounded updates. The method reuses tensors already present in training to keep overhead low. Experiments across math, code, science, and logic tasks show consistent gains over fixed and rule-based alternatives, with bigger benefits at larger model sizes. A reader would care if this means hybrid post-training can track changing noise levels without manual retuning.

Core claim

GAC is a noise-aware controller that derives an adaptive mixing weight from online estimates of gradient variance and disagreement between the SFT and RL training signals, incorporating smoothing, prior guidance, and bounded updates while reusing existing training tensors.

What carries the argument

GAC, the noise-aware controller that computes mixing weights from gradient variance and SFT-RL disagreement.

If this is right

  • Consistent outperformance on math, code, science, and logic benchmarks versus fixed and rule-based baselines.
  • Larger performance gains appear at larger model scales.
  • Training overhead stays below 1 percent through reuse of existing tensors.
  • The controller avoids instability by using smoothing and bounded updates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The approach could extend to other pairs of training objectives whose relative noise changes during training.
  • It might reduce the engineering effort spent on hand-crafted mixing schedules in production pipelines.
  • Combining GAC with other variance-reduction techniques could be tested on the same benchmark suite.

Load-bearing premise

Online estimates of gradient variance and disagreement between SFT and RL signals give a reliable signal for choosing mixing weights that improve final performance.

What would settle it

The same benchmarks run with GAC and with fixed mixing showing equal or lower scores for GAC would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.26184 by Li Song, Wei Liu, Yuelin Hu, Zhenbo Yu, Zhengxue Cheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of GAC and the training pipeline. Top: limitations of fixed schedules versus the noise-aware [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Performance and stability metrics across training under four mixing policies (HPCD, WCF, QCM, GAC). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Mixing weight dynamics and driving uncertainty signals. (e) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Hybrid post-training usually combines supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning, but fixed mixing schedules cannot adapt when the relative noise of the two signals changes over time. We propose GAC, a noise-aware controller that derives an adaptive mixing weight from online estimates of gradient variance and disagreement between the two training signals. The method adds smoothing, prior guidance, and bounded updates while reusing existing training tensors. Experiments on math, code, science, and logic benchmarks show that GAC consistently improves hybrid post-training over strong fixed and rule-based baselines, with larger gains at larger model scales and less than 1% training overhead.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GAC, a noise-aware controller for adaptive mixing of SFT and RL signals during hybrid post-training. The controller derives mixing weights from online estimates of gradient variance and disagreement between the two signals, augmented with smoothing, prior guidance, and bounded updates while reusing existing tensors. Experiments on math, code, science, and logic benchmarks are claimed to show consistent improvements over strong fixed and rule-based baselines, with larger gains at larger model scales and less than 1% training overhead.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold after proper validation, the method could supply a low-overhead, practical mechanism for dynamically adjusting the relative influence of SFT and RL signals when their noise characteristics evolve, addressing a limitation of static mixing schedules in large-scale LLM post-training.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of consistent improvements rests entirely on experimental results, yet the manuscript supplies no quantitative metrics, ablation studies, derivation of the controller equations, description of experimental controls, or stability analysis of the variance/disagreement estimates; without these the claim cannot be evaluated.
  2. [Abstract] The core assumption that online gradient variance and SFT-RL disagreement estimates supply a reliable signal for mixing weights (rather than transient noise) is load-bearing, yet the text provides no analysis of estimate stability across steps, no quantification of weight-swing frequency without the mitigations, and no demonstration that gains arise from adaptivity rather than the added smoothing/bounds.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major point below, clarifying the manuscript content and noting revisions where the presentation can be strengthened.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of consistent improvements rests entirely on experimental results, yet the manuscript supplies no quantitative metrics, ablation studies, derivation of the controller equations, description of experimental controls, or stability analysis of the variance/disagreement estimates; without these the claim cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: The abstract is intentionally concise. The full manuscript derives the controller equations in Section 3, describes experimental controls and benchmarks in Section 4, reports quantitative metrics with ablations in Section 5, and analyzes estimate stability in Section 5.3. We will revise the abstract to include specific quantitative gains and explicit section references. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The core assumption that online gradient variance and SFT-RL disagreement estimates supply a reliable signal for mixing weights (rather than transient noise) is load-bearing, yet the text provides no analysis of estimate stability across steps, no quantification of weight-swing frequency without the mitigations, and no demonstration that gains arise from adaptivity rather than the added smoothing/bounds.

