Source-linked AI summary

PG-SFT: Balancing Capability Acquisition and Retention in Offline Agent Fine-Tuning

Ronghua Li, Zi Liang, Zhishan Li, Shinan Liu

arXiv:2610.00949v1cs.AI

TL;DR

Offline agent fine-tuning raises the question of how to acquire specialized behavior without sacrificing existing capabilities. PG-SFT uses next actions as training-time privileged information to adjust supervision by turn, and achieves a more favorable acquisition–retention profile on the evaluated benchmarks. The findings suggest that the balance depends on where and how strongly supervision departs from the base model.

  • Problem

    Token-level imitation targets every demonstrated assistant token, while whether existing controls preserve capabilities in agent fine-tuning remains undemonstrated and retention in this setting is largely unexplored.

    Source: §1 · pp. 1–2
  • Method

    PG-SFT uses next actions as training-time privileged information to estimate turn-level knowledge gain and adjust supervision intensity.

    Source: §1 · p. 2
  • Results

    Across both backbones, PG-SFT attained the highest Macro Avg (62.10% and 55.58%) and was the only fine-tuning objective to improve over its Base models (+1.49 pp and +2.07 pp).

    Source: §4.2 · p. 8
  • Takeaways & Limitations

    Target fitting, base proximity, and downstream retention are distinct, and balancing acquisition with retention depends on where and how strongly the model departs from its base behavior.

    Source: §5 · p. 10

    Evidence covers two related 4B-scale backbones, one agent domain, and limited training runs; empirical drift measurements cannot establish a causal link with retention.

    Source: §5 · p. 10

Abstract

from arXiv · show

Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on offline agent trajectories is the standard approach for training specialized tool-using agents, but forcing models to imitate reasoning and actions token by token may harm other capabilities (e.g., general reasoning, tool calling, code generation) of the base model. In this work, we focus on studying \emph{how to better balance the trade-off between acquiring new capabilities and preserving existing ones during agent trace SFT}. By comparing several baselines in our setup, standard SFT improves the target benchmark while lowering several non-target benchmark scores; meanwhile, simply constraining distributional drift using KL penalty or limiting the update magnitude did not avoid this regression trend. Motivated by recent token-wise adaptive learning objectives, this work proposes \textbf{Privilege-Guided SFT (PG-SFT)} to leverage turn-level information gain of agent trajectories as an indicator to adjust supervision strength. PG-SFT yields a more favorable observed trade-off on the evaluated benchmarks, substantially reducing distributional drift and broad capability degradation at the cost of slight degradation in target-task performance. Our findings suggest that balancing the acquisition--retention trade-off depends not only on whether the model is anchored to its base behavior, but also on where and how strongly supervision should depart from that behavior.}

1 Introduction

The introduction frames offline agent fine-tuning as a trade-off between acquiring specialized behavior and retaining existing capabilities, asking whether supervision-objective design can improve that balance. It introduces PG-SFT as turn-level adaptive supervision and reports a more favorable observed trade-off than conservative baselines.

1 Introduction

  • Token-level imitation targets every demonstrated assistant token, including incidental realizations, while retention under agent fine-tuning remains largely unexplored.The introduction asks how objective design affects the empirical trade-off between target adaptation and non-target benchmark performance.Source: §1 · pp. 1–2
  • The study holds offline trajectories fixed while comparing full-imitation SFT, Base-KL anchoring, and PSFT's lagged-policy update constraint.The comparison evaluates target-task performance, target fitting, distributional drift, and retained non-target capabilities.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • Across four benchmarks, better training-data fit can coincide with greater base-model deviation; a fixed KL constraint does not necessarily improve downstream retention, while PSFT stays closest to base but acquires least target behavior.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • PG-SFT matches SFT on the selected Qwen3.5 SWE-bench subset (59/89, pass@3) while retaining stronger non-target benchmark performance, and trades some target performance for stronger retention on Qwen3.The authors conclude that the balance depends on where and how strongly supervision departs from the base model.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • PG-SFT uses next actions as training-time privileged information to estimate turn-level knowledge gain and adjust supervision intensity.The method allocates supervision at the granularity of agent decisions.Source: §1 · p. 2

2 Related Work

Related work covers capability retention, learner-aware supervision, and training-time privileged information. These strands motivate adaptive supervision while noting that privileged signals are not uniformly beneficial.

