AI Insight
This study compares six offline training methods for distilling mathematical reasoning from large AI models into smaller ones by analyzing their weight updates rather than just accuracy. The researchers found that standard supervised fine-tuning (SFT), rejection fine-tuning (RFT), and RIFT produce nearly identical weight changes and similar accuracy, while direct preference optimization (DPO) creates fundamentally different weight patterns in a near-orthogonal direction and achieves significantly higher accuracy on math benchmarks. The work reveals that different training losses can lead to mechanistically distinct solutions even when trained on identical data.
Why it matters
Understanding which training methods produce genuinely different model behaviors versus superficial variations helps researchers and practitioners choose appropriate techniques for distilling reasoning capabilities into efficient models. The findings suggest DPO may offer a fundamentally different optimization pathway that could explain its superior performance on challenging mathematical reasoning tasks.
Understand the Science
Abstract: Offline reinforcement-learning losses (RFT, RIFT, DFT, Offline GRPO, DPO) are widely used to distill reasoning from large teachers into smaller students, and are typically compared on downstream accuracy alone. We ask whether they are mechanistically distinct or converge to a similar weight update. Training six methods (SFT, RFT, DFT, RIFT, Offline GRPO, DPO) on identical math rollouts from a single base model (Qwen3-4B) with attention-only LoRA, we analyze the resulting deltas via cosine similarity, principal-angle subspace analysis, linear mode connectivity, and CKA. We observe: (i) SFT, RFT, and RIFT have nearly colinear weight deltas (cosine >= 0.97, top-1 principal angle ~7 deg median over 144 modules) and comparable GSM8K accuracy (87-88%, n=1319; pairwise McNemar p >= 0.15); (ii) DFT diverges further in direction than any reward-weighted method despite using the same data; (iii) Offline GRPO adds a substantial component orthogonal to the SFT direction (~67% globally, up to ~86% in late layers) while staying in the SFT loss basin; (iv) DPO sits in a near-orthogonal subspace, shows a mode-connectivity barrier, and collapses late-layer CKA to ~0.46. DPO also reaches the highest accuracy in our protocol on both GSM8K (93.5%, McNemar p < 10^-9 vs. each other method) and AIME26 (30.0% vs. 3.3-10.0%); its training uses a 10x smaller learning rate than the others (the standard convention), so the update-norm and accuracy gaps reflect loss-function and optimizer choices jointly, and a learning-rate-matched DPO comparison is left for future work.