[Submitted on 8 Jul 2026]

View PDF

Abstract:Using Evolutionary Strategies (ES) for fine-tuning large language models is attractive because it is memory-efficient, parallel, and compatible with black-box or discrete rewards. Yet its population-size conclusions conflict sharply: fine-tuning with cross-entropy (CE) reward succeeds with $N=1$, while binary-reward training often needs $N \approx 30$. We show this gap is largely about reward design and normalization, not population size. In the capable-model regime we study, z-score advantage normalization can cause $N=2$ to fail. Disabling normalization lets binary-reward ES with $N=2$ improve on GSM8K and TREC across capable models spanning 0.5B-7B, where the normalized variant collapses or degrades. This small-$N$ risk is set by reward granularity: binary accuracy reward induces a zero-advantage probability $q$ that depends in closed form on base accuracy, batch size, and intra-pair correctness correlation; a zero-training probe on Qwen2.5-Instruct/GSM8K matches the formula with mean absolute error 0.020 across 12 configurations and finds the availability threshold $N_{\mathrm{avail}}$ to be small in this capable-model regime. The implication is not that $N=2$ is universally sufficient, but that small-population failure in capable-model binary ES can be an implementation artifact rather than an intrinsic population limit.

Submission history

From: Sung Cho [view email]
[v1] Wed, 8 Jul 2026 00:19:03 UTC (105 KB)