2.1 Capability retention in post-training

  • Post-training mitigations constrain deviation from the initial model or preserve original parameters, against a background of reported forgetting and safety-related behavior changes.Source: §2.1 · p. 3

2.2 Model-aware supervision and adaptive learning pressure

  • Model-aware approaches adjust data or supervision to fit the learner, including confidence-scaled DFT, contextual IDFT, compatibility-based CADFT, and PSFT's update-magnitude signal.Data curation includes quality filtering, difficulty grading, and rewriting, though gains do not always scale to large pools.Source: §2.2 · p. 3

2.3 Privileged information as a training-time signal

  • Privileged information is available during training but not inference; stronger privileged features do not necessarily improve students and can bias solutions or destabilize gains.Source: §2.3 · p. 3

3 Trade-off Balancing: A Supervision Objective Perspective

This section compares objectives for adapting offline agent trajectories while retaining base-model behavior, moving from uniformly conservative fitting and token-wise weighting toward supervision allocated by turn-level decision information.

3 Trade-off Balancing: A Supervision Objective Perspective

  • The section holds offline data and supervised tokens fixed while comparing objectives, beginning with full-imitation SFT and extending to a turn-level adaptive objective using training-time privileged information.The initial comparison asks whether conservative learning alone can balance target acquisition and non-target retention.Source: §3 · pp. 3–4

3.1 Preliminaries and Metrics

  • The analysis uses teacher-forced NLL to measure fitting of demonstrated tokens and forward Base KL to measure prediction drift from the base model on the same contexts.The setup uses offline agent trajectories and excludes user messages and tool feedback from the loss.Source: §3.1 · p. 4

3.2 Conservative Supervision Objectives

  • Conservative objectives reduce fitting by interpolating targets toward the base distribution or limiting updates against a lagged policy, but do not condition targets on the data–model relationship.Base-KL fixes the interpolation coefficient uniformly, whereas PSFT constrains updates relative to the recent policy.Source: §3.2 · pp. 4–5

3.3 Adaptive Supervision Objectives: Preliminary Attempts on Token-wise Adjustment

  • 40 vs 54 SWE-bench resolutions: DFT underperformed Base 1 on Qwen3.5, with probability weighting emphasizing dispensable protocol tokens over some key agent behaviors.The authors also note that low-probability tokens mix stylistic preferences with important behaviors, so probability-based down-weighting may suppress useful supervision.Source: §3.3 · p. 5
  • Per-turn perplexity varies within trajectories (median 1.51, P90 2.22), while training-data perplexity is unimodal and right-skewed; raw perplexity also conflates stylistic surprise with action-related information.The section motivates a turn-level signal that distinguishes what follows from the action decision.Source: §3.3 · p. 5

3.4 Adaptive Supervision Objective: Privileged-Guided Supervised Fine-Tuning

  • PG-SFT applies the same turn-level coefficient to reasoning and action tokens, interpolating each supervised-token target between the base distribution and demonstrated token without distilling the hint-conditioned distribution.Source: §3.4 · pp. 6–7

4 Experiments

Across four benchmarks, PG-SFT achieved the strongest aggregate acquisition–retention profile, while standard SFT and fixed constraints exposed a trade-off between target learning, distributional drift, and retained capabilities. A matched fixed-intensity control had similar offline statistics to PG-SFT but different downstream outcomes, supporting turn-adaptive supervision.

4.1 Experimental Setup

  • The experiments used two 4B model families, shared offline agent trajectories across objectives, and SWE-bench Lite as the target benchmark alongside three non-target benchmarks.The non-target benchmarks assessed general reasoning, multi-turn tool use, and code generation.Source: §4.1 · p. 7

4.2 Target Adaptation and Capability Retention

  • Standard SFT improved the target task but regressed on all three non-target benchmarks, while Base-KL reduced drift without alleviating those regressions.PSFT retained the most non-target capability among the baselines but had one of the worst target-task results and failed to learn effectively from demonstrations.Source: §4.2 · p. 8
  • PG-SFT attained the highest Macro Avg on both backbones (62.10% and 55.58%) and was the only fine-tuning objective to improve over Base (+1.49 pp and +2.07 pp).Every other objective lost capability overall (−0.67 to −5.89 pp).Source: §4.2 · p. 8, Table 1 · p. 8

