Why Does Reinforcement Learning Generalize? A Feature-Level Mechanistic Study of Post-Training in Large Language 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.

Post-training has become a crucial step for unlocking the capabilities of large language models, with reinforcement learning (RL) emerging as a critical paradigm. Recent RL-based post-training has increasingly split into two paradigms: reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), which optimizes models using human preference signals in target domains, and reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR), which operates in verifier-backed environments. The latter has dominated recent reasoning-oriented post-training because it delivers stronger gains and higher efficiency on domain-specific tasks (e.g., reasoning). However, although in-domain RL training achieves promising performance, it still requires a substantial amount of GPU compute, which remains a major barrier to broad adoption. In this work, we study the generalization ability of RLHF learned from scratch from a small set of interactions in open-ended environments, and investigate whether the conversational abilities it explicitly acquires can implicitly transfer to downstream tasks such as mathematical reasoning and code generation, namely GRLO. Specifically, on Qwen3-4B-Base backbone, GRLO improves the average performance across all domains from 24.1 to 63.1 with only 5K prompts and 22.7 GPU hours, requiring about $46\times$ less data and $68\times$ less compute than a strong in-domain RLVR baseline. The resulting model is even competitive with Qwen's released post-trained models which required a much larger training cost. Notably, a subsequent in-domain RLVR stage brings only selective gains, mainly on harder competition-math benchmarks. We hope GRLO offers a simple and efficient recipe for building broadly capable post-trained models. Our code and data will be available at: \href{https://github.com/SJY8460/GRLO}{https://github.com/SJY8460/GRLO}.

Reinforcement learning (RL) is widely utilized in large language model training to improve targeted capabilities, yet how RL reshapes a model remains poorly understood. Prior attempts to explain how RL works largely offer behavioral perspectives, leaving open what RL gives a model at the representation level: can RL create genuinely novel features, and which existing features does it enhance or suppress? Recent developments in mechanistic interpretability suggest sparse autoencoders (SAEs) as a promising lens to decompose internal activations into human-interpretable features; however, they cannot be directly applied to tracking change across training. In this work, we introduce Fixed-SAE Track, a framework that trains one shared SAE per considered layer on activations pooled across the base model and all RL checkpoints, holding every feature direction fixed so that representation shifts are rigorously defined through the activations of interpretable SAE latents, including the detection of emerging novel features. Validated across multiple datasets and RL algorithms, we find that RL-induced drift is small, gradual, concept specific, and concentrated in late layers, mainly enhancing the sampling rates of a small set of ladder tokens, formatting scaffolding such as step breaks and answer delimiters, rather than reshaping problem content. Steering these features into the base model recovers around 80% of RL's performance gain, suggesting that RL primarily elicits capabilities the model already possesses, much as steering does. We further design a synthetic benchmark with features known by construction to test whether RL can instill genuinely novel features. We believe Fixed-SAE Track provides a principled approach to tracking representation shifts and offers representational evidence for understanding how reinforcement learning changes the inner representation of LLMs.