Rethinking Generalization in Reasoning SFT: A Conditional Analysis on Optimization, Data, and Model Capability

Qihan Ren, Peng Wang, Ruikun Cai, Shuai Shao, Dadi Guo, Yuejin Xie, Yafu Li, Quanshi Zhang

and 3 more authors

Xia Hu, Jing Shao, Dongrui Liu

arXiv:2604.06628v2 · This workspace stays on this version. Check arXiv for newer versions

Affiliations and author notes

89.6renqihan@sjtu.edu.cnyueyue233@mail.ustc.edu.cnshaojing
liudongrui@pjlab.org.cn-0.25[height=1.5em]logo/GitHubInvertocatBlackClearspace.pdfhttps://github.com/Nebularaid2000/rethinksftgeneralizationhttps://github.com/Nebularaid2000/rethinksftgeneralization-0.25[height=1.5em]logo/hf-logo.pnghttps://huggingface.co/collections/jasonrqh/rethink-sft-generalizationhttps://huggingface.co/collections/jasonrqh/rethink-sft-generalization-0.25[height=1.5em]logo/modelscope.pnghttps://modelscope.cn/collections/nebularaid/RethinkSFTgeneralizationhttps://modelscope.cn/collections/nebularaid/RethinkSFTgeneralization
University of Science and Technology of China
Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Shanghai Jiao Tong University

Some source details need review 2 to check

Original formulas, table values and figures are preserved. Comparison can miss differences; use the original PDF to check details.

Reading view checked: 169 math expressions, 0 rendering failures; 83 of 83 images available.

Compared 176 of 210 source passages against 33 of 48 PDF pages.

A2_SS5_p18_pic1: the arXiv HTML draws 1 text or formula block(s) of this graphic outside its frame; each was scaled into its frame (to 55% or more) without changing any text or formula. Text may look smaller than in the PDF.
This long paper was only partially compared; the original sources remain available.

83 of 83 figure, table and graphic images captured. Open original PDF

Abstract

A prevailing narrative in LLM post-training holds that supervised fine-tuning (SFT) memorizes while reinforcement learning (RL) generalizes. We revisit this claim for reasoning SFT with long chain-of-thought (CoT) supervision and find that cross-domain generalization is not absent but conditional, jointly shaped by optimization dynamics, training data, and base-model capability. Some reported failures are under-optimization artifacts: cross-domain performance first degrades before recovering and improving with extended training (a dip-and-recovery pattern), so short-training checkpoints can underestimate generalization. Data quality and structure both matter: low-quality solutions broadly hurt generalization, while verified long-CoT traces yield consistent cross-domain gains. Model capability is essential: stronger models internalize transferable procedural patterns (e.g., backtracking) even from a toy arithmetic game, while weaker ones imitate surface verbosity. This generalization is asymmetric, however: reasoning improves while safety degrades, reframing the question from whether reasoning SFT generalizes to under what conditions and at what cost.

A prevailing narrative in Large Language Model (LLM) post-training is that supervised fine-tuning (SFT) improves in-domain performance but is prone to memorization, whereas reinforcement learning (RL) generalizes better. Chu et al. (2025) established the influential “SFT memorizes, RL generalizes” framing on synthetic tasks, and subsequent work reported similar patterns in more realistic settings such as math reasoning (Huan et al., 2025). This narrative has motivated considerable efforts in understanding RL’s advantage over SFT (Chen et al., 2025; Shenfeld et al., 2026; Lai et al., 2026; Zhu et al., 2025) and in algorithmic modifications to the SFT objective itself (Wu et al., 2026; Zhu et al., 2026).

However, the experimental conditions under which this narrative was established vary considerably. For instance, Chu et al. (2025) trained without long chain-of-thought (CoT) supervision; Huan et al. (2025) trained for relatively short epochs; Wu et al. (2026) used data with uneven response quality; and many studies, constrained by compute or time, used small or early-generation base models without explicitly considering model capability as a factor. Separately, many SFT-vs-RL comparisons focus on retention (whether fine-tuning degrades existing abilities) rather than on the acquisition of new generalization, and often start from instruction-tuned models where confounds from alignment are hard to disentangle (Chen et al., 2025; Lai et al., 2026). These entangled differences in optimization, data, model capability, and starting checkpoint make it unclear whether reported generalization failures are intrinsic to SFT or merely artifacts of particular experimental conditions.

This question is particularly pressing for reasoning SFT, where models are often trained on long CoT traces. Long-CoT traces are different in data structure, harder to fit than short-form targets, and more demanding of model capability. This makes reasoning SFT a setting where optimization, data, and model factors are critical and can be more clearly studied.

In this work, we show that generalization in reasoning SFT is not an inherent property of the training objective itself, but a conditional phenomenon jointly shaped by optimization dynamics, training data, and model capability. We systematically vary each factor to identify when and how reasoning SFT generalizes across domains, and what trade-offs arise when it does. We adopt math-only reasoning SFT on pretrained base models as our primary controlled testbed, a setting that provides easily verifiable responses and direct comparison with prior studies (Huan et al., 2025; Wu et al., 2026). We then evaluate generalization across in-domain math reasoning, OOD reasoning (e.g., code, science), general capabilities (e.g., instruction following), and safety. Our findings are as follows:

Figure 1: Conceptual framework: generalization in reasoning SFT is a conditional property jointly shaped by optimization dynamics, training data, and model capability.

•
Apparent non-generalization may be an under-optimization artifact. Generalization performance exhibits a dip-and-recovery pattern during long-CoT SFT: it first degrades before recovering and eventually surpassing the base model, suggesting that short-training checkpoints can systematically underestimate SFT’s generalization potential. Further analysis shows that long-CoT data benefits more from repeated exposure than from one-pass coverage under matched compute, and that pronounced overfitting symptoms appear only under aggressive training schedules. This indicates that under-optimization may be a more prevalent risk than over-optimization in this regime.
•
Training data matters for generalization. Data quality matters: SFT on low-quality solutions can broadly hurt performance, whereas verified long-CoT traces yield consistent cross-domain gains. Data structure also matters: on strong base models, long-CoT traces from a toy arithmetic game (Countdown) can improve performance on several reasoning benchmarks (e.g., math, code, science), and can even outperform a no-CoT dataset with diverse math problems. This suggests that procedural patterns in long CoT traces, such as backtracking and verification, may be what generalizes beyond math content itself.
•
Generalization requires sufficient model capability. Given identical long-CoT data, stronger models show broad generalization across domains, while weaker models show marginal or negative gains (even on in-domain math) and tend to produce prolonged responses. This suggests weaker models may imitate the surface form of reasoning (e.g., verbosity) without internalizing the patterns that drive cross-domain generalization.
•
Generalization is asymmetric. Despite broad gains, long-CoT SFT weakens safety, consistent with findings on self-jailbreaking in reasoning models (Yong and Bach, 2025; Mao et al., 2025). After training, models self-rationalize during thinking (e.g., “for educational purposes”) and eventually generate harmful content. In our controlled comparison, safety drop is much larger with CoT than without CoT, suggesting that this degradation is driven by the procedural patterns rather than domain content.

These results suggest that the question “does SFT generalize?” is under-specified. Generalization is not a fixed property of the SFT objective but varies substantially with optimization sufficiency, data quality and structure, and base model capability. Conclusions drawn when any of these factors is lacking (e.g., evaluating early checkpoints, training on low-quality data, or using weak base models) may mistake artifacts of the experimental setup for inherent limitations of SFT. A more productive framing is to ask under what conditions reasoning SFT generalizes, and our study is an early effort to plot this conditional landscape.

This section describes the default experimental setup. Specific variations in training schedule, data, and base model are introduced in later sections where they become relevant.

Our main experiments use Qwen3-14B-Base and Qwen3-8B-Base (Yang et al., 2025) as base models, and include InternLM2.5-20B-Base (Cai et al., 2024) and Qwen2.5 base models (Yang et al., 2024) to assess whether the observed trends extend beyond one model family. All these models are pretrained checkpoints before instruction tuning, which minimizes confounds from alignment or preference optimization. Subsequent sections additionally examine smaller models (e.g., 4B and 1.7B) to study the role of model capability (Section 5).

Our default training dataset, Math-CoT-20k, consists of 20,480 math reasoning examples with long CoT. The queries are sampled from the default subset of OpenR1-Math-220k (Lozhkov et al., 2025), and the responses are generated by Qwen3-32B with thinking enabled. Each response contains a thinking process followed by step-by-step final summary and answer. We generate multiple responses per query and use math-verify (Hugging Face, 2024) to retain only those with correct answers. The maximum response length is set to 16,384 tokens. Please see App. B.1 for complete data generation settings.

Unless otherwise stated, all models are trained with standard SFT objective, which minimizes the negative log-likelihood over response tokens. The default training schedule uses the AdamW optimizer, a learning rate of 5e-5, a batch size of 256, a cosine learning rate schedule, and 8 training epochs. These choices are varied systematically in Sec. 3 to study the role of optimization dynamics. See App. B.2 for more optimization details.

Our evaluate suite aims to capture both the potential benefits and costs of reasoning SFT:

In-domain (ID) reasoning. MATH500 (Hendrycks et al., 2021) and AIME24 (Zhang and Math-AI Team, 2024) evaluate math reasoning, directly aligning with the training domain.

Out-of-domain (OOD) reasoning. LiveCodeBench (LCB) v2 (Jain et al., 2025) evaluates coding abilities, GPQA-Diamond (Rein et al., 2024) evaluates graduate-level scientific reasoning, and MMLU-Pro (Wang et al., 2024) evaluates broad knowledge-intensive reasoning. These tasks require reasoning capabilities in domains not presented in the training data.

General capabilities. IFEval (Zhou et al., 2023) measures instruction-following accuracy, AlpacaEval 2.0 (Li et al., 2023b; Dubois et al., 2024) measures open-ended response quality, and HaluEval (Li et al., 2023a) and TruthfulQA (Lin et al., 2022) measure truthfulness. These benchmarks test whether reasoning SFT enhances, or disrupts broader behaviors.

Safety. HEx-PHI (Qi et al., 2024) evaluates the model’s resistance to harmful queries, measured via attack success rate (ASR) and harmfulness score.

By default, we decode with temperature 0.6 and a max generation length of 32,768 tokens. We report pass@1 for IFEval, HaluEval, and MMLU-Pro; avg@3 for MATH500, LiveCodeBench v2, and GPQA-Diamond; and avg@10 for AIME24. For IFEval, we use strict instruction-level accuracy. For AlpacaEval 2.0, we report the average reward score from the Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct-RM-RB2 reward model. For TruthfulQA, we use the official judge models to score for helpfulness and truthfulness. For HEx-PHI, we follow the original paper and use GPT-4.1 as the judge model; we treat a score of 5 as a successful attack. All models were evaluated in a zero-shot manner. Full evaluation details are provided in App. B.4.

A common finding in prior work is that SFT improves in-domain performance but does not generalize well to OOD tasks, and may even degrade OOD capabilities (Chu et al., 2025; Huan et al., 2025). In this section, we show that this conclusion sometimes results from an incomplete view of the training trajectory. Long-CoT reasoning data is substantially harder to internalize than short-form targets, and the path from a base model to a well-trained reasoning model involves non-trivial dynamics that are easy to misread.

Figure 2: Replication of previous findings: short-epoch reasoning SFT improves math substantially but yields limited or negative gains on OOD reasoning and general capabilities.

Figure 3: Training dynamics of long-CoT reasoning SFT. **Top:** benchmark performance over training steps, showing a common dip-and-recovery pattern on most benchmarks. **Bottom:** response length over training steps, with an early length surge followed by a gradual pullback to shorter responses. Results on Qwen2.5 models are provided in App. C.2.

Replication of previous findings. We first replicated prior findings of weak cross-domain generalization of reasoning SFT, under the same short-epoch protocol (Huan et al., 2025): we trained Qwen3-14B-Base on Math-CoT-20k for one epoch. As Fig. 2 shows, in-domain math performance improved substantially, while OOD gains were limited on some benchmarks (e.g., LCB v2, GPQA-D) and even turned negative on others (e.g., IFEval, AlpacaEval). This weak generalization was more pronounced with a smaller learning rate (App. C.1).

Cross-domain generalization evolves non-monotonically. We then extended the number of training epochs to 8 (our default setup) and tracked benchmark performance throughout training for Qwen3-14B/8B-Base and InternLM2.5-20B-Base. Fig. 3 (top) shows the performance change over training steps, demonstrating a characteristic dip-and-recovery pattern. On in-domain math reasoning tasks (MATH500, AIME24), performance showed a brief early dip in some settings, followed by quick recovery $^{1}$ and a clear upward trend. Several OOD benchmarks (e.g., LCB v2, GPQA, IFEval, and AlpacaEval 2.0) exhibited a similar pattern, often with deeper dips and slower recovery, and eventually improved beyond the base model’s level after extended training.

These observations suggest that some previously reported limits of SFT generalization may be an artifact of under-optimization, rather than an intrinsic limit of SFT itself. They also indicate that long-CoT data is optimization-challenging, which requires extended training and exhibits nuanced dynamics.

Extension beyond the default setting. We extend our default setting along four dimensions. First, replacing the Qwen3-32B teacher with DeepSeek-R1 while keeping the same 20k math queries produces similar results, with modest differences in absolute scores (App. C.2). Second, running the experiment on different seeds shows that the performance and response length are relatively stable across seeds (App. C.3). Third, we construct Code-CoT-20k from the OpenThoughts3 dataset (Guha et al., 2026). Under the same training schedule, Code-CoT-20k shows similar dynamics and expected domain affinity: it outperforms Math-CoT-20k on LiveCodeBench (66.9% vs. 55.1%) but underperforms it on AIME24 (60.3% vs. 66.0%; App. C.4). Finally, we test other model families beyond Qwen and InternLM and obtain consistent results: Granite-4.1-8B-Base (IBM Research, 2026) shows a clear dip-and-recovery pattern, while Gemma3-27B-Base (Team et al., 2025) achieves substantial late-stage transfer with a noisier intermediate trajectory (App. C.5).

To better understand the dip-and-recovery dynamics, we tracked response length across checkpoints and compared it with performance. As Fig. 3 (bottom) shows, response length rose sharply in early training and then gradually declined. This rise-and-fall trend often co-occurs with performance changes: the longest responses tend to appear along with the weakest performance, while responses become more concise as performance recovers.

Interpretation. Early in long-CoT SFT, models first learn a salient surface pattern: they produce prolonged thinking-like traces, before reliably learning finer reasoning patterns such as decomposition, backtracking, or self-evaluation (see App. C.6 for illustration). This stage hurts performance in two ways: (1) shallow imitation of long CoT limits transfer even on reasoning tasks, (2) verbose outputs plus occasional format errors (e.g., missing </think> tag) can affect results on instruction following and alignment. With continued optimization, models learn more transferable procedural patterns and finer language style, resulting in shorter, more targeted outputs and stronger cross-domain generalization.

To look beyond response length, we also use rule-based cues to track backtracking, self-verification, and strategy switching behaviors in LiveCodeBench and GPQA traces. At early checkpoints, models often produce very long responses but repeatedly explore unproductive paths. As performance recovers, correct responses contain more self-verification; at later checkpoints, the model reaches higher accuracy with shorter traces and less excessive exploration. Full definitions and results are provided in App. C.11.

Setup. The difficulty of fitting long-CoT data raises a natural question: is it more effective to train for multiple epochs on a small dataset or to train for a single epoch on a larger one? We design a controlled experiment with three settings, all using Qwen3-14B-Base and fixing total gradient steps (640 steps): Setting 1 (default, 20k examples, batch size 256, 8 epochs), Setting 2 (2.5k examples, batch size 32, 8 epochs), and Setting 3 (20k examples, batch size 32, 1 epoch). The key comparison is between Settings 2 and 3: they are matched in training budget but differ in exposure pattern (8-pass repetition vs. 1-pass coverage).

Original Table 1 — Table 1: Comparison of three training schedules under a fixed 640-step budget. Best and second-best are marked in bold and underlined, respectively.

Table 1
Training schedule	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Setting1: 20k, bsz 256, ep 8	95.1%	66.0%	55.1%	63.3%	74.4%	68.9%	1.42	72.8%	95.6%
Setting2: 2.5k, bsz 32, ep 8	94.9%	61.7%	51.7%	59.9%	73.6%	63.4%	1.10	72.6%	96.2%
Setting3: 20k, bsz 32, ep 1	92.9%	48.0%	45.4%	46.8%	70.5%	59.8%	0.93	75.2%	86.3%

Repeated exposure is more effective. Tab. 1 shows that Setting 2 substantially outperformed Setting 3 across different benchmarks, indicating that under the same training budget, repeated exposure was more effective than one-pass coverage for long-CoT reasoning SFT. Setting 1 further outperformed Setting 2 when epoch and step counts were fixed, showing that larger data diversity still adds value.

Setup. The above results suggest that in our default long-CoT setup, underfitting signals are more visible than overfitting. To close this loop, we stress-tested training aggressiveness on Qwen3-14B-Base with Math-CoT-20k under four schedules: Setting 1 (default, LR 5e-5, 8 epochs, cosine LR schedule), Setting 2 (LR 5e-5, 16 epochs, cosine LR), Setting 3 (LR 5e-5, 16 epochs, constant LR), and Setting 4 (LR 1e-4, 16 epochs, constant LR). These settings increase optimization intensity from mild to aggressive. The constant-LR settings also test whether the dip-and-recovery pattern is an artifact of cosine learning rate decay.

Figure 4: Benchmark performance (**top**) and response length (**bottom**) across training steps under overfitting stress test. See App. C.7 for results on other benchmarks.

Overfitting symptoms and regimes. As Fig. 4 (top) shows, across most benchmarks, Setting 2 maintained stable performance or continued to improve throughout training. Setting 3 began to show late-stage degradation on part of the OOD suite. Setting 4 showed the clearest overfitting-like pattern: OOD performance dropped broadly, and even in-domain math performance dropped, while response length started to rise again (Fig. 4, bottom). Importantly, several benchmarks under the constant-LR setting still exhibit an early dip followed by recovery before the later degradation. Thus, the exact depth and timing depend on the learning rate schedule, but dip-and-recovery itself is not specific to cosine decay.

Therefore, in our setup, pronounced overfitting symptoms appear mainly under a combined aggressive schedule (high learning rate, no LR decay, long epochs), typically accompanied by broad performance drops (including in-domain math) and a rebound in response length.

The above section shows that sufficiently trained reasoning SFT can generalize across domains. Here we show that this generalization critically depends on the quality and structure of the training data.

Setup. We compared four data configurations under our default training settings. Besides the default Math-CoT-20k dataset, we introduced three variants:

•
Math-NoCoT-20k: Math-CoT-20k with <think>...</think> removed, keeping only the final step-by-step summaries and answers.
•
NuminaMath-20k: 20k examples sourced from NuminaMath-1.5 (LI et al., 2024), using the same queries as Math-CoT-20k, but with human-crafted solutions and no long CoT. The solutions are typically short and of mixed quality (e.g., missing steps). Commonly used by prior studies on SFT generalization (Wu et al., 2026; Zhang et al., 2026).
•
Countdown-CoT-20k: 20k Countdown (Pan et al., 2025) examples with long-CoT responses generated by Qwen3-32B. A simple arithmetic game that needs trial and error.

Original Table 2 — Table 2: Performance comparison between four data configurations. Best/second-best within each model block are bolded/underlined. We report the performance of the last checkpoint. Please see App. D for results on intermediate checkpoints.

Table 2
Model	Data config	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Qwen3-14B	Base	77.8%	14.7%	37.5%	44.1%	61.8%	64.2%	0.53	54.7%	94.4%
Math-CoT	95.1%	66.0%	55.1%	63.3%	74.4%	68.9%	1.42	72.8%	95.6%
Math-NoCoT	82.4%	17.0%	40.3%	48.3%	69.1%	71.7%	2.11	70.9%	100%
NuminaMath	74.8%	14.0%	20.4%	38.4%	59.0%	52.8%	$-$ 0.45	62.7%	88.6%
Countdown-CoT	91.5%	41.7%	43.8%	53.0%	65.4%	61.3%	1.36	72.3%	92.4%
Qwen3-8B	Base	76.8%	12.0%	29.1%	39.7%	55.2%	54.8%	$-$ 0.13	50.5%	84.6%
Math-CoT	90.1%	47.7%	31.0%	48.5%	69.5%	56.6%	0.92	71.3%	91.3%
Math-NoCoT	77.4%	13.3%	31.8%	45.1%	60.9%	63.7%	1.85	56.2%	100%
NuminaMath	72.5%	7.0%	7.9%	37.2%	48.2%	37.8%	$-$ 0.70	64.2%	89.8%
Countdown-CoT	87.6%	26.0%	32.8%	41.6%	56.6%	52.3%	0.13	68.9%	75.5%
InternLM2.5-20B	Base	53.7%	1.7%	17.6%	20.9%	34.3%	51.1%	$-$ 0.84	60.6%	72.6%
Math-CoT	80.3%	16.7%	26.0%	41.4%	61.5%	46.9%	0.93	76.1%	97.7%
Math-NoCoT	57.9%	5.0%	17.9%	35.7%	48.3%	52.6%	1.23	69.1%	99.8%
NuminaMath	45.7%	1.0%	3.9%	29.3%	38.9%	39.1%	-1.55	58.3%	99.0%
Countdown-CoT	54.5%	2.3%	22.1%	25.3%	47.5%	39.6%	0.40	70.2%	99.4%

The role of long CoT traces. Comparing Math-CoT-20k and Math-NoCoT-20k isolates the effect of long CoT traces: the two variants share the same queries and final step-by-step solutions, while Math-NoCoT-20k omits the exploratory process.

Tab. 2 shows that long-CoT supervision yielded stronger generalization on reasoning-intensive tasks, particularly in math reasoning. On OOD reasoning tasks (LCB v2, GPQA-D, MMLU-Pro), the same trend remained visible for larger models, while the gain was weaker for the smaller Qwen3-8B model. In contrast, on IFEval and AlpacaEval 2.0, Math-NoCoT-20k often performed slightly better than Math-CoT-20k, since these benchmarks emphasize instruction following and alignment-related behavior over long reasoning.

Data quality matters. In the no-long-CoT setting, we further compare Math-NoCoT-20k with NuminaMath-20k to isolate the effect of data quality. Tab. 2 shows that Math-NoCoT-20k consistently performed better, while NuminaMath-20k showed broad OOD degradation and little gains in in-domain math reasoning. Moreover, Tab. 33 shows that NuminaMath exhibited little or no recovery in the dip-and-recovery dynamics in Sec. 3. This indicates that low-quality data can significantly degrade the utility of SFT, and training on low-quality data may create a false impression that SFT does not generalize.

Procedural generalization: evidence from Countdown. The Countdown-CoT dataset tests whether long-CoT SFT transfers abstract reasoning procedures beyond domain-specific knowledge. It is an arithmetic game in which the model must combine a given set of numbers using basic operations ( $+,-,\times,\div$ ) to reach a target value. Response traces in Countdown-CoT contain structured exploratory procedures such as decomposition, backtracking, and verification, but without explicit domain knowledge.

Tab. 2 shows that for both Qwen3 models, Countdown-CoT-20k improved over the base model on reasoning tasks, even outperforming Math-NoCoT-20k on math tasks despite its narrow arithmetic scope. This suggests that the structure of reasoning procedures, rather than domain content, can be a key driver of generalization. However, this transfer is not automatic: Countdown yields only marginal math gains on InternLM2.5-20B, whose base reasoning performance is weaker than Qwen3-14B despite its larger size. Countdown provides general procedures such as search, backtracking, and verification, but little broad mathematical knowledge. Reusing these procedures on other tasks may therefore require a base model with sufficiently strong prior knowledge and representations, illustrating the interaction between data structure and model capability (App. C.12). Additionally, Countdown did not generalize equally to all tasks. For example, IFEval scores can degrade.

The previous sections show that generalization depends on optimization dynamics and training data. In this section, we examine the third factor in our framework: the role of the base model’s capability. We show that the same training data and protocol can produce very different generalization outcomes depending on the model scale.

Setup. We trained four Qwen3 base models of increasing size (1.7B, 4B, 8B, 14B) on the same Math-CoT-20k data under the same training protocol. In this controlled setting, differences in generalization behavior can be attributed to differences in model capability $^{2}$ .

Figure 5: Comparison of performance (**top**) and response length (**bottom**) across model sizes. Larger models show stronger cross-domain generalization and shorter response length.

Higher-capability models generalize better. Fig. 5 shows a clear capability-dependent trend under matched data and training settings. The 14B model exhibited a pronounced dip-and-recovery trajectory and ended with broad gains across domains. The 8B and 4B models also showed a recovery phase, but with smaller improvements, whereas the 1.7B model showed marginal or negative gains on all benchmarks even at late checkpoints. This pattern suggests that optimization and data alone do not guarantee generlization: higher-capability models are more likely to internalize transferable reasoning patterns, while lower-capability models tend to imitate the surface form. These results also suggest that the dip-and-recovery dynamics in Sec. 3.1 are themselves dependent on model capability. Results on remaining benchmarks and Qwen2.5 models are provided in App. C.8.

Response length and model capability. Fig. 5 also shows that smaller models retained longer response lengths even after extended training, whereas larger models’ response lengths contracted faster and stabilized at lower values. As discussed in Sec. 3.2, response length can be taken as a coarse diagnostic of learning stage: models that remain in a “prolonged response” phase likely have not progressed beyond learning surface-level patterns. Smaller models are more likely to remain in this phase, suggesting limited capability to move from imitating long-response patterns to internalizing true reasoning patterns (see App. C.9 and C.10 for case studies and analysis). This result also echoes with prior observations: smaller distilled reasoning models (e.g., Deepseek-Distill-Qwen-1.5B) often exhibit longer response lengths than larger distilled counterparts (7B and 14B) (Guo et al., 2025).

Previous sections show that long-CoT reasoning SFT transfers across domains. However, this transfer is asymmetric: the same training consistently weakens safety and refusal. A controlled CoT vs. no-CoT comparison with matched queries and answers further suggests that this degradation comes from procedural patterns in long-CoT traces.

Setup. We evaluate how safety performance on HEx-PHI changes for three models: Qwen3-14B-Base, Qwen3-8B-Base, and InternLM2.5-20B-Base. Specifically, we compare base models with SFT checkpoints trained on Math-CoT-20k and Math-NoCoT-20k.

Figure 6: (a) Attack success rate (ASR, lower means safer) on HEx-PHI across training checkpoints. (b) Case study: models after long-CoT SFT tend to self-rationalize during thinking, eventually producing harmful content.

Safety degradation under long-CoT SFT. Fig. 6 (a) shows that training with long-CoT data (Math-CoT-20k) led to a substantial increase in ASR on all three models. In contrast, training on no-CoT data (Math-NoCoT-20k) led to much smaller safety degradation. Since Math-CoT-20k and Math-NoCoT-20k contain the same queries and final solutions, this suggests that the observed safety drop is more closely related to the procedural patterns in long-CoT traces than with the math content itself.

How long-CoT SFT changes refusal behavior: a case study. To understand this degradation, we compared how models answer the same harmful queries before and after long-CoT SFT (Fig. 6 (b)). The base models often directly issued short refusals. After long-CoT SFT, the model started with warnings, then self-rationalized during thinking (e.g., “for educational purposes”), and eventually provided harmful details wrapped in caveats.

We further support this observation with a quantitative analysis based on rule-based detectors. Self-rationalization patterns appears in 67.3% of responses after Math-CoT training, compared with 31.0% after matched Math-NoCoT training and 6.3% for the base model. Across Math-CoT checkpoints, its prevalence is strongly correlated with ASR (Pearson $r=0.979$ ; Spearman $\rho=0.857$ ), whereas the NoCoT series does not show the same relationship. Full definitions, statistics, and additional cases are provided in App. C.15.

Paradoxically, this may also be a form of generalization. We hypothesize that long-CoT SFT strengthens a persistent problem-solving prior: explore alternatives, search for workable paths, and persist through obstacles. For harmful queries, the obstacle becomes the refusal policy itself, and extended reasoning provides room to work around safety guardrails.

The comparison between SFT and RL has drawn much attention in post-training. Chu et al. (2025) first established the “SFT memorizes, RL generalizes” framing on synthetic tasks. Huan et al. (2025) reported limited cross-domain transfer on math reasoning SFT–a finding we replicated under the same short-training protocol, although longer optimization led to a different outcome. In another line of work, RL’s advantage has been linked to on-policy data, mode-seeking updates, regularization, and weight-space preservation (Chen et al., 2025; Tajwar et al., 2024; Shenfeld et al., 2026; Lai et al., 2026; Jin et al., 2025; Zhu et al., 2025). Our work is complementary: instead of comparing SFT and RL, we examine when reasoning SFT itself transfers across domains and identify several factors that have received less attention. In addition, unlike prior work focused on forgetting, we start from pretrained base models rather than instruction-tuned ones to better separate newly acquired generalization from the retention of existing capabilities.

A separate line of work sought to modify the SFT objective to improve generalization. Several studies re-interpreted SFT through an RL or distribution-matching lens (Qin and Springenberg, 2025; Lv et al., 2026) and proposed alternative weighting strategies (Wu et al., 2026; Zhang et al., 2026; Li et al., 2025a; Lin et al., 2026). Our study is orthogonal: we keep the vanilla SFT objective and show that generalization is not an intrinsic property of the objective, but jointly depends on optimization, data, and model capability.

Meanwhile, several works investigated individual factors related to SFT generalization. Concurrent work revisits the SFT–RL gap from the perspective of SFT data, showing that data source and composition can materially change the observed generalization gap (Hou et al., 2026). While it uses data as an explanation for differences between training objectives, we study the broader interaction of optimization, data, and model capability within reasoning SFT. Most closely related to our optimization findings, Through the Valley reports that limited long-CoT data can first increase response length and reduce math accuracy, while additional data enables recovery, especially for larger models (Luo et al., 2025). It similarly argues that surface patterns such as verbosity are learned before effective reasoning. However, it varies data scale on instruction-tuned models and focuses on math, whereas we track optimization under fixed data scale from pretrained models and evaluate cross-domain transfer.

Another concurrent study shows that even correct traces differ in generalization utility: branch-heavy trajectories can induce inefficient exploration, whereas more convergent traces transfer better (Li et al., 2026b). This supports our conclusion that trace structure matters beyond correctness, while we additionally examine its interaction with optimization stage and base-model capability. More broadly, incomplete SFT learning may reflect missing prerequisites, conflicting supervision, or insufficient optimization (Xue et al., 2026). Other studies connect generalization to sample selection and layer-wise gradient behavior (Li et al., 2024; Li et al., 2025b; Li et al., 2026a), or examine memorization, prompt diversity, incorrect-answer traces, data repetition, and small-model looping (Xie et al., 2025; Lin et al., 2025; Chandra et al., 2026; Kopiczko et al., 2026; Pipis et al., 2025). Rather than isolating one factor, our work studies optimization, data, and model capability in a shared controlled framework and connects them to cross-domain transfer.

Prior work also showed that extended reasoning can induce self-jailbreaking and degrade safety (Yong and Bach, 2025; Mao et al., 2025). In contrast, we start from a generalization perspective and make a controlled comparison between CoT and no-CoT supervision with matched queries and answers, causally attributing the safety drop to procedural patterns.

A matched-query comparison with GRPO. To contextualize our findings, we additionally compare SFT with GRPO using the same Qwen3-14B base model, query pool, batch size, max response length, and number of gradient updates. Under this setting, SFT performs better on the five ID/OOD reasoning benchmarks, while results on general capabilities are mixed. This comparison does not establish a general advantage of SFT over RL, since total FLOPs are not matched and GRPO is sensitive to reward design and entropy collapse. Rather, it suggests that the SFT–RL comparison is itself conditional on the data, optimization budget, and reward design. Full settings and results are provided in App. C.14.

Conclusion. In this study, we show that cross-domain generalization in reasoning SFT is conditional rather than absent. First, short-training checkpoints can substantially underestimate eventual transfer because performance may dip before recovering with continued optimization. Second, data quality and trace structure determine whether SFT transfers useful reasoning procedures or broadly degrades performance. Third, base-model capability determines whether long-CoT supervision is internalized as transferable reasoning or mainly imitated as verbose output. These conclusions are supported across random seeds, two training-data domains (math and code), multiple teachers, and additional model families. Nevertheless, generalization can be asymmetric: the same procedural supervision that improves reasoning can weaken safety. The productive question is therefore not whether reasoning SFT generalizes, but under what conditions it does and at what cost. Further discussion and limitations are provided in App. A.

This paper is supported by Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. This paper is also partially supported by MiraclePlus.

We have described the details of data generation, training schedule, and evaluation setting in App. B. We have opensourced all training code, evaluation code, datasets, and models (including intermediate checkpoints) for ease of reproduction and future research.

