Consolidating RLVR Capabilities Across Domains: A Deep Dive into Fusion Paradigms
TL;DR
This work compares three fusion paradigms by the artefacts they reuse and suggests that Merge when experts already exist and cheap fusion is paramount; Mix RL when training a unified model without experts, with domain proportions adjusted for cross-domain transfer; and MOPD when preserving domain-specific gains matters more than surpassing teachers or minimizing end-to-end cost.
Abstract
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) improves specific capabilities of large language models, but covering multiple capabilities often involves training separate domain experts and subsequently consolidating them. We organize three fusion paradigms by the artifacts they reuse: Merge combines expert task vectors, Mix RL pools their datasets, and multi-teacher on-policy distillation (MOPD) uses both. Because they have largely been studied in isolation, how they compare and how to choose among them remain unclear. We compare all three using shared experts and data across model scales and a multi-domain benchmark suite. Although their average performance differs by at most 1.4 points, the gap reaches 8.6 points on a single benchmark, with domain-level variation tracking cross-domain relations visible in task-vector geometry. Training dynamics expose distinct constraints: Mix RL depends on domain mixture proportions, MOPD remains bounded by its teachers, and Merge compresses all expert updates into one. All three improve single-sample accuracy without measurable gains in solution coverage or losses in held-out capabilities. These results yield a practical guideline: use Merge when experts already exist and cheap fusion is paramount; Mix RL when training a unified model without experts, with domain proportions adjusted for cross-domain transfer; and MOPD when preserving domain-specific gains matters more than surpassing teachers or minimizing end-to-end cost.
