Papers › On-Policy Replay for Continual Supervised Fine-Tuning
On-Policy Replay for Continual Supervised Fine-Tuning
Yan Chen, Taojie Zhu, Meng Zhang, Xin Chen, Jiaqi Huang, Dongyang Xu, Yizhi Wang
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Continual supervised fine-tuning (SFT) is the de facto recipe for adapting large language models (LLMs) to a stream of downstream tasks, but it suffers from catastrophic forgetting of earlier capabilities. Recent work shows that on-policy signals -- training on the model's own outputs -- reduce forgetting more reliably than off-policy supervision. Existing on-policy methods route this signal through a new training objective (e.g., self-distillation losses with a teacher copy), inheriting an extra forward pass, schedule sensitivity, and stylistic drift from the teacher.We instead route the on-policy signal through the training data source. Our method, On-Policy Replay (OPR), rolls out the most recent checkpoint on a small budget of historical prompts, filters the generations by a task reward, and replays the surviving (prompt, model response) pairs as ordinary SFT examples. There is no teacher, no auxiliary loss, and no on-the-fly distillation. Across three 7--8B instruction-tuned backbones (Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, Qwen3-8B, Llama3.1-8B-Instruct) on the TRACE continual-learning benchmark, OPR consistently reduces forgetting; on the sharpest stress test (Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, Sequential SFT BWT -13.93), OPR lifts BWT to -0.65 at a 10% replay budget and to -2.29 at a 1% budget -- a 46% reduction in |BWT| over a tuned Vanilla Replay baseline, with 42--46% reductions observed across all three backbones. We give a KL-shrinkage interpretation that places OPR and prior on-policy distillation methods on a single axis, and we present a counterintuitive finding that explains why Vanilla Replay is already a strong baseline: low-score replay is uniformly worse than Vanilla Replay, demonstrating that the active ingredient in OPR is the on-policy distribution, not the response quality alone.Our code is available at https://github.com/Yancey2024/OnPolicyReplay.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2605.29495")
Code
Syntology Ran 1 of 1 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 1 sample from 1 repository, 1 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
1 sample harvested; 1 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 1 of the 1 sample is pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from Yancey2024/OnPolicyReplay. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
f3b7f2c28d9d4a99 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2605.29495, was issued in May 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections