Post-training Small Language Models (SLMs) for reasoning typically follows an SFT-then-RL pipeline, yet existing work rarely considers what data should be learned at each stage. We argue that data strategy should be aligned with the distinct roles of SFT and RL: SFT is better suited for acquiring not-yet-mastered reasoning skills, while RL is better suited for consolidating skills that the model can already partially access.
arXiv:2608.23256v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent work proposes next-chunk reasoning RL for leveraging no-CoT data---corpora such as worked solutions and textbook derivations that contain reason...
arXiv:2607. 14895v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reasoning language models (RLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in domains such as mathematics and coding.
arXiv:2604.02007v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Building general-purpose reasoning models using reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) across diverse domains has been widely adopte...
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.
arXiv:2509. 21013v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Given the prohibitive cost of pre-training large language models, it is essential to leverage smaller proxy models to optimize datasets before scaling up.
arXiv:2605. 28742v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Language models can use verifiable rewards to improve at a wide variety of reasoning tasks.
arXiv:2607. 16097v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.
arXiv:2606. 26671v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Post-training alignment determines the reasoning and human preference following capabilities of large language models, yet most existing works withhold detailed data construction, filtering rules and training recipes, which hinders community reproducibility and lightweight model optimization.
arXiv:2508. 09883v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable reasoning capabilities in tasks such as algorithmic coding and mathematical problem-solving.
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.
The paper explores whether structured linguistic reasoning traces can improve low‑resource machine translation by guiding large language models (LLMs). It proposes a pipeline that automatically generates step‑by‑step reasoning traces from Universal Dependencies treebanks, dictionaries, and grammar‑rule banks, and evaluates these traces in in‑context learning, supervised fine‑tuning, and reinforcement fine‑tuning on Xibe and Chintang. The results show that providing reliable reasoning traces at inference time significantly boosts translation quality, whereas using them as training data yields smaller, less consistent gains, indicating that LLMs can benefit from grammatical guidance but struggle to generate accurate analyses themselves.
The paper investigates whether the high costs of training chain-of-thought reasoning models can be reduced through algorithmic design. It introduces an autocurriculum approach that lets the model select which problems to focus on during training, showing that this method provably improves both supervised fine‑tuning and reinforcement learning. For supervised fine‑tuning, autocurriculum requires exponentially fewer reasoning demonstrations by targeting prompts where the model struggles, while for reinforcement learning it decouples computational cost from the quality of the reference model, making the burn‑in cost nearly independent of target accuracy.