    Authors: Section 3.2 presents the online variance and disagreement estimators together with the smoothing, prior guidance, and bounded updates intended to stabilize them. Experiments in Section 5 show gains over fixed and rule-based baselines. We agree an explicit ablation isolating the adaptive component and plots of estimate stability/weight trajectories would strengthen the case; these will be added in revision. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; adaptive mixing is a proposed heuristic validated by experiments

full rationale

The paper presents GAC as an empirical controller that computes mixing weights from online gradient variance and SFT-RL disagreement estimates, with added smoothing, prior guidance, and bounds. No equations, first-principles derivations, or predictions are shown that reduce the weights to fitted inputs by construction. The central claim rests on benchmark improvements over fixed baselines rather than any self-referential loop or self-citation chain. The method reuses existing tensors and reports <1% overhead, keeping the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; any controller parameters (smoothing factor, bounds) are not enumerated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5635 in / 1085 out tokens · 30099 ms · 2026-06-29T22:26:57.079773+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · 12 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, and Charles Sutton. 2021. Program synthesis with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, et al. 2022. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Zhao Chen, Vijay Badrinarayanan, Chen-Yu Lee, and Andrew Rabinovich. 2018. G rad N orm: Gradient normalization for adaptive loss balancing in deep multitask networks. In Proceedings of ICML

    2018

  5. [5]

    Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, et al

    Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, et al. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. In Proceedings of NeurIPS

    2017

  6. [6]

    Guo D., Yang D., Zhang H., et al. 2025. Deepseek-R1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in LLMs via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Alex Kendall, Yarin Gal, and Roberto Cipolla. 2018. Multi-task learning using uncertainty to weigh losses for scene geometry and semantics. In Proceedings of CVPR

    2018

  8. [8]

    AI-MO. 2024. NuminaMath-1.5 dataset card. Hugging Face Datasets. URL: https://huggingface.co/datasets/AI-MO/NuminaMath-1.5

    2024

  9. [9]

    Shikun Liu, Edward Johns, and Andrew J. Davison. 2019. End-to-end multi-task learning with attention. In Proceedings of CVPR

    2019

  10. [10]

    Bo Liu, Xingchao Liu, Xiaojie Jin, Peter Stone, and Qiang Liu. 2021. Conflict-averse gradient descent for multi-task learning. In Proceedings of NeurIPS

    2021

  11. [11]

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2017. SGDR : Stochastic gradient descent with warm restarts. In Proceedings of ICLR

    2017

  12. [12]

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In Proceedings of ICLR

    2019

  13. [13]

    Aviv Navon, Idan Achituve, Haggai Maron, Gal Chechik, and Ethan Fetaya. 2022. Multi-task learning as a bargaining game. In Proceedings of ICML

    2022

  14. [14]

    Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Proceedings of NeurIPS

    2022

  15. [15]

    Manning, and Chelsea Finn

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Stefano Ermon, Christopher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. In Proceedings of NeurIPS

    2023

  16. [16]

    David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, et al. 2023. GPQA : A graduate-level google-proof Q&A benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    John Schulman, Philipp Moritz, Sergey Levine, Michael Jordan, and Pieter Abbeel. 2015. High-dimensional continuous control using generalized advantage estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.02438

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [18]

    John Schulman, Sergey Levine, Pieter Abbeel, Michael Jordan, and Philipp Moritz. 2015. Trust region policy optimization. In Proceedings of ICML

