Enough is as good as a feast: A Comprehensive Analysis of How Reinforcement Learning Mitigates Task Conflicts in LLMs
TL;DR
This study systematically explores the merging behavior of RL-trained LLMs compared to those trained with traditional SFT, finding that RL significantly reduces task conflicts and results in less performance degradation after merging, making RL-trained models particularly well-suited for this process.
Abstract
Model merging plays a crucial role in consolidating multiple specialized models into a single, unified model, especially in the era of large language models (LLMs). Recent research has primarily focused on developing strategies to enhance merging performance with the trained models, while the impact of training paradigms, such as supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL), on the effectiveness of model merging remains underexplored. In this study, we systematically explore the merging behavior of RL-trained LLMs compared to those trained with traditional SFT. Through comprehensive evaluations across five representative tasks, we find that RL significantly reduces task conflicts and results in less performance degradation after merging, making RL-trained models particularly well-suited for this process. To unearth the reasons behind the superior suitability of RL for model merging, we conduct extensive empirical experiments and theoretical analyses. Our findings highlight three key factors: (1) On-policy training data in RL control the gradient updates in a smaller magnitude, reducing the risk of overwriting existing knowledge for other tasks in the model. (2) The RL optimization objective, which favors ``\textit{enough is as good as a feast}", progressively reduces the magnitude and the number of conflict parameter updates as the model converges. (3) Joint optimization of positive and negative examples in RL steers the model towards an unbiased task-specific parameter subspace, ensuring robust performance while further preventing parameter conflicts.