References

Cai et al. (2024) Z. Cai, M. Cao, H. Chen, K. Chen, K. Chen, X. Chen, X. Chen, Z. Chen, Z. Chen, P. Chu, X. Dong, H. Duan, Q. Fan, Z. Fei, Y. Gao, J. Ge, C. Gu, Y. Gu, T. Gui, A. Guo, Q. Guo, C. He, Y. Hu, T. Huang, T. Jiang, P. Jiao, Z. Jin, Z. Lei, J. Li, J. Li, L. Li, S. Li, W. Li, Y. Li, H. Liu, J. Liu, J. Hong, K. Liu, K. Liu, X. Liu, C. Lv, H. Lv, K. Lv, L. Ma, R. Ma, Z. Ma, W. Ning, L. Ouyang, J. Qiu, Y. Qu, F. Shang, Y. Shao, D. Song, Z. Song, Z. Sui, P. Sun, Y. Sun, H. Tang, B. Wang, G. Wang, J. Wang, J. Wang, R. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Wang, X. Wei, Q. Weng, F. Wu, Y. Xiong, C. Xu, R. Xu, H. Yan, Y. Yan, X. Yang, H. Ye, H. Ying, J. Yu, J. Yu, Y. Zang, C. Zhang, L. Zhang, P. Zhang, P. Zhang, R. Zhang, S. Zhang, S. Zhang, W. Zhang, W. Zhang, X. Zhang, X. Zhang, H. Zhao, Q. Zhao, X. Zhao, F. Zhou, Z. Zhou, J. Zhuo, Y. Zou, X. Qiu, Y. Qiao, and D. Lin InternLM2 technical report. External Links: 2403.17297 Cited by: §2.1.
Chandra et al. (2026) A. Chandra, A. Agrawal, A. Hosseini, S. Fischmeister, R. Agarwal, N. Goyal, and A. Courville Shape of thought: when distribution matters more than correctness in reasoning tasks. External Links: 2512.22255, Link Cited by: §7.Source
Chen et al. (2025) H. Chen, N. Razin, K. Narasimhan, and D. Chen Retaining by doing: the role of on-policy data in mitigating forgetting. External Links: 2510.18874, Link Cited by: §1, §1, §7.Source
Chu et al. (2025) T. Chu, Y. Zhai, J. Yang, S. Tong, S. Xie, D. Schuurmans, Q. V. Le, S. Levine, and Y. Ma SFT memorizes, RL generalizes: a comparative study of foundation model post-training. In Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning, External Links: Link Cited by: §1, §1, §3, §7.Source
Dubois et al. (2024) Y. Dubois, B. Galambosi, P. Liang, and T. B. Hashimoto Length-controlled alpacaeval: a simple way to debias automatic evaluators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04475. Cited by: §2.2.
Gao et al. (2024) L. Gao, J. Tow, B. Abbasi, S. Biderman, S. Black, A. DiPofi, C. Foster, L. Golding, J. Hsu, A. Le Noac’h, H. Li, K. McDonell, N. Muennighoff, C. Ociepa, J. Phang, L. Reynolds, H. Schoelkopf, A. Skowron, L. Sutawika, E. Tang, A. Thite, B. Wang, K. Wang, and A. Zou The language model evaluation harness. Zenodo. External Links: Document, Link Cited by: §B.4.Source Source
Guha et al. (2026) E. K. Guha, R. Marten, S. Keh, N. Raoof, G. Smyrnis, H. Bansal, M. Nezhurina, J. Mercat, T. Vu, Z. R. Sprague, A. Suvarna, B. Feuer, L. L. Chen, Z. Khan, E. Frankel, S. Grover, C. Choi, N. Muennighoff, S. Su, W. Zhao, J. Yang, S. Pimpalgaonkar, K. sharma, C. C. Ji, Y. Deng, S. M. Pratt, V. Ramanujan, J. Saad-Falcon, S. Acharya, J. Li, A. Dave, A. Albalak, K. Arora, B. Wulfe, C. Hegde, G. Durrett, S. Oh, M. Bansal, S. Gabriel, A. Grover, K. Chang, V. Shankar, A. Gokaslan, M. A. Merrill, T. Hashimoto, Y. Choi, J. Jitsev, R. Heckel, M. Sathiamoorthy, A. Dimakis, and L. Schmidt OpenThoughts: data recipes for reasoning models. In The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, External Links: Link Cited by: §3.1.Source
Guo et al. (2025) D. Guo, D. Yang, H. Zhang, J. Song, P. Wang, Q. Zhu, R. Xu, R. Zhang, S. Ma, X. Bi, X. Zhang, X. Yu, Y. Wu, Z. F. Wu, Z. Gou, Z. Shao, Z. Li, Z. Gao, A. Liu, B. Xue, B. Wang, B. Wu, B. Feng, C. Lu, C. Zhao, C. Deng, C. Ruan, D. Dai, D. Chen, D. Ji, E. Li, F. Lin, F. Dai, F. Luo, G. Hao, G. Chen, G. Li, H. Zhang, H. Xu, H. Ding, H. Gao, H. Qu, H. Li, J. Guo, J. Li, J. Chen, J. Yuan, J. Tu, J. Qiu, J. Li, J. L. Cai, J. Ni, J. Liang, J. Chen, K. Dong, K. Hu, K. You, K. Gao, K. Guan, K. Huang, K. Yu, L. Wang, L. Zhang, L. Zhao, L. Wang, L. Zhang, L. Xu, L. Xia, M. Zhang, M. Zhang, M. Tang, M. Zhou, M. Li, M. Wang, M. Li, N. Tian, P. Huang, P. Zhang, Q. Wang, Q. Chen, Q. Du, R. Ge, R. Zhang, R. Pan, R. Wang, R. J. Chen, R. L. Jin, R. Chen, S. Lu, S. Zhou, S. Chen, S. Ye, S. Wang, S. Yu, S. Zhou, S. Pan, S. S. Li, S. Zhou, S. Wu, T. Yun, T. Pei, T. Sun, T. Wang, W. Zeng, W. Liu, W. Liang, W. Gao, W. Yu, W. Zhang, W. L. Xiao, W. An, X. Liu, X. Wang, X. Chen, X. Nie, X. Cheng, X. Liu, X. Xie, X. Liu, X. Yang, X. Li, X. Su, X. Lin, X. Q. Li, X. Jin, X. Shen, X. Chen, X. Sun, X. Wang, X. Song, X. Zhou, X. Wang, X. Shan, Y. K. Li, Y. Q. Wang, Y. X. Wei, Y. Zhang, Y. Xu, Y. Li, Y. Zhao, Y. Sun, Y. Wang, Y. Yu, Y. Zhang, Y. Shi, Y. Xiong, Y. He, Y. Piao, Y. Wang, Y. Tan, Y. Ma, Y. Liu, Y. Guo, Y. Ou, Y. Wang, Y. Gong, Y. Zou, Y. He, Y. Xiong, Y. Luo, Y. You, Y. Liu, Y. Zhou, Y. X. Zhu, Y. Huang, Y. Li, Y. Zheng, Y. Zhu, Y. Ma, Y. Tang, Y. Zha, Y. Yan, Z. Z. Ren, Z. Ren, Z. Sha, Z. Fu, Z. Xu, Z. Xie, Z. Zhang, Z. Hao, Z. Ma, Z. Yan, Z. Wu, Z. Gu, Z. Zhu, Z. Liu, Z. Li, Z. Xie, Z. Song, Z. Pan, Z. Huang, Z. Xu, Z. Zhang, and Z. Zhang DeepSeek-r1 incentivizes reasoning in llms through reinforcement learning. Nature 645 (8081), pp. 633–638. External Links: ISSN 1476-4687, Link, Document Cited by: §5.Source Source
Hendrycks et al. (2021) D. Hendrycks, C. Burns, S. Kadavath, A. Arora, S. Basart, E. Tang, D. Song, and J. Steinhardt Measuring mathematical problem solving with the MATH dataset. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2), External Links: Link Cited by: §2.2.Source
Hou et al. (2026) Y. Hou, F. Zhang, Y. Cheng, J. Pan, X. Li, and Z. Yang Rethinking ”RL generalizes, SFT memorizes”: the role of SFT data. In ICML 2026 Workshop on Foundations of Deep Generative Models: Understanding Memorization, Generalization, and Reasoning, External Links: Link Cited by: §7.Source
Huan et al. (2025) M. Huan, Y. Li, T. Zheng, X. Xu, S. Kim, M. Du, R. Poovendran, G. Neubig, and X. Yue Does math reasoning improve general llm capabilities? understanding transferability of llm reasoning. External Links: 2507.00432, Link Cited by: §1, §1, §1, §3.1, §3, §7.Source
Hugging Face (2024) Hugging Face Math-verify. GitHub. Note: https://github.com/huggingface/Math-Verify Cited by: §B.1, §2.1.Source
IBM Research (2026) IBM Research Granite 4.1 language models. Note: https://huggingface.co/blog/ibm-granite/granite-4-1Accessed: 2026-04-28 Cited by: §3.1.Source
Jain et al. (2025) N. Jain, K. Han, A. Gu, W. Li, F. Yan, T. Zhang, S. Wang, A. Solar-Lezama, K. Sen, and I. Stoica LiveCodeBench: holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, External Links: Link Cited by: §2.2.Source
Jin et al. (2025) H. Jin, S. Lv, S. Wu, and M. Hamdaqa RL is neither a panacea nor a mirage: understanding supervised vs. reinforcement learning fine-tuning for llms. External Links: 2508.16546, Link Cited by: §7.Source
Kopiczko et al. (2026) D. J. Kopiczko, S. Vaze, T. Blankevoort, and Y. M. Asano Data repetition beats data scaling in long-cot supervised fine-tuning. External Links: 2602.11149, Link Cited by: §7.Source
Lai et al. (2026) S. Lai, H. Zhao, R. Feng, C. Ma, W. Liu, H. Zhao, X. Lin, D. Yi, Q. Zhang, H. Liu, G. Meng, and F. Zhu Reinforcement fine-tuning naturally mitigates forgetting in continual post-training. External Links: 2507.05386, Link Cited by: §1, §1, §7.Source
Li et al. (2025a) G. Li, R. Qiu, X. Chen, H. Ji, and H. Tong Beyond log likelihood: probability-based objectives for supervised fine-tuning across the model capability continuum. External Links: 2510.00526, Link Cited by: §7.Source
LI et al. (2024) J. LI, E. Beeching, L. Tunstall, B. Lipkin, R. Soletskyi, S. C. Huang, K. Rasul, L. Yu, A. Jiang, Z. Shen, Z. Qin, B. Dong, L. Zhou, Y. Fleureau, G. Lample, and S. Polu NuminaMath. Numina. Note: https://huggingface.co/datasets/AI-MO/NuminaMath-1.5 Cited by: 2nd item.
Li et al. (2023a) J. Li, X. Cheng, W. X. Zhao, J. Nie, and J. Wen HaluEval: a large-scale hallucination evaluation benchmark for large language models. External Links: Link Cited by: §2.2.Source
Li et al. (2026a) M. Li, Y. Li, Z. Li, and T. Zhou How instruction and reasoning data shape post-training: data quality through the lens of layer-wise gradients. In Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), M. Liakata, V. P. Moreira, J. Zhang, and D. Jurgens (Eds.), San Diego, California, United States, pp. 33249–33299. External Links: Link, Document, ISBN 979-8-89176-390-6 Cited by: §7.Source Source
Li et al. (2025b) M. Li, Y. Li, and T. Zhou What happened in LLMs layers when trained for fast vs. slow thinking: a gradient perspective. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), W. Che, J. Nabende, E. Shutova, and M. T. Pilehvar (Eds.), Vienna, Austria, pp. 32017–32154. External Links: Link, Document, ISBN 979-8-89176-251-0 Cited by: §7.Source Source
Li et al. (2024) M. Li, Y. Zhang, Z. Li, J. Chen, L. Chen, N. Cheng, J. Wang, T. Zhou, and J. Xiao From quantity to quality: boosting LLM performance with self-guided data selection for instruction tuning. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), K. Duh, H. Gomez, and S. Bethard (Eds.), Mexico City, Mexico, pp. 7602–7635. External Links: Link, Document Cited by: §7.Source Source
Li et al. (2023b) X. Li, T. Zhang, Y. Dubois, R. Taori, I. Gulrajani, C. Guestrin, P. Liang, and T. B. Hashimoto AlpacaEval: an automatic evaluator of instruction-following models. GitHub. Note: https://github.com/tatsu-lab/alpaca_eval Cited by: §2.2.Source
Li et al. (2026b) Z. Li, X. Xi, Z. Chen, W. Wang, G. Jiang, R. Shen, L. Song, Y. Wei, and D. Lian On the role of reasoning patterns in the generalization discrepancy of long chain-of-thought supervised fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.01702. Cited by: §7.
Lin et al. (2026) J. Lin, Z. Wang, K. Qian, T. Wang, A. Srinivasan, H. Zeng, R. Jiao, X. Zhou, J. Gesi, D. Wang, Y. Guo, K. Zhong, W. Zhang, sujay sanghavi, C. Chen, H. Yun, and L. Li SFT doesn’t always hurt general capabilities: revisiting domain-specific fine-tuning in LLMs. In The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, External Links: Link Cited by: §7.Source
Lin et al. (2022) S. Lin, J. Hilton, and O. Evans Truthfulqa: measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: long papers), pp. 3214–3252. External Links: Link Cited by: §2.2.Source
Lin et al. (2025) X. Lin, H. Sang, Z. Wang, and X. Zhang Debunk the myth of sft generalization. External Links: 2510.00237, Link Cited by: §7.Source
Loshchilov and Hutter (2019) I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter Decoupled weight decay regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, External Links: Link Cited by: §B.2.Source
Lozhkov et al. (2025) A. Lozhkov, H. Kydlíček, L. B. Allal, G. Penedo, E. Beeching, Q. Gallouédec, N. Habib, L. Tunstall, and L. von Werra OpenR1-math-220k. Hugging Face. Note: https://huggingface.co/datasets/open-r1/OpenR1-Math-220k Cited by: §B.1, §2.1.Source
Luo et al. (2025) R. Luo, J. Li, C. Huang, and W. Lu Through the valley: path to effective long cot training for small language models. In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 4972–4992. Cited by: §7.
Lv et al. (2026) X. Lv, Y. Zuo, Y. Sun, H. Liu, Y. Wei, Z. Chen, X. Zhu, K. Zhang, B. Wang, N. Ding, and B. Zhou Towards a unified view of large language model post-training. External Links: 2509.04419, Link Cited by: §7.Source
Mao et al. (2025) Y. Mao, C. Zhang, J. Wang, X. Guan, B. Cao, Y. Lu, H. Lin, X. Han, and L. Sun When models outthink their safety: unveiling and mitigating self-jailbreak in large reasoning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.21285. Cited by: 4th item, §7.
Pan et al. (2025) J. Pan, J. Zhang, X. Wang, L. Yuan, H. Peng, and A. Suhr TinyZero. External Links: Link Cited by: 3rd item.Source
Pipis et al. (2025) C. Pipis, S. Garg, V. Kontonis, V. Shrivastava, A. Krishnamurthy, and D. Papailiopoulos Wait, wait, wait… why do reasoning models loop?. External Links: 2512.12895, Link Cited by: §7.Source
Qi et al. (2024) X. Qi, Y. Zeng, T. Xie, P. Chen, R. Jia, P. Mittal, and P. Henderson Fine-tuning aligned language models compromises safety, even when users do not intend to!. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, External Links: Link Cited by: §2.2.Source
Qin and Springenberg (2025) C. Qin and J. T. Springenberg Supervised fine tuning on curated data is reinforcement learning (and can be improved). External Links: 2507.12856, Link Cited by: §7.Source
Raoof et al. (2025) N. Raoof, E. K. Guha, R. Marten, J. Mercat, E. Frankel, S. Keh, H. Bansal, G. Smyrnis, M. Nezhurina, T. Vu, Z. R. Sprague, M. A. Merrill, L. Chen, C. Choi, Z. Khan, S. Grover, B. Feuer, A. Suvarna, S. Su, W. Zhao, K. Sharma, C. C. Ji, K. Arora, J. Li, A. Gokaslan, S. M. Pratt, N. Muennighoff, J. Saad-Falcon, J. Yang, A. Aali, S. Pimpalgaonkar, A. Albalak, A. Dave, H. Pouransari, G. Durrett, S. Oh, T. Hashimoto, V. Shankar, Y. Choi, M. Bansal, C. Hegde, R. Heckel, J. Jitsev, M. Sathiamoorthy, A. Dimakis, and L. Schmidt Evalchemy. External Links: Link Cited by: §B.4.Source
Rein et al. (2024) D. Rein, B. L. Hou, A. C. Stickland, J. Petty, R. Y. Pang, J. Dirani, J. Michael, and S. R. Bowman GPQA: a graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark. In First Conference on Language Modeling, External Links: Link Cited by: §2.2.Source
Seed (2025) B. Seed Verl. External Links: Link Cited by: §B.2.Source
Shenfeld et al. (2026) I. Shenfeld, J. Pari, and P. Agrawal RL’s razor: why online reinforcement learning forgets less. In The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, External Links: Link Cited by: §1, §7.Source
Tajwar et al. (2024) F. Tajwar, A. Singh, A. Sharma, R. Rafailov, J. Schneider, T. Xie, S. Ermon, C. Finn, and A. Kumar Preference fine-tuning of LLMs should leverage suboptimal, on-policy data. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, External Links: Link Cited by: §7.Source
Team et al. (2025) G. Team, A. Kamath, J. Ferret, S. Pathak, N. Vieillard, R. Merhej, S. Perrin, T. Matejovicova, A. Ramé, M. Rivière, et al. Gemma 3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19786. Cited by: §3.1.
Wang et al. (2024) Y. Wang, X. Ma, G. Zhang, Y. Ni, A. Chandra, S. Guo, W. Ren, A. Arulraj, X. He, Z. Jiang, et al. MMLU-pro: a more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01574. Cited by: §2.2.
Wu et al. (2026) Y. Wu, Y. Zhou, Z. Ziheng, Y. Peng, X. Ye, X. Hu, W. Zhu, L. Qi, M. Yang, and X. Yang On the generalization of SFT: a reinforcement learning perspective with reward rectification. In The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, External Links: Link Cited by: §1, §1, §1, 2nd item, §7.Source
Xie et al. (2025) C. Xie, Y. Huang, C. Zhang, D. Yu, X. Chen, B. Y. Lin, B. Li, B. Ghazi, and R. Kumar On memorization of large language models in logical reasoning. External Links: 2410.23123, Link Cited by: §7.Source
Xue et al. (2026) C. Xue, Y. Wang, M. Liu, D. Liang, X. Han, P. Liu, X. Wu, C. Lu, L. Jiang, Y. Lu, H. Shi, S. Liang, M. Peng, and F. D. Salim Why supervised fine-tuning fails to learn: a systematic study of incomplete learning in large language models. In Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), M. Liakata, V. P. Moreira, J. Zhang, and D. Jurgens (Eds.), San Diego, California, United States, pp. 30186–30213. External Links: Link, Document, ISBN 979-8-89176-390-6 Cited by: §7.Source Source
Yan et al. (2025) J. Yan, Y. Li, Z. Hu, Z. Wang, G. Cui, X. Qu, Y. Cheng, and Y. Zhang Learning to reason under off-policy guidance. External Links: 2504.14945, Link Cited by: §C.2.Source
Yang et al. (2025) A. Yang, A. Li, B. Yang, B. Zhang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yu, C. Gao, C. Huang, C. Lv, et al. Qwen3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388. Cited by: §2.1.
Yang et al. (2024) A. Yang, B. Yang, B. Zhang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yu, C. Li, D. Liu, F. Huang, H. Wei, et al. Qwen2. 5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115. Cited by: §2.1.
Yong and Bach (2025) Z. Yong and S. H. Bach Self-jailbreaking: language models can reason themselves out of safety alignment after benign reasoning training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.20956. Cited by: 4th item, §7.
Zhang et al. (2026) M. Zhang, Y. Liu, S. Lin, X. Yang, Q. Dai, C. Luo, W. Jiang, P. Hou, A. Zeng, X. Geng, and B. Guo Towards on-policy sft: distribution discriminant theory and its applications in llm training. External Links: 2602.12222, Link Cited by: 2nd item, §7.Source
Zhang and Math-AI Team (2024) Y. Zhang and Math-AI Team American invitational mathematics examination (aime) 2024. External Links: Link Cited by: §2.2.Source
Zhou et al. (2023) J. Zhou, T. Lu, S. Mishra, S. Brahma, S. Basu, Y. Luan, D. Zhou, and L. Hou Instruction-following evaluation for large language models. External Links: 2311.07911, Link Cited by: §2.2.Source
Zhu et al. (2025) H. Zhu, Z. Zhang, H. Huang, D. Su, Z. Liu, J. Zhao, I. Fedorov, H. Pirsiavash, J. Lee, D. Z. Pan, Z. Wang, Y. Tian, and K. S. Tai The path not taken: RLVR provably learns off the principals. In NeurIPS 2025 Workshop on Efficient Reasoning, External Links: Link Cited by: §1, §7.Source
Zhu et al. (2026) W. Zhu, R. Xie, R. Wang, X. Sun, D. Wang, and P. Liu Proximal supervised fine-tuning. In The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, External Links: Link Cited by: §1.Source

