Theoretical Perspectives on Data Quality and Synergistic Effects in Pre- and Post-Training Reasoning Models

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become central to improving large language models (LLMs) on complex reasoning tasks, yet RL post-training is largely studied in isolation from the pretraining that precedes it. As a result, two basic questions remain open: (1) how do pretraining choices (model size, data) shape the returns to RL compute, and (2) what does RL actually do to the model? These questions are difficult to study in the standard LLM setting: pretraining corpora are vast and uncontrolled, making it hard to attribute behaviors to pretraining versus RL, and systematic compute sweeps across both stages are prohibitively expensive. To address these challenges, we use chess as a controlled testbed for studying reasoning across the full pretraining-to-post-training pipeline. We follow the standard LLM training pipeline by pretraining language models from 5M to 1B parameters on human chess games, supervised fine-tuning on synthetic reasoning traces, and running RL on chess puzzles with verifiable rewards. Using this framework, we find that the post-RL performance at given RL compute level is well-predicted from the pretraining loss, and slope of the RL reward curves improves approximately linearly with the pretraining tokens. Beyond scaling, we find that RL does not simply sharpen the SFT policy: on easy puzzles it amplifies correct moves the SFT policy already preferred, while on hard puzzles it surfaces correct moves that were nearly absent under SFT. We further test whether our findings transfer beyond chess by training a 1B language model on math-domain text, where the same predictive pattern emerges: longer-pretrained checkpoints reach higher post-RL performance and improve faster under RL. In sum, we provide a quantitative account of the pretraining-to-RL interface and a controlled testbed for studying the science of reasoning across the full pretraining-to-post-training pipeline.

Large language models (LLMs) can now solve complex problems through long chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, but the trade-off between performance and token cost remains a central challenge. To address this issue, supervised fine-tuning (SFT) often uses compressed reasoning data, where CoT traces are shortened into compact forms. However, the effect of such compressed reasoning data on post-training remains poorly understood. In this paper, we propose a taxonomy of CoT consisting of Explicit CoT, which outputs all operations without aggregation, Composed CoT, which combines multiple operations into a single step, and Implicit CoT, which omits intermediate operations. As a controlled mechanistic study, we construct a synthetic compositional reasoning task that allows controlled variation of difficulty, compression granularity, and data size, and conducted a comprehensive set of experiments across different model families and sizes. Notably, we find that (i) coarser CoT requires more SFT data, (ii) compared with Explicit CoT, Composed CoT and Implicit CoT benefit more from data scaling, while Composed CoT benefits from data repetition and Implicit CoT tends to lead to memorization, (iii) unlike SFT, subsequent reinforcement learning (RL) with verifiable rewards (RLVR) decomposes compressed steps learned during SFT, and (iv) unidirectional CoT ordering shows stronger generalization on longer sequential tasks. Our findings provide implications for CoT design under data resource constraints and offer important insights into the mechanisms of SFT and RL in LLM post-training.

The prevailing paradigm for training LLMs has evolved to rely on a massive post-training phase consisting of SFT and RL. In this position paper, we argue that this methodology effectively marks a reversion to the pre-train then fine-tune'' approach of the BERT era, explicitly tailoring models to the desired behaviors and specific benchmarks on which they are evaluated. We begin with a historical overview of LLMs, describing the different phases of the LLM evolution. We argue that the current landscape is remarkably similar to the early days of LLMs, where task performance heavily relied on fitting the models to in-distribution datasets. To empirically demonstrate this, we compare pre-trained models to randomly initialized ones, by fine-tuning both variants on modern reasoning datasets and evaluating them on competitive math and code benchmarks. We show that models post-trained from scratch yield highly non-trivial performance. Our findings suggest that current post-training methodologies function primarily as a distribution-fitting mechanism. We finish by positing that developing generally capable models and systems requires moving beyond extensive post-training for predefined behaviors, shifting instead toward training procedures where models learn how to learn''.