AIToday
Large Language ModelsAI Coding AssistantsOpen-Source AIAmazon AI BlogPublished: Oct 21, 2026, 04:00 JST

GPT-OSS-20B multilingual fix on SageMaker HyperPod: 22% to 100%

Send on LINE
GPT-OSS-20B multilingual fix on SageMaker HyperPod: 22% to 100%

3 Key Points

  1. What happened

    On a 50-case multilingual reasoning test, base GPT-OSS-20B reasoned in the requested language only 22% of the time. After SFT on Amazon SageMaker HyperPod, that hit 100%, and GRPO lifted answer-language from 62% to 70% (both correct).

  2. Why it matters

    SFT teaches behavior the model lacks entirely, while GRPO only refines a sometimes-correct behavior. Answer-language improved because it had headroom; where the model was already at peak accuracy, GRPO added no gain.

WHO IT HITSTeams deploying open-weight reasoning models for non-English users—such as customer support, local-language search, or multilingual chat—can use SFT to enforce target-language reasoning, then apply GRPO only when evaluation shows room to improve answer quality.

Not sure about something? Ask the AI

Questions and answers are published on this page.

Summaries like this, in your inbox every morning.

Context & Analysis

The base GPT-OSS-20B has a strong English prior: it acknowledges a request to reason in French, German, Spanish, or Italian, then produces its chain-of-thought in English anyway. That is not a prompting issue but a capability gap, which is why SFT proved necessary rather than optional—it moved reasoning-language correctness from 22% to 100% across the 50 test cases.

The remaining difficulty was the final answer, which is short and where the English prior is strongest. SFT brought answer-language accuracy to 62%, leaving a clear target for GRPO. GRPO improved answer-language to 70% while holding reasoning at 100%, a +8 point gain that came from reinforcing a behavior the model could already sometimes produce.

A controlled Qwen2.5-7B experiment on two tasks confirmed the pattern: GRPO added +6 points on multilingual reasoning where headroom existed, but no gain on GSM8K where the model was already at 90.5%. The practical decision rule is to use SFT for missing behavior and GRPO only when evaluation shows that the desired behavior is sometimes correct and there is room to improve.

FAQ
What is the difference between SFT and GRPO?
SFT teaches a behavior the model does not have, while GRPO optimizes a behavior the model can already sometimes produce by reinforcing above-average responses.
Did GRPO help on tasks where the model was already accurate?
No. On GSM8K, base Qwen2.5-7B scored 90.5% and GRPO at step 30 also scored 90.5%, because the group-relative advantage collapsed to zero with no headroom.
What tools ran the fine-tuning?
Initial runs used PyTorch TRL on SageMaker HyperPod with EKS orchestration. The Qwen control experiment switched to veRL, Ray, KubeRay, and vLLM for rollout generation, with checkpoints on Amazon FSx for Lustre.
Amazon AI BlogRead Original Article
Send on LINE

AI news that matters for your work, delivered every morning.

Pick your industry and the AI tools you use, and get news related to your work every day.

Free · 30 seconds with Google · unsubscribe anytimeWhat is AIToday? →

Ask AI

Ask AI anything about this article. The AI reads this article, earlier AIToday articles, and Wikipedia, and cites its sources. Q&As are published on this page for other readers too.

Questions and answers are published on this page.

Related Articles

Next articleOpenAI acquires Orchestra Bio to pair with Rosalind