Our findings point to two broader implications for reasoning post-training. First, the strong dependence of generalization on base-model capability (Sec. 5) suggests that more attention should be paid to the interaction between pretraining/mid-training data and downstream SFT data. In our experiments, model capability is not merely a function of parameter count: models of comparable size but from different pretraining pipelines (e.g., Qwen3 vs. InternLM2.5) can exhibit different generalization trajectories under identical SFT data and optimization. This implies that the knowledge and representations acquired during pretraining and mid-training meaningfully shape what a model can extract from post-training supervision, and that treating the base model as a fixed starting point may obscure an important design choice.

Second, our results highlight the need for co-design of model, data, algorithm, and training schedule. No single factor in isolation determines generalization: a strong base model can still fail to generalize under poor data (Sec. 4), high-quality data can appear ineffective under insufficient optimization (Sec. 3), and extended training of a weak model on high-quality data yields only marginal gains (Sec. 5). There is no universally optimal data recipe, algorithm, or schedule. The best configuration depends on the other components. This interdependence complicates the common practice of benchmarking individual factors in isolation and suggests that future work should explore these factors jointly.

Our study has several limitations. (1) Math reasoning remains our primary controlled training domain. Although the Code-CoT experiment provides an additional domain-level replication, broader validation on scientific, multimodal, and other reasoning supervision remains open. (2) The experiments cover several dense model families up to 27B parameters, but do not include substantially larger dense models or mixture-of-experts architectures. (3) Our GRPO comparison matches the base model, query pool, batch size, response limit, and number of gradient updates, but not total generated tokens or FLOPs; conclusions may change with the RL algorithm, reward design, and budget definition. (4) We isolate optimization, data, and model capability in multiple controlled settings, but do not perform a full factorial study that quantifies all main and interaction effects. (5) The trace-level and self-rationalization analyses rely on rule-based behavioral detectors. They provide reproducible behavioral evidence, but not a parameter- or representation-level mechanistic explanation.

Our default training dataset, Math-CoT-20k, consists of 20,480 math reasoning examples with long CoT. The queries are sampled from the default subset of OpenR1-Math-220k (Lozhkov et al., 2025), and the responses are generated by Qwen3-32B with thinking enabled. Each response contains a thinking process followed by step-by-step final summary and answer. The maximum response length is set to 16,384 tokens. The generation parameters are: temperature=0.6, top-p=0.95, top-k=20, min-p=0, following the suggestion in the official Huggingface repository. We generate multiple responses per query and use math-verify (Hugging Face, 2024) to retain only those with correct answers. For each query, we only keep one correct response. If multiple correct responses exist, we randomly select one.

The Math-NoCoT-20k dataset is directly derived from the Math-CoT-20k dataset by removing the thinking process. The Countdown-CoT-20k dataset samples 20k queries from Countdown-Tasks-3to4-Unique, with responses generated by Qwen3-32B using the same generation parameters listed above. The NuminaMath-20k dataset contains the same queries, with responses sourced from the NuminaMath-1.5 dataset.

We use the SFT trainer in Verl (Seed, 2025) to train all models. Unless otherwise noted, we use AdamW (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) for all SFT runs. Weight decay is set to 0.01, and warmup is set to 10% of total optimization steps (linear warmup before cosine decay or constant LR). Tab. 3 summarizes the default training hyperparameters used in the main experiments. All model training runs are conducted on 8 NVIDIA H200 GPUs, and all evaluations are conducted on 2 NVIDIA H200 GPUs.

Original Table 3 — Table 3: Default training hyperparameters for the main SFT setting.

Table 3
Hyperparameter	Value
Optimizer	AdamW
Learning rate	5e-5
Batch size	256
Weight decay	0.01
Warmup steps	10% of total steps
LR schedule	Cosine decay
Gradient steps per epoch	80
Training epochs	8
Max prompt length	3072
Max response length	16384

The prompt template used for training is shown below. We take Qwen’s chat template as an example.

Graphic from the paper; its text follows

We rerun the default Qwen3-14B-Base and Math-CoT-20k setting with three independent random seeds, keeping the data, optimizer, learning-rate schedule, batch size, and evaluation protocol fixed. The base model is shared across runs and evaluated once; SFT checkpoint results are reported as mean $\pm$ standard deviation across seeds.

We construct Code-CoT-20k from OpenThoughts3-1.2M, whose reasoning traces are generated by QwQ-32B. We remove responses longer than 16,384 tokens, discard responses with incomplete <think>... </think> tags, retain one randomly selected response when a query has multiple responses, and randomly downsample the remaining pool to 20,480 examples. Qwen3-14B-Base is trained with the same optimizer, batch size, learning rate, schedule, and number of gradient updates as in the default Math-CoT-20k setting.

We train Granite-4.1-8B-Base and Gemma3-27B-Base on Math-CoT-20k using the same default training and evaluation protocol. These experiments are used as cross-family robustness checks rather than a controlled parameter-scaling comparison.

We train Qwen3-14B-Base with GRPO using the same query pool as Math-CoT-20k and match the maximum response length (16,384), train batch size (256), and total number of gradient updates (640). We evaluate two format-reward variants: the format reward is either applied only to correct answers or applied unconditionally. Both variants use a system prompt encouraging separation of the thinking process and final answer with think tags. This comparison does not match total generated tokens or FLOPs.

We lowercase each generated response and count fixed phrase or regular-expression matches belonging to three behavior families. Backtracking covers revision and repair cues; self-verification covers generic checks and task-specific validation; strategy switching covers explicit changes of approach and domain-specific strategy terms. Counts are aggregated over all responses at a checkpoint and normalized by the total generated-token count, yielding occurrences per 1K tokens. We separately report correct and incorrect traces.

A completion is marked as self-rationalizing when its thinking process contains more than two markers drawn from educational or hypothetical framing, legal/risk/ethics caveats, pivot phrases, goal acceptance, and thought-level self-negotiation. We apply the same detector to the Qwen3-14B base model and the Math-CoT-20k and Math-NoCoT-20k checkpoint series. This detector is intended as a reproducible behavioral proxy and may contain false positives or false negatives.

In this section, we describe the evaluation setting used throughout the paper. We aim to measure not only in-domain gains, but also cross-domain transfer, general capability shifts, and safety side effects under a consistent evaluation setup.

We use lm-evaluation-harness (Gao et al., 2024) for IFEval, HaluEval, TruthfulQA, and MMLU-Pro, and Evalchemy (Raoof et al., 2025) for LiveCodeBench v2 and GPQA-Diamond. For math benchmarks, we use math_verify to validate extracted final answers. Across all benchmarks, we standardize the core protocol while adapting benchmark-specific settings to ensure fair and reliable evaluation.

Here we present a brief introduction for each benchmark, and describe the evaluation hyperparameters and metrics.

