Why Do Reasoning Models Lose Coverage? The Role of Data and Forks in the Road

Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on a small, high-quality set of long reasoning traces is an effective approach for eliciting strong reasoning capabilities in Large Language Models (LLMs). However, existing methods for curating high-quality SFT data rely heavily on strong reasoning models to filter examples based on diversity and difficulty, making the curation process costly while often yielding suboptimal data quality. In this work, we show that diverse and challenging reasoning examples can be identified using only the initial reasoning tokens. Specifically, we demonstrate that difficult problems can be reliably detected based on the loss of the first 100 reasoning tokens evaluated at a randomly perturbed checkpoint of the pretrained model. We further show that examples exhibiting similar loss patterns over their first 1k reasoning tokens across a small number of perturbed checkpoints extrapolating along the fine-tuning trajectory provably induce similar gradients. We validate our approach through extensive experiments on fine-tuning Qwen2.5-7B and Llama3.1-8B models on the M23K medical reasoning and OpenThoughts-Math datasets. Our method outperforms existing baselines by up to 1.7% while being 91% more token efficient.

Explicit reasoning models are trained to produce intermediate reasoning traces before final answers, but downstream fine-tuning is often performed on ordinary instruction-response data that contains no such traces. We show that this mismatch can induce reasoning-trace collapse: a fine-tuned model continues to produce plausible final answers while losing the structurally valid explicit reasoning traces that made it a reasoning model in the first place. We introduce a structural evaluation framework that separates answer correctness from reasoning-trace validity, measuring valid, empty, missing, and truncated reasoning alongside reasoning-conditioned task performance. Using this framework, we study four open-weight reasoning models and find that standard supervised fine-tuning can rapidly suppress valid reasoning traces, and that answer-only metrics can substantially obscure this failure: in several settings, performance conditional on valid reasoning remains high while the rate of valid reasoning falls sharply. We further show that simple loss-masking strategies can substantially mitigate collapse without requiring teacher-generated reasoning traces. These results suggest that evaluations of fine-tuned reasoning models should report structural reasoning reliability metrics in addition to final-answer performance, especially when adaptation data does not contain explicit reasoning traces.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) improve performance by generating explicit intermediate reasoning traces through increased test-time compute, yet the assumption that longer reasoning is consistently beneficial remains under-examined. While recent evidence shows that additional reasoning can lead models to overthink, we ask: "Once a model has reached the correct answer, does further reasoning refine the solution, or deviate from it?" To study the dynamics after correctness, we introduce a prefix-level trajectory evaluation protocol grounded in reasoning sufficiency, defining the minimum reasoning budget required for a model to first generate the correct answer. This allows us to disentangle verbose overthinking, where additional reasoning is redundant but harmless, from harmful overthinking, where continued reasoning destabilizes an already-correct trajectory. Starting from multimodal benchmarks, we find that many instances considered reasoning-intensive require surprisingly little reasoning. Moreover, stopping at the first correct prefix improves accuracy over standard reasoning up to 21%, revealing that current models are limited not only by their ability to reason, but also by their inability to stop at the right time. Furthermore, while common efficiency strategies like early stopping substantially reduce verbose overthinking (up to 50%), they fail to mitigate harmful overthinking. Failure analysis reveals that correctness deviations are mainly driven by logical drift and visual reinterpretation. Finally, we show that our findings generalize to language-only reasoning benchmarks, highlighting harmful overthinking as a broader reliability risk. Code available at https://simonecaldarella.github.io/thinking-past-the-answer.