Is Next-Chunk Reasoning RL Really Better than SFT? Revisiting Training Strategies under no-CoT Data

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated that reinforcement fine-tuning of pretrained base models can lead to significant gains in reasoning performance at inference time. In this work, we theoretically analyze why reinforcement fine-tuning induces better reasoning ability than purely supervised fine-tuning (SFT) methods. We model chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning as a pathfinding problem on graphs and compare the popular method of reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) against traditional SFT. We prove that SFT, when trained on golden shortest paths without negative examples, fails to learn how to efficiently backtrack. In contrast, an RLVR-trained model can learn how to efficiently backtrack from dead ends using only outcome reward. This leads to an exponential separation in inference-time compute between the two methods, and demonstrates that RLVR leads the model to learn the location of difficult decisions in a reasoning chain, ultimately allowing for better allocation of inference-time compute. Finally, we show that the reasoning traces of an RLVR model can be distilled to train a base model to backtrack efficiently as well.

Reinforcement learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for eliciting reasoning capabilities in large language models, particularly in mathematics and coding. While recent efforts have extended this paradigm to broader general scientific (STEM) domains, the complex interplay between supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and RL in these contexts remains underexplored. In this paper, we conduct controlled experiments revealing a critical challenge: for general STEM domains, RL applied directly to base models is highly sample-inefficient and is consistently surpassed by supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on moderate-quality responses. Yet sequential SFT followed by RL can further improve performance, suggesting that the two stages play complementary roles, and that how training data is allocated between them matters. Therefore, we propose DeReason, a difficulty-based data decoupling strategy for general reasoning. DeReason partitions training data by reasoning intensity estimated via LLM-based scoring into reasoning-intensive and non-reasoning-intensive subsets. It allocates broad-coverage, non-reasoning-intensive problems to SFT to establish foundational domain knowledge, and reserves a focused subset of difficult problems for RL to cultivate complex reasoning. We demonstrate that this principled decoupling yields better performance than randomly splitting the data for sequential SFT and RL. Extensive experiments on general STEM and mathematical benchmarks demonstrate that our decoupled curriculum training significantly outperforms SFT-only, RL-only, and random-split baselines. Our work provides a systematic study of the interplay between SFT and RL for general reasoning, offering a highly effective and generalized post-training recipe.

Recent advances in Large Reasoning Models have significantly improved chain-of-thought (CoT) capabilities via reinforcement learning (RL). However, generated reasoning chains frequently suffer from structural redundancy (i.e., overthinking), incurring high computational overhead without improving answer correctness. Existing mitigation strategies typically rely on token-uniform length penalties, which provide coarse, segment-agnostic pressure toward shorter outputs and can inadvertently suppress useful reasoning alongside redundancy. To address this, we demonstrate that inefficiency concentrates in high-probability segments with low marginal utility. We derive a theoretical characterization of segment suboptimality under the correctness-length trade-off objective and propose SLAT (Segment-Level Adaptive Trimming), an RL framework that selectively suppresses redundant segments based on this criterion. Empirical results on standard benchmarks indicate that SLAT establishes a superior accuracy-efficiency Pareto frontier, reducing reasoning length by $50\%$ relative to uncompressed baselines while maintaining competitive accuracy. Overall, our results suggest that theoretically grounded, segment-aware trimming is a promising direction for efficient CoT reasoning in large language models.