    2015

  19. [19]

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Ozan Sener and Vladlen Koltun. 2018. Multi-task learning as multi-objective optimization. In Proceedings of NeurIPS

    2018

  21. [21]

    Shao Z., Wang P., Zhu Q., et al. 2024. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Sch \"a rli, et al. 2022. Challenging BIG-B ench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09261

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Xiaoxuan Wang, Ziniu Hu, Pan Lu, et al. 2023. S ci B ench: Evaluating college-level scientific problem-solving abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10635

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Tianhe Yu, Saurabh Kumar, Abhishek Gupta, Sergey Levine, Karol Hausman, and Chelsea Finn. 2020. Gradient surgery for multi-task learning. In Proceedings of NeurIPS

    2020

  25. [25]

    G., Rowland M., Piot B., Guo Z

    Azar M. G., Rowland M., Piot B., Guo Z. D., Calandriello D., Valko M., and Munos R. 2024. A general theoretical paradigm to understand learning from human preferences. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4447--4455

    2024

  26. [26]

    Bo Liu, Yihao Feng, Peter Stone, and Qiang Liu. 2023. FAMO : Fast adaptive multitask optimization. In Proceedings of NeurIPS

    2023

  27. [27]

    Dmitry Senushkin, Nikolay Patakin, Arseny Kuznetsov, and Anton Konushin. 2023. Independent component alignment for multi-task learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2023

  28. [28]

    Peiyao Xiao, Hao Ban, and Kaiyi Ji. 2023. Direction-oriented multi-objective learning: Simple and provable stochastic algorithms. In Proceedings of NeurIPS

    2023

  29. [29]

    Heshan Fernando, Han Shen, Miao Liu, Subhajit Chaudhury, Keerthiram Murugesan, and Tianyi Chen. 2023. Mitigating gradient bias in multi-objective learning: A provably convergent approach. In Proceedings of ICLR

    2023

  30. [30]

    Wenhao Zhang, Yuexiang Xie, Yuchang Sun, Yanxi Chen, Guoyin Wang, Yaliang Li, Bolin Ding, and Jingren Zhou. 2025. On-policy RL meets off-policy experts: Harmonizing supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning via dynamic weighting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.11408

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Yuqian Fu, Tinghong Chen, Jianhao Chai, Xihuai Wang, Songjun Tu, Guojun Yin, Wei Lin, Qichao Zhang, Yuanheng Zhu, and Dongbin Zhao. 2025. SRFT : A single-stage method with supervised and reinforcement fine-tuning for reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.19767

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Jianhao Yan, Yafu Li, Zican Hu, Zhi Wang, Ganqu Cui, Xiaoye Qu, Yu Cheng, and Yue Zhang. 2025. Learning to reason under off-policy guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14945

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Xingtai Lv, Yuxin Zuo, Youbang Sun, Hongyi Liu, Yuntian Wei, Zhekai Chen, Xuekai Zhu, Kaiyan Zhang, Bingning Wang, Ning Ding, and Bowen Zhou. 2025. Towards a unified view of large language model post-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.04419

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Mingyu Su, Jian Guan, Yuxian Gu, Minlie Huang, and Hongning Wang. 2025. Trust-region adaptive policy optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.17636. (ICLR 2026)

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    He Zhu, Junyou Su, Peng Lai, Ren Ma, Wenjia Zhang, Linyi Yang, and Guanhua Chen. 2025. Anchored supervised fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.23753. (ICLR 2026)

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Xueyan Niu, Bo Bai, Wei Han, and Weixi Zhang. 2026. On the non-decoupling of supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning in post-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.07389

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Min Zeng, Jingfei Sun, Xueyou Luo, Shiqi Zhang, Li Xie, Caiquan Liu, and Xiaoxin Chen. 2025. GTA : Supervised-guided reinforcement learning for text classification with large language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, pages 1050--1060

    2025