Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

Entropy-Adaptive Fine-Tuning: Resolving Confident Conflicts to Mitigate Forgetting

About

Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) is the standard paradigm for domain adaptation, yet it frequently incurs the cost of catastrophic forgetting. In sharp contrast, on-policy Reinforcement Learning (RL) effectively preserves general capabilities. We investigate this discrepancy and identify a fundamental distributional gap: while RL aligns with the model's internal belief, SFT forces the model to fit external supervision. This mismatch often manifests as "Confident Conflicts" tokens characterized by low probability but low entropy. In these instances, the model is highly confident in its own prediction but is forced to learn a divergent ground truth, triggering destructive gradient updates. To address this, we propose Entropy-Adaptive Fine-Tuning (EAFT). Unlike methods relying solely on prediction probability, EAFT utilizes token-level entropy as a gating mechanism to distinguish between epistemic uncertainty and knowledge conflict. This allows the model to learn from uncertain samples while suppressing gradients on conflicting data. Extensive experiments on Qwen and GLM series (ranging from 4B to 32B parameters) across mathematical, medical, and agentic domains confirm our hypothesis. EAFT consistently matches the downstream performance of standard SFT while significantly mitigating the degradation of general capabilities.

Muxi Diao, Lele Yang, Wuxuan Gong, Yutong Zhang, Zhonghao Yan, Yufei Han, Kongming Liang, Weiran Xu, Zhanyu Ma• 2026

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Medical Question AnsweringMedMCQA
Accuracy31.17
591
Medical Question AnsweringMedQA
Accuracy32.29
179
Code GenerationHumanEval+
Pass@173.17
122
Medical Question AnsweringMMLU Med
Accuracy30.34
111
Mathematical ReasoningAIME 23-26
Pass@1594
54
Code GenerationLCB v6
Pass@116.59
48
Code GenerationMBPP+
Pass@164.81
48
Mathematical ReasoningAIME24
Avg@162.3
45
Mathematical ReasoningMinerva Math
Average@1619.4
42
Mathematical ReasoningMATH-OAI
Avg@1653.11
42
Showing 10 of 33 rows

Other info

GitHub

Follow for update