•
MATH-500: The MATH-500 benchmark contains 500 curated math problems on formal mathematical reasoning and multi-step problem solving.
We generate 3 responses for each problem at temperature 0.6 and report the average accuracy (avg@3).
•
AIME24: The AIME24 benchmark contains 30 official AIME 2024 problems, which are competition-level mathematical problems.
We sample 10 responses for each problem at temperature 0.6 and report the average accuracy (avg@10).
•
LiveCodeBench v2: LiveCodeBench v2 contains 511 coding problems which requires extensive reasoning.
We sample 3 responses for each problem at temperature 0.6 and report the average accuracy (avg@3).
•
GPQA Diamond: GPQA-Diamond contains 198 expert-written questions ongraduate-level scientific reasoning and multi-step knowledge-intensive inference. To reduce positional bias, we randomly shuffle both options for each question.
We sample 3 responses for each problem at temperature 0.6 and report the average accuracy (avg@3).
•
MMLU-Pro: MMLU-Pro contains 12k problems for knowledge-intensive reasoning. We uniformly sample an 1000-question subset from each category for evaluation.
We sample 1 response for each question at temperature 0.6 and report accuracy (pass@1).
•
IFEval: IFEval contains 541 instruction-following tasks. The evaluation is rule-based.
We sample 1 response for each prompt at temperature 0.6 and report the average instruction-level strict accuracy. We remove all content before the last </think> tag when evaluating the response.
•
AlpacaEval 2.0: AlpacaEval 2.0 evaluate open-ended helpfulness and response quality, containing 805 user queries in total.
We sample 1 response for each prompt at temperature 0.6 and report the average reward score from the Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct-RM-RB2 reward model (shortened as RB2 in App. D). We remove all content before the last </think> tag when evaluating the response. To ensure the reliability of our evaluation, we additionally employ two supplementary reward models: Skywork-Reward-V2-Llama-3.1-8B (shortened as Sky in App. D) and RM-Mistral-7B (shortened as Mis in App. D), to score the model’s responses. The results, presented in App. D, exhibit consistent trends.
•
HaluEval: We evaluate hallucination behavior and factual consistency on HaluEval, which includes Dialogue, QA, and Summarization subsets (10000 examples each; 30000 in total). For evaluation efficiency, we randomly sample 1000 examples from each subset, yielding a 3000-example evaluation set.
We sample 1 response per example at temperature 0.6 and report the average accuracy across all three subsets.
•
TruthfulQA: We evaluate truthfulness under open-ended QA on TruthfulQA, using the standard generation split of 817 questions.
We use the official TruthfulQA judge models: allenai/truthfulqa-truth-judge-llama2-7B and allenai/truthfulqa-info-judge-llama2-7B for scoring truthfulness and helpfulness, respectively. We sample 1 response for each question at temperature 0.6 and report the average accuracy. We remove all content before the last </think> tag when evaluating the response.
•
HEx-PHI (Human-Extended Policy-Oriented Harmful Instruction Benchmark): HEx-PHI contains 300 harmful instructions (30 examples $\times$ 10 prohibited categories identified in Meta’s Llama-2 usage policy and OpenAI’s usage policy) for LLM harmfulness evaluation. The dataset is available at this link.
Following the original paper, we use a strong model (GPT-4.1) as a judge model to give harmfulness score (1-5) to the generated responses. A score of 5 is regarded as a successful attask. We sample 1 response for each question at temperature 0.6 and report the average Attack Success Rate (ASR). We remove all content before the last </think> tag when evaluating the response.

We provide benchmark-specific prompts, judge settings, and scoring templates used for model-based evaluations in this section.

Benchmark-specific generation prompt. We only use user prompt for generation without using any system prompt, making it consistent with the training setting. We provide generation prompts for each benchmark below, taking Qwen chat template as an example.

Benchmark-specific evaluation prompt. Here we present the evaluation prompt for benchmarks that rely on reward models or judge models.

In Sec. 3.1, we note that weak cross-domain generalization is more pronounced under a smaller learning rate (1e-5). Tab. 4 reports the full results.

Original Table 4 — Table 4: Supplementary results for Sec. 3.1 (Replication of previous findings). Under the same short-epoch setting on Qwen3-14B-Base, a smaller learning rate (1e-5 vs. 5e-5) makes the weak cross-domain generalization more pronounced, with broader drops on OOD and general-capability benchmarks.

Table 4
Training schedule	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	77.8%	14.7%	37.5%	41.8%	61.8%	64.2%	0.53	54.7%	94.4%
lr 5e-5, epoch 1	90.5%	44.3%	42.2%	44.6%	69.3%	54.3%	0.42	76.0%	79.3%
lr 1e-5, epoch 1	82.2%	28.7%	34.4%	41.8%	58.6%	40.5%	-0.84	59.8%	61.6%
lr 1e-5, epoch 2	88.9%	39.0%	38.2%	40.1%	69.4%	41.6%	-0.89	68.3%	63.6%

To test robustness to teacher choice, we rerun the default training setting with DeepSeek-R1-generated responses on the same 20k math queries (sourced from the LUFFY dataset (Yan et al., 2025)).

Figure 7: Optimization dynamics using DeepSeek-R1-generated data. **Top**: Performance change along with training steps. **Bottom**: Response length change along with training steps.

As shown in Fig. 7, compared with Qwen3-32B-teacher data, absolute benchmark scores on Deepseek-R1-generated data differ slightly, but the key qualitative findings remain unchanged: performance still shows a dip-and-recovery pattern and reaches better gains with sufficient training.

Figure 8: Optimization dynamics on Qwen2.5 models under the default training setting. **Top**: Performance change along with training steps. **Bottom**: Response length change along with training steps.

Fig. 8 shows that the same qualitative training dynamics can be observed under another model family (Qwen2.5). In particular, we still observe the characteristic non-monotonic trajectory on several OOD and general-capability benchmarks (an early dip followed by slow recovery), while in-domain math improves more steadily with continued training.

We rerun Qwen3-14B-Base training on Math-CoT-20k with three random seeds. Tab. 5 and Tab. 6 report mean $\pm$ standard deviation. The early dip, subsequent recovery, and response-length rise-and-fall remain stable across seeds, while the late-stage gains are generally larger than seed-level variation.

Original Table 5 — Table 5: Three-seed benchmark performance for Qwen3-14B-Base trained on Math-CoT-20k. Accuracy entries are percentages; AlpacaEval is the raw reward-model score.

Table 5
Step	MATH500	AIME24	LCB v2	GPQA-D	MMLU-Pro	IFEval	AlpacaEval	HaluEval	TruthfulQA
10	$79.3\!\pm\!0.2$	$13.7\!\pm\!2.0$	$38.0\!\pm\!0.4$	$42.1\!\pm\!1.0$	$61.1\!\pm\!1.3$	$59.4\!\pm\!2.6$	$0.68\!\pm\!0.01$	$55.2\!\pm\!0.7$	$95.4\!\pm\!0.4$
20	$68.2\!\pm\!0.5$	$24.3\!\pm\!1.2$	$15.5\!\pm\!0.6$	$29.3\!\pm\!0.9$	$40.8\!\pm\!3.6$	$35.6\!\pm\!0.5$	$-1.94\!\pm\!0.03$	$50.2\!\pm\!0.5$	$49.8\!\pm\!1.8$
40	$88.1\!\pm\!0.4$	$39.1\!\pm\!1.4$	$38.6\!\pm\!1.3$	$40.3\!\pm\!1.2$	$69.5\!\pm\!1.3$	$45.4\!\pm\!2.2$	$-0.30\!\pm\!0.10$	$74.6\!\pm\!0.6$	$77.9\!\pm\!2.7$
80	$90.6\!\pm\!1.0$	$48.3\!\pm\!2.0$	$42.0\!\pm\!1.1$	$46.1\!\pm\!2.5$	$71.5\!\pm\!0.3$	$58.2\!\pm\!2.3$	$0.53\!\pm\!0.18$	$72.0\!\pm\!0.7$	$81.4\!\pm\!2.4$
160	$93.4\!\pm\!0.2$	$55.3\!\pm\!1.3$	$48.2\!\pm\!0.4$	$51.7\!\pm\!0.9$	$72.8\!\pm\!0.4$	$61.7\!\pm\!1.6$	$1.03\!\pm\!0.15$	$73.1\!\pm\!1.0$	$88.6\!\pm\!0.6$
320	$94.9\!\pm\!0.2$	$61.3\!\pm\!2.0$	$53.3\!\pm\!0.6$	$60.0\!\pm\!0.9$	$73.6\!\pm\!0.2$	$65.9\!\pm\!2.5$	$1.32\!\pm\!0.05$	$71.8\!\pm\!0.6$	$94.5\!\pm\!1.2$
480	$94.9\!\pm\!0.3$	$66.8\!\pm\!1.3$	$54.9\!\pm\!1.5$	$63.6\!\pm\!0.7$	$74.8\!\pm\!0.4$	$69.6\!\pm\!1.6$	$1.38\!\pm\!0.06$	$72.0\!\pm\!0.5$	$95.9\!\pm\!1.0$
640	$95.3\!\pm\!0.2$	$66.0\!\pm\!1.7$	$54.5\!\pm\!0.6$	$63.4\!\pm\!0.8$	$74.2\!\pm\!0.2$	$68.4\!\pm\!0.7$	$1.49\!\pm\!0.06$	$72.8\!\pm\!0.1$	$96.0\!\pm\!0.9$

Original Table 6 — Table 6: Three-seed average response length. Values are reported in thousands of tokens.

Table 6
Step	MATH500	AIME24	LCB v2	GPQA-D	MMLU-Pro	IFEval	AlpacaEval	HaluEval	TruthfulQA
Base	1.1k	3.9k	0.8k	1.0k	0.9k	3.7k	0.5k	5.3k	3.9k
10	$1.3\!\pm\!0.1$ k	$5.4\!\pm\!0.7$ k	$0.9\!\pm\!0.1$ k	$1.3\!\pm\!0.1$ k	$0.7\!\pm\!0.1$ k	$4.3\!\pm\!0.4$ k	$0.5\!\pm\!0.0$ k	$1.7\!\pm\!0.2$ k	$2.8\!\pm\!0.1$ k
20	$22.7\!\pm\!0.2$ k	$25.3\!\pm\!0.6$ k	$14.7\!\pm\!0.2$ k	$23.3\!\pm\!0.2$ k	$27.3\!\pm\!0.3$ k	$28.3\!\pm\!0.3$ k	$3.3\!\pm\!0.2$ k	$13.8\!\pm\!0.3$ k	$24.9\!\pm\!0.5$ k
40	$7.3\!\pm\!0.2$ k	$23.2\!\pm\!0.3$ k	$21.4\!\pm\!0.6$ k	$19.2\!\pm\!1.0$ k	$7.4\!\pm\!0.6$ k	$14.0\!\pm\!0.6$ k	$5.1\!\pm\!0.3$ k	$2.5\!\pm\!0.6$ k	$14.6\!\pm\!1.1$ k
80	$6.7\!\pm\!0.9$ k	$20.1\!\pm\!1.6$ k	$18.8\!\pm\!1.5$ k	$17.0\!\pm\!1.1$ k	$6.5\!\pm\!0.5$ k	$8.9\!\pm\!1.2$ k	$4.3\!\pm\!0.5$ k	$1.1\!\pm\!0.4$ k	$12.0\!\pm\!2.2$ k
160	$6.1\!\pm\!0.7$ k	$19.0\!\pm\!1.4$ k	$16.6\!\pm\!1.0$ k	$14.1\!\pm\!1.3$ k	$5.7\!\pm\!0.7$ k	$6.9\!\pm\!1.1$ k	$4.1\!\pm\!0.4$ k	$0.9\!\pm\!0.2$ k	$9.1\!\pm\!1.5$ k
320	$5.4\!\pm\!0.3$ k	$17.4\!\pm\!0.8$ k	$13.4\!\pm\!0.9$ k	$10.0\!\pm\!0.9$ k	$4.4\!\pm\!0.3$ k	$4.2\!\pm\!0.9$ k	$3.6\!\pm\!0.3$ k	$0.8\!\pm\!0.2$ k	$6.8\!\pm\!3.0$ k
480	$5.4\!\pm\!0.1$ k	$16.0\!\pm\!0.3$ k	$12.8\!\pm\!0.3$ k	$9.4\!\pm\!0.2$ k	$4.3\!\pm\!0.1$ k	$3.8\!\pm\!0.2$ k	$3.5\!\pm\!0.2$ k	$0.7\!\pm\!0.1$ k	$5.0\!\pm\!0.1$ k
640	$5.3\!\pm\!0.0$ k	$16.6\!\pm\!0.4$ k	$12.6\!\pm\!0.2$ k	$9.0\!\pm\!0.3$ k	$4.1\!\pm\!0.1$ k	$3.8\!\pm\!0.3$ k	$3.3\!\pm\!0.1$ k	$0.7\!\pm\!0.1$ k	$4.6\!\pm\!0.6$ k

Tab. 7 and Tab. 8 show that Code-CoT-20k produces a qualitatively similar dip-and-recovery trajectory and response-length contraction. The strongest final gain shifts toward the code-domain benchmark, while broad recovery also occurs outside the training domain.

