aiqbench analysis
This research reveals critical interdependencies between supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards, and on-policy distillation in LLM post-training pipelines. The study demonstrates that optimizing individual stages in isolation can degrade overall performance, as the learning interface created by one stage significantly impacts the efficacy of subsequent ones. Practitioners must therefore design multi-stage workflows that account for student-teacher compatibility and the specific initialization properties left behind by each training phase.
Understanding the Synergy between SFT, RLVR, and OPD in LLM Post-Training
arXiv:2609.31900v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Modern LLM post-training composes supervised fine-tuning (SFT), reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), and on-policy distillation (OPD) into multi-stage pipelines, yet these stages are typically designed and evaluated in isolation. We show that this composition is consequential: a stage that improves the current model can make the next stage less effective. Through controlled experiments with Qwen3 models on math and science reasoning, we first characterize OPD across nine student-teacher pairs spanning 2x to 53x parameter ratios and show that OPD effectiveness depends on student-teacher compatibility rather than teacher scale alone. The surrounding stages of OPD reshape this compatibility in three ways: (1) A brief SFT warm-up improves subsequent OPD, while an RLVR-strengthened student regresses under distillation from the same teacher. (2) Adapting the teacher with RLVR raises downstream OPD accuracy in proportion to the capability it adds. Following these two interventions, we find that combining teacher adaptation and student warm-up alone raise average OPD accuracy from 29.2\% to 43.8\% (50\% relative improvement) after the same number of distillation steps, with additional preparatory training. (3) At comparable accuracy, OPD leaves a stronger initialization for downstream RLVR than SFT, with a gap that widens as RL compute scales. Our results suggest that each post-training stage should be chosen not only for the capability it adds, but for the learning interface it creates for the next stage.
Abstract:Modern LLM post-training composes supervised fine-tuning (SFT), reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), and on-policy distillation (OPD) into multi-stage pipelines, yet these stages are typically designed and evaluated in isolation. We show that this composition is consequential: a stage that improves the current model can make the next stage less effective. Through controlled experiments with Qwen3 models on math and science reasoning, we first characterize OPD across nine student-teacher pairs spanning 2x to 53x parameter ratios and show that OPD effectiveness depends on student-teacher compatibility rather than teacher scale alone. The surrounding stages of OPD reshape this compatibility in three ways: (1) A brief SFT warm-up improves subsequent OPD, while an RLVR-strengthened student regresses under distillation from the same teacher. (2) Adapting the teacher with RLVR raises downstream OPD accuracy in proportion to the capability it adds. Following these two interventions, we find that combining teacher adaptation and student warm-up alone raise average OPD accuracy from 29.2\% to 43.8\% (50\% relative improvement) after the same number of distillation steps, with additional preparatory training. (3) At comparable accuracy, OPD leaves a stronger initialization for downstream RLVR than SFT, with a gap that widens as RL compute scales. Our results suggest that each post-training stage should be chosen not only for the capability it adds, but for the learning interface it creates for the next stage.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.31900 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.31900v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.31900 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 321 words
Related coverage

Frontier post-training recipe review with Finbarr Timbers
Interconnects · Jun 16, 2026

RL & search is a terrifying way to build AGI (an FAQ)
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 27, 2026

Jev: System One models for Prod, not God — with Diogo Almeida, CEO, TypeSafe AI
Latent Space · Sep 21, 2026

Where does hint-following and concealment arise? A case study on OLMo-3 checkpoints
LessWrong · Jul 24, 2026