4.3 How Much Do Objectives Learn from the Data?

  • SFT+Base-KL nearly halved distributional shift (0.0732 → 0.0431) at essentially the same held-out NLL, without improving capability retention.PSFT stayed closest to Base (Base KL 0.0026) but had the worst target-task performance; PG-SFT improved held-out NLL over Base with Base KL 0.0080.Source: §4.3 · p. 9

4.4 Is Conservative Learning Sufficient?

  • The fixed-intensity control closely matched PG-SFT’s offline statistics but performed differently downstream, including lower SWE-bench and GPQA success counts.The control scored 50/89 versus PG-SFT’s 59/89 on SWE-bench and 140/198 versus 150/198 on GPQA; BFCL was similar and LiveCodeBench moved oppositely.Source: §4.4 · p. 9, Table 4 · p. 10
  • PG-SFT’s turn-level intensities were non-uniform, with median 0.244, 90th percentile 0.607, and token-weighted mean near 0.35.Its turn-specific intensity concentrates updates on turns resolved by the action hint and spares general-purpose tokens, unlike a single global coefficient.Source: §4.4 · pp. 9–10
  • Overall, matching PG-SFT’s average learning intensity did not reproduce its downstream behavior, supporting adaptive allocation of learning pressure across supervised decisions rather than a single global rule.The study also found that stronger data fitting may accompany regressions in untrained capabilities, and that neither a fixed Base-KL penalty nor restricted update magnitudes guaranteed both acquisition and retention.Source: §4.4 · p. 10

5 Discussion and Conclusion

The comparison concludes that PG-SFT improves the acquisition–retention trade-off through adaptive, turn-level supervision. The reported turn coefficient is only weakly associated with turn length, and the evaluation has important scope limits.

5 Discussion and Conclusion

  • Figure 4 depicts PG-SFT learning intensity α.Source: Figure 4 · p. 10
  • Turn length has only a weak correlation with α_k (Pearson r=0.225, 95% CI [0.184, 0.269], R^2 ≈5%), suggesting the coefficient reflects turn content more than token count.Across 5,503 assistant turns from 120 held-out trajectories, G_k and H_k correlate with length at r=0.66 and 0.75, respectively.Source: §5 · p. 10
  • The evaluation covers two related 4B-scale backbones, one agent domain, and a limited number of training runs, so extension to other data and model sizes is not established.The distributional measurements are empirical and cannot establish a causal link between drift and retention.Source: §5 · p. 10
  • PG-SFT improves the acquisition–retention trade-off through adaptive, turn-level supervision, while SFT forgets non-target capabilities, Base-KL reduces drift without reliable retention gains, and PSFT learns little.The conclusion treats target fitting, base proximity, and downstream retention as distinct.Source: §5 · p. 10

A Implementation details

The implementation normalizes per-microbatch computation to recover the update-level objective and chunks exact KL computation to reduce logit workspace. PG-SFT also has additional compute costs over ordinary SFT.

A Implementation details

  • A global divisor lets averaging across ranks and executed microbatches recover the update-level objective exactly.Trailing updates divide by the number of microbatches actually executed; N_k counts supervised assistant tokens in the update.Source: A Implementation details · p. 14
  • Exact KL is accumulated in token-row chunks, reducing logit workspace from O(N_k|V|) to O(|C||V|) while preserving the unchunked objective's value and gradient.The custom backward computes the gradient of Eq. 9 composed with the output projection.Source: A Implementation details · p. 14
  • PG-SFT adds frozen-base passes over ordinary and privileged contexts, full-vocabulary targets at supervised positions, and retained intermediate states compared with SFT.The objectives are matched on data and supervised tokens, not compute.Source: A Implementation details · p. 15

B Training contract

The training contract uses sampled Nemotron-SFT-SWE-v3 trajectories and shares configuration across objectives where specified. Some comparisons, including PSFT and the Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507 Base-KL arm, are not budget-matched.