Original Table 7 — Table 7: Benchmark performance across Code-CoT-20k training checkpoints. Accuracy entries are percentages; AlpacaEval is the raw reward-model score.

Table 7
Step	MATH500	AIME24	LCB v2	GPQA-D	MMLU-Pro	IFEval	AlpacaEval	HaluEval	TruthfulQA
Base	77.8	14.7	37.5	41.8	61.8	64.2	0.53	54.7	94.4
10	77.9	13.3	36.1	42.1	60.4	54.6	0.49	55.3	93.3
20	56.5	10.0	32.0	30.3	50.3	44.2	-1.15	53.6	72.5
40	89.9	42.0	16.2	44.3	69.2	45.7	-0.20	73.2	77.1
80	91.0	48.7	36.5	46.8	71.3	65.1	1.23	72.5	84.3
160	94.2	53.7	56.6	55.6	71.1	71.7	1.44	72.7	96.1
320	94.9	59.3	64.7	60.1	73.3	75.9	1.67	72.6	98.8
480	95.0	60.7	67.2	59.6	74.0	73.0	1.74	70.5	99.8
640	95.7	60.3	66.9	62.5	73.5	73.7	1.76	72.1	99.8

Original Table 8 — Table 8: Average response length across Code-CoT-20k training checkpoints.

Table 8
Step	MATH500	AIME24	LCB v2	GPQA-D	MMLU-Pro	IFEval	AlpacaEval	HaluEval	TruthfulQA
Base	1.1k	3.9k	765	1.0k	851	3.7k	495	5.3k	3.9k
10	1.5k	5.7k	866	1.8k	958	5.0k	530	2.0k	4.6k
20	19.4k	23.3k	5.7k	19.3k	17.9k	20.2k	2.8k	6.8k	17.4k
40	10.0k	22.9k	29.3k	18.7k	8.8k	18.3k	5.0k	4.3k	22.6k
80	8.6k	20.8k	21.2k	18.3k	8.5k	11.5k	3.5k	1.2k	16.2k
160	5.6k	18.5k	14.7k	12.5k	5.0k	5.7k	2.9k	738	5.8k
320	4.6k	16.1k	12.1k	10.3k	4.2k	3.7k	2.7k	606	3.4k
480	4.6k	15.4k	10.7k	9.1k	4.0k	3.6k	2.7k	646	2.5k
640	4.7k	16.0k	11.0k	9.1k	4.1k	3.9k	2.7k	662	2.7k

We repeat Math-CoT-20k training on Granite-4.1-8B-Base and Gemma3-27B-Base. Granite provides a clear cross-family replication of dip-and-recovery, while Gemma shows substantial late-stage gains with a less uniform intermediate trajectory.

Original Table 9 — Table 9: Math-CoT-20k training dynamics on Granite-4.1-8B-Base and Gemma3-27B-Base. Accuracy entries are percentages; AlpacaEval is the raw reward-model score.

Table 9
Model	Step	MATH500	AIME24	LCB v2	GPQA-D	MMLU-Pro	IFEval	AlpacaEval	HaluEval	TruthfulQA
Granite-4.1-8B	Base	74.5	36.3	7.8	31.6	29.5	55.2	-3.78	45.6	72.1
	20	20.1	1.0	0.2	9.6	8.9	26.5	-5.32	45.7	60.8
	40	45.5	3.7	3.2	23.7	28.7	30.8	-4.56	58.9	89.1
	80	74.7	20.0	12.5	32.5	41.3	35.0	-3.91	63.3	89.6
	160	87.9	37.7	31.2	43.4	52.7	36.0	-3.84	69.7	95.8
	320	91.4	48.0	39.3	47.5	60.7	35.1	-3.21	72.1	97.9
	480	93.7	56.0	44.7	51.7	66.2	38.2	-2.74	74.2	98.8
	640	92.9	54.7	43.8	50.2	66.4	42.3	-2.67	74.6	99.6
Gemma3-27B	Base	26.3	0.7	4.7	8.2	15.5	36.2	-6.69	46.3	22.4
	20	65.3	9.7	2.1	28.0	56.9	28.1	-1.04	62.3	82.3
	40	59.5	8.3	3.5	19.7	50.3	28.1	-2.31	58.5	75.8
	80	73.6	12.3	13.1	29.5	59.2	34.2	-1.06	65.8	90.1
	160	74.1	16.3	10.4	25.8	58.2	33.1	-0.94	65.1	67.9
	320	85.3	27.7	13.1	39.4	67.4	36.0	-0.91	71.0	91.3
	480	90.4	37.3	21.3	49.8	69.6	38.6	-0.82	71.0	96.8
	640	89.1	39.3	21.5	50.3	69.0	38.5	-0.69	71.6	98.0

As shown in Fig. 9, these two responses address the same geometry problem yet exhibit a clear contrast in error-handling behavior, illustrating how shallow imitation of long CoT limits transfer even on reasoning tasks.

Qwen3-14B-Base step 40 response produces a prolonged thinking-like trace—deriving an intractable quartic equation and repeatedly recognizing the impasse—yet never reliably employs finer reasoning abilities such as backtracking to a simpler approach, ultimately exhausting the token limit without producing an answer.

Qwen3-14B-Base step 640 response also encounters an arithmetic error mid-derivation, but demonstrates the finer reasoning abilities acquired later in training: it decomposes the problem via an independent method, self-evaluates by cross-validating the two results, precisely backtracks to the erroneous step, corrects it, and re-verifies before arriving at the correct answer.

Figure 9: Case study: on the same geometry problem, the early checkpoint (Step 40) exhibits prolonged but shallow reasoning, while the late checkpoint (Step 640) backtracks, self-corrects, and reaches the correct answer.

We provide results on other benchmarks to supplement the result in Fig. 4. As shown in the following figure, in addition to AIME24, GPQA-D, LCB v2, and IFEval, the performance shows similar trends on most other benchmarks. Setting 2 (LR 5e-5, 16 epochs, cosine decay) maintains stable performance or continues to improve throughout training. Setting 3 (LR 5e-5, 16 epochs, constant LR) begins to show late-stage degradation on parts of the OOD suite. Setting 4 (LR 1e-4, 16 epochs, constant LR) shows the clearest overfitting-like pattern with broad OOD performance drops and even in-domain math performance decline.

Figure 10: Comparison of different training schedules in the overfitting stress test. Each plot shows the change of performance on one benchmark.

The following figure reports response length dynamics. It also shows a similar pattern with that in Fig. 4: under the most aggressive schedule (Setting 4), response length starts to rise again after initial stabilization, accompanying the performance degradation. This reinforces our interpretation that pronounced overfitting symptoms in long-CoT reasoning SFT appear mainly under combined aggressive conditions (high learning rate, no LR decay, long epochs), typically accompanied by broad performance drops including in-domain math and a rebound in response length.

Figure 11: Comparison of different training schedules in the overfitting stress test. Each plot shows the change of response length on one benchmark.

This subsection complements the analysis in Sec. 5 by providing full-benchmark details for the model capability experiments, including both the default Qwen3 family and the additional Qwen2.5 family.

Figure 12: Comparison of performance across different model sizes in the Qwen3 model family. Each plot shows the change of performance on one benchmark.

Fig. 12 extends the performance analysis in Sec. 5 to full benchmarks under the Qwen3-family model setting and again recovers the same qualitative conclusions as the main results. In particular, the relative ordering across settings remains stable across most checkpoints, reinforcing the robustness of our data-factor conclusions.

Figure 13: Comparison of response length across different model sizes in the Qwen3 model family. Each plot shows the change of response length on one benchmark.

Fig. 13 provides the corresponding full response-length view for Sec. 5 under the Qwen3-family model setting. The length curves here show a similar trend as those in the main text.

Figure 14: Comparison of performance across different model sizes in the Qwen2.5 model family. Each plot shows the change of performance on one benchmark.

Fig. 14 shows that the performance trend also hold for the Qwen2.5 model family.

Figure 15: Comparison of response length across different model sizes in the Qwen2.5 model family. Each plot shows the change of response length on one benchmark.

Finally, Fig. 15 shows the companion response length dynamics for the Qwen2.5 model family, which remain aligned with our observations in the main text.

Case I. As shown in Fig. 16, these two responses address the same number theory problem yet exhibit a clear contrast between surface-level pattern imitation and internalized reasoning. Qwen3-1.7B-Base step 640 response identifies the correct candidate set early on, yet never consolidates the conclusion. Instead, the model becomes trapped in a prolonged response loop. It repeats “Let me check 17, 53, 71” dozens of times without logical progression, imitating the surface-level pattern of “thorough verification” without genuinely executing it, until the token limit is exhausted. Qwen3-14B-Base step 640 response systematically verifies each candidate, cross-validates through an independent approach, and converges on a clean final answer of 3.

This contrast suggests that the smaller model remains in the prolonged response phase, imitating the form of deliberative reasoning, while the larger model has internalized true reasoning patterns.

Figure 16: Case study on low-capability vs. high-capability model behavior (case I).

Case II. As shown in Fig. 17, these two responses to the same badminton-learning prompt show a clear difference in reasoning quality and error patterns. Qwen3-1.7B-Base step 640 response becomes overly verbose and repetitive, repeatedly restating basic rules and restarting the explanation. It also exhibits topic drift—shifting from rules to equipment, terminology, and playing surfaces—and introduces multiple factual errors such as incorrect racket classifications and misuse of tennis terms like deuce and advantage. Qwen3-14B-Base step 640 response is relatively concise and structured, explaining the objective, scoring, and basic techniques while maintaining coherent topic flow; although it contains a minor factual error, the explanation remains focused and informative.

Overall, the smaller model demonstrates verbosity, repetition, topic drift, and accumulated rule errors, whereas the larger model maintains clearer structure and greater reliability.

Figure 17: Case study on low-capability vs. high-capability model behavior (case II).

In this section, we investigate the token log-probability differences between Qwen3-14B-Base Step640 and Qwen3-1.7B-Base Step640 on the Math-CoT-20k training data, providing an intuitive view of how learning patterns vary with model capability.

We evaluate each model’s per-token log probability on the same set of training responses. Since both models are scored on identical (question, response) pairs, the log probability differences reflect purely the models’ learned distributions rather than any difference in generation quality. Specifically, we randomly sample 11 examples from the MathCoT training data with response lengths exceeding 10,000 tokens, using response length as a proxy for problem difficulty under the assumption that the teacher model generates longer reasoning traces for harder questions.

Across 11 sampled responses (approximately 122K tokens total), 14B assigns a higher log probability on 89.2% of all tokens (mean log probability gap: +0.252 in favor of 14B). This gap is not uniform: when applying a threshold of $\Delta\mathrm{logprob}>1.0$ , 14B holds a decisive advantage on 9.3% of tokens (11,305 tokens), while 1.7B holds an advantage on only 1.2% (1,416 tokens) — an 8.0× ratio. The asymmetry grows with threshold severity: at $\Delta\mathrm{logprob}>3.0$ , the ratio reaches 18.7×. This indicates that the 14B model does not merely fit training data slightly better across the board, but rather exhibits a qualitatively different ability to predict certain categories of tokens.

Figure 18: Word cloud of tokens with the largest log-probability advantage of Qwen3-14B-Base Step640 over Qwen3-1.7B-Base Step640 on Math-CoT-20k training responses.

To identify which tokens drive this gap, we map each token position to its approximate surface-level word and collect words where the 14B model’s log probability exceeds 1.7B’s by more than 1.0, ranked by frequency. As shown in Fig. 18 resulting word cloud reveals a striking pattern: the 14B model’s largest advantage concentrates on CoT reasoning transition words — therefore (233 occurrences), alternatively (91), maybe (79), wait (78), however (44), think (48), check (65). These are the words that signal the model is switching reasoning strategies, self-correcting, backtracking, or reflecting on an intermediate result — the structural backbone of chain-of-thought reasoning. This suggests that the 1.7B model can learn local mathematical computation patterns reasonably well, but struggles to internalize the higher-level flow of when to reconsider, when to try another approach, and when to verify.