B Training contract

  • Qwen3.5-4B uses 1,000 sampled trajectories and Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507 uses 4,992, because objective differences were not measurable at the smaller size for the latter backbone.The trajectories come from Nemotron-SFT-SWE-v3 and follow the OpenHands agent format.Source: B Training contract · p. 15
  • The compared objectives differ in supervision objective and its hyperparameters, with Table 6 describing the corresponding contract for the second backbone.Source: B Training contract · p. 15
  • The Qwen3.5-4B contract shares adaptation and optimization settings across SFT, SFT+Base-KL, PG-SFT, and fixed-intensity arms, while PSFT is a reference rather than a budget-matched comparison.Table 5 identifies the shared contract and PSFT's separate schedule.Source: Table 5 · p. 15
  • For SFT+Base-KL, λ=0.1 sets fixed supervision coefficient α_KL=1/(1+λ) ≈0.91, versus the fixed-intensity control's α=0.35.The comparison tests uniform reduction of supervision strength.Source: B Training contract · p. 15
  • On Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507, SFT+Base-KL runs 32 steps rather than a full 156-step epoch, so it is not budget-matched to SFT and PG-SFT.Table 6 reports differing per-objective optimization budgets.Source: B Training contract · p. 15, Table 6 · p. 16

C Evaluation protocol

The evaluation uses fixed benchmark subsets and task-specific generation and scoring procedures. The target-task metric is pass@3 on an 89-instance SWE-bench set.

C Evaluation protocol

  • The benchmark sets are GPQA Diamond's 198 questions, a 200-instance BFCL v4 development subset, a 120-instance LiveCodeBench release-v6 subset, and the 89-instance SWE-bench set.BFCL uses 50 instances per multi-turn category; the SWE-bench set is described in Appendix D.Source: C Evaluation protocol · p. 16
  • SWE-bench uses 89 instances and reports pass@3, counting an instance as resolved if at least one attempt resolves it.Source: C Evaluation protocol · p. 16
  • SWE-bench rollouts use temperature 1, up to 8,192 new tokens per round and 150 rounds; GPQA uses temperature 0.6, while BFCL uses temperature 0 with seed 42.GPQA uses top-p 0.95, top-k 20, and at most 32,768 new tokens in the first pass; truncated outputs are rerun with a 65,536-token budget. BFCL allows at most 8,192 new tokens per request.Source: C Evaluation protocol · p. 16
  • GPQA is graded by a fixed final-answer rule, while SWE-bench, BFCL, and LiveCodeBench use task-specific execution-based evaluators.Source: C Evaluation protocol · p. 16

D SWE-bench evaluation set

The evaluation set combines a random and a difficulty-screened subset of SWE-bench Lite, using a shared agent scaffold and a protocol that limits direct comparison with leaderboard scores.

D SWE-bench evaluation set

  • The evaluation follows the official SWE-bench Lite harness and protocol, while using a different evaluated subset of the 300-instance test set.Lite filters and samples the SWE-bench test set to remove low-quality or ambiguous instances.Source: D SWE-bench evaluation set · p. 17
  • The screened instances had average resolution frequencies of 62.1% and 64.0% under two statistics; these are not model pass rates.Known flaky instances were removed before selecting 50 instances with higher and more consistent resolution frequencies.Source: D SWE-bench evaluation set · p. 17
  • The 89-instance set combines a frozen 50-instance random sample with a 50-instance difficulty-screened subset, overlapping on 11 instances.The screened subset was selected using external evaluation evidence, not models evaluated in this paper.Source: D SWE-bench evaluation set · p. 17
  • All instances use the same agent scaffold, prompt template, and output budget, but conditional extra attempts make pass@3 a comparison protocol rather than an unbiased estimate.The reported 89-instance scores are not directly comparable to leaderboard numbers based on the full 300-instance test set.Source: D SWE-bench evaluation set · p. 17

E Future directions

The paper proposes four next steps: explore alternative hints, update gain coefficients against the current policy, combine turn-level allocation with rehearsal or online reinforcement learning, and compare privileged gain with other signals.

E Future directions

  • Explore hint granularity and sources, including next actions, environment feedback, final outcomes, and counterfactual hints as a specificity check.The design space of the hint itself remains unexplored.Source: E Future directions · p. 17
  • Re-estimate coefficients against the current policy to track diminishing returns of each turn as training proceeds.The current direction contrasts with using a frozen base.Source: E Future directions · p. 17
  • Combine turn-level allocation with rehearsal or online reinforcement learning, where rollout outcomes provide privileged information essentially for free.The paper describes turn-level allocation as orthogonal to both approaches.Source: E Future directions · p. 17
  • Compare privileged gain with margin- or entropy-based turn-level signals to test whether action attribution is necessary for the retention benefit.This comparison would isolate the role of action attribution.Source: E Future directions · p. 17
Loading 2610.00949v1…