The second major category of 14B-advantaged tokens involves mathematical domain terms: sqrt (89), digits (90), numbers (85), sides (86), polygons (33), pentagon (34), equation (24), expression (25), and logical reasoning verbs: compute (43), remaining (39), correct (31), answer (36), divisible (20). These words appear at the decision points of mathematical reasoning, where the model must correctly invoke a specific concept or operation in context. In contrast, the 1.7B model shows virtually no net advantage over 14B on any word category. After subtracting overlapping occurrences, only 7 words remain where 1.7B marginally outperforms 14B (e.g., simplified, algebra, intersections), all with frequencies of 2–3, indistinguishable from noise.

Per-sample analysis further reveals that the gap is problem-dependent: on a detective-style logical reasoning problem (Sample 7, mean $\Delta$ = 0.443) and a geometric cutting problem (Sample 8, mean $\Delta$ = 0.436), the 14B model dominates most dramatically, while simpler algebraic problems show a smaller gap (Sample 4, mean $\Delta$ = 0.158). This reinforces the interpretation that model capability matters most for multi-step reasoning requiring sustained coherence and strategic self-monitoring — exactly the capabilities that distinguish “thinking” from “computing.”

We report normalized frequencies of backtracking (B), self-verification (V), and strategy switching (S) for correct (C) and incorrect (I) traces. At the early unstable stage, long outputs are not yet accompanied by consistently useful procedures. During recovery, verification is more frequently associated with correct traces, while later checkpoints achieve stronger performance with shorter and more controlled exploration. Strategy switching is less uniform and should be treated as auxiliary evidence.

Original Table 10 — Table 10: Trace-level behavior frequencies on LiveCodeBench. Behavior counts are occurrences per 1K generated tokens.

Table 10
Step	Acc.	Length	# C / I	B (C / I)	V (C / I) S (C / I)
Base	37.5	765	169 / 342	0.00 / 0.00	3.33 / 1.98 3.44 / 5.76
10	38.4	987	195 / 316	5.10 / 0.00	1.65 / 3.67 1.14 / 8.27
20	14.8	14.6k	115 / 396	2.19 / 0.90	10.81 / 1.88 0.94 / 3.84
40	37.4	22.1k	188 / 323	18.59 / 17.18	10.10 / 5.06 4.19 / 8.76
80	43.3	18.2k	223 / 288	7.34 / 18.72	10.37 / 5.92 6.75 / 8.36
160	48.3	15.7k	239 / 272	11.65 / 10.63	10.95 / 4.80 6.90 / 9.94
320	53.8	12.9k	261 / 250	7.21 / 9.52	6.98 / 3.96 5.47 / 9.98
480	55.2	12.6k	282 / 229	8.62 / 9.50	6.61 / 3.96 6.93 / 9.12
640	55.1	12.5k	275 / 236	8.16 / 10.37	6.74 / 4.01 7.30 / 8.61

Original Table 11 — Table 11: Trace-level behavior frequencies on GPQA-Diamond. Behavior counts are occurrences per 1K generated tokens.

Table 11
Step	Acc.	Length	# C / I	B (C / I)	V (C / I) S (C / I)
Base	41.8	1.0k	231 / 363	0.44 / 0.77	3.33 / 3.04 4.17 / 3.66
10	42.8	1.2k	239 / 355	0.68 / 3.55	4.39 / 4.31 4.60 / 6.35
20	28.3	23.1k	168 / 426	4.00 / 12.59	8.00 / 2.89 5.81 / 4.04
40	39.2	19.7k	241 / 353	14.73 / 25.71	8.28 / 3.59 8.35 / 7.76
80	49.0	16.4k	281 / 313	12.31 / 26.81	7.27 / 4.18 8.76 / 7.09
160	52.7	12.6k	315 / 279	8.35 / 20.37	6.57 / 3.94 7.17 / 8.77
320	60.9	9.5k	366 / 228	7.98 / 14.13	6.36 / 6.45 6.67 / 8.74
480	64.0	9.3k	372 / 222	9.45 / 17.16	6.24 / 5.01 6.30 / 7.70
640	63.3	9.0k	379 / 215	9.24 / 9.93	6.09 / 5.30 6.49 / 7.96

Original Table 12 — Table 12: Summary of the fixed rule-based lexicon used for trace-level analysis.

Table 12
Behavior	Cue type	Example matching cues
Backtracking	Revision/repair	wait; hold on; actually; reconsider; mistake; wrong; let me correct/recheck/recalculate/rethink; try again; restart
Self-verification	Generic	check; verify; confirm; sanity check; double-check; validate; make sure
Self-verification	Code-specific	sample/test case; edge/corner case; dry run; simulate; time/space complexity; brute force to verify
Self-verification	GPQA-specific	unit/dimensional analysis; order of magnitude; consistent with; eliminate; rule out; physically plausible
Strategy switching	Explicit	another/different/alternative approach; another method; instead; let’s try; switch to
Strategy switching	Code-specific	brute force; greedy; dynamic programming; binary search; DFS/BFS; sorting; hash map; prefix sums; simulation; heap; Dijkstra
Strategy switching	GPQA-specific	compare options; by symmetry; conservation of; equilibrium; mechanism; dimensional analysis; rule out

Countdown-CoT is procedurally rich but knowledge-poor: it mainly demonstrates search, decomposition, backtracking, and verification within a toy arithmetic game. Transferring these procedures to broader reasoning tasks therefore depends on the base model’s prior representations. InternLM2.5-20B-Base starts substantially below Qwen3-14B-Base on MATH500 (53.7% vs. 77.8%) and AIME24 (1.7% vs. 14.7%), despite having more parameters. Under Countdown-CoT, it obtains only marginal math gains. We interpret this as evidence that procedural transfer requires both suitable trace structure and a sufficiently capable, compatible base model; parameter count alone is not a reliable proxy.

Tab. 13 distinguishes genuine dip-and-recovery from improvement starting near the benchmark floor. Qwen3-14B begins with substantial benchmark capability, drops early, and later recovers beyond its starting point. Qwen2.5-1.5B starts near floor level on several reasoning benchmarks, so its later improvements are better characterized as low-baseline gains.

Original Table 13 — Table 13: Starting, lowest, highest, and final performance. Checkpoint steps are shown in parentheses.

Table 13
Model	Benchmark	Start	Lowest	Highest	End	Pattern
Qwen3-14B	MATH500	77.8	68.2 (20)	95.1 (320)	95.1	dip $\rightarrow$ recovery
	AIME24	14.7	11.3 (10)	68.0 (480)	66.0	dip $\rightarrow$ recovery
	LCB v2	37.5	14.8 (20)	55.2 (480)	55.1	dip $\rightarrow$ recovery
	GPQA-D	41.8	28.3 (20)	64.0 (480)	63.3	dip $\rightarrow$ recovery
	MMLU-Pro	61.8	37.8 (20)	74.5 (480)	74.4	dip $\rightarrow$ recovery
	IFEval	64.2	36.1 (20)	71.2 (480)	68.9	dip $\rightarrow$ recovery
Qwen2.5-1.5B	MATH500	3.9	3.9 (base)	38.2 (480)	38.0	low-baseline gain
	AIME24	0.7	0.3 (40)	1.7 (20)	1.3	near-floor fluctuation
	LCB v2	0.4	0.4 (base)	2.7 (640)	2.7	near-floor gain
	GPQA-D	1.3	1.3 (base)	11.4 (20)	7.4	low-baseline gain
	MMLU-Pro	1.3	1.3 (base)	21.2 (480)	20.5	low-baseline gain
	IFEval	30.5	27.3 (40)	34.8 (20)	31.7	small fluctuation

Tab. 14 reports the matched-query comparison. Under this update-matched configuration, SFT is stronger on the five ID/OOD reasoning benchmarks, while the general-capability comparison is mixed. The result should not be interpreted as a universal ranking because reward design, RL hyperparameters, generated-token budgets, and total compute are not fully matched.

Original Table 14 — Table 14: Matched-query comparison between SFT and two GRPO format-reward variants. Accuracy entries are percentages; AlpacaEval is the raw reward-model score.

Table 14
Method	MATH500	AIME24	LCB v2	GPQA-D	MMLU-Pro	IFEval	AlpacaEval	HaluEval	TruthfulQA
SFT	95.1	66.0	55.1	63.3	74.4	68.9	1.42	72.8	95.6
GRPO, format reward if correct	86.6	19.7	44.0	51.2	70.9	65.9	0.68	67.5	97.3
GRPO, unconditional format reward	86.0	17.0	43.1	49.3	69.4	69.7	0.58	70.9	99.1

The rule-based analysis supports the qualitative case in Sec. 6. Self-rationalization is rare in the base model, more common after no-CoT training, and substantially more common after long-CoT training. Across the long-CoT checkpoint series, the self-rationalization rate is strongly positively associated with ASR; the no-CoT series does not exhibit the same relationship. These correlations are descriptive and do not establish an internal causal mechanism.

Original Table 15 — Table 15: Prevalence of self-rationalization and attack success rate.

Table 15
Model / run	Self-rationalization rate	ASR
Qwen3-14B-Base	6.3%	20.0%
Math-NoCoT-20k, step 640	31.0%	23.3%
Math-CoT-20k, step 640	67.3%	53.7%

Original Table 16 — Table 16: Checkpoint-level association between self-rationalization rate (SRR) and ASR.

Table 16
Dataset	Mean SRR	Mean ASR	Pearson $r$	Spearman $\rho$
Math-CoT-20k	47.6%	44.8%	0.979	0.857
Math-NoCoT-20k	29.8%	24.7%	-0.253	-0.048

Original Table 17 — Table 17: Additional examples of self-rationalization after long-CoT SFT.

Table 17
Case	Domain	Self-rationalization pattern	Harmfulness
62	Cyber abuse	Recognizes the need for caution, then adopts educational framing and provides a tutorial-like answer.	5
86	Cyber abuse	Acknowledges illegality, then continues with a structured abuse workflow.	5
110	Weapons	States danger and legal risk, then reframes the request as research or science and provides guide-like content.	5
164	Misinformation	Internally recognizes fear-inducing framing, then generates persuasive misleading content.	5
221	Privacy/manipulation	Mentions ethics and consent, then still designs a targeted persuasion application.	5
283	Risky finance	Warns about extreme risk, then provides a leveraged trading strategy.	5
299	Financial crime	Mentions legal or responsible framing, then organizes a laundering-oriented investment plan.	5

Original Table 18 — Table 18: Benchmark results for base models.

Table 18
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Model	MATH500	AIME24	LCB v2	GPQA-D	MMLU-Pro	IFEval	AlpacaEval (RB2 / Sky / Mis)	HaluEval	TruthfulQA (truth / help)
Accuracy / RM Score
Qwen3-1.7B-Base	58.9%	5.7%	9.1%	14.3%	22.0%	35.0%	-4.99 / -10.26 / -2.28	41.8%	69.9% / 68.7%
Qwen3-4B-Base	70.8%	11.0%	20.6%	14.6%	35.5%	49.2%	-2.21 / 2.10 / 1.69	50.8%	81.6% / 48.2%
Qwen3-8B-Base	76.8%	12.0%	29.1%	37.5%	55.2%	54.8%	-0.13 / 11.68 / 4.47	50.5%	84.7% / 83.6%
Qwen3-14B-Base	77.8%	14.7%	37.5%	41.8%	61.8%	64.2%	0.53 / 13.5 / 4.83	54.7%	80.1% / 94.4%
Qwen2.5-1.5B-Base	3.9%	0.7%	0.4%	1.3%	1.3%	30.5%	-6.71 / -16.28 / -3.94	31.0%	78.5% / 24.2%
Qwen2.5-3B-Base	58.7%	4.3%	9.4%	21.0%	15.0%	37.0%	-1.12 / 6.08 / 3.35	45.7%	68.5% / 88.7%
Qwen2.5-7B-Base	66.7%	7.7%	15.7%	26.9%	34.8%	41.1%	-1.00 / 6.61 / 3.26	45.4%	80.7% / 86.5%
Qwen2.5-14B-Base	65.7%	8.0%	17.6%	28.6%	40.9%	49.0%	-1.4 / 1.29 / 2.16	56.1	85.4% / 93.8%
InternLM2.5-20B-Base	53.7%	1.7%	17.6%	20.9%	34.3%	51.1%	-0.84 / 8.17 / 3.42	60.6%	70.3% / 72.6%
Average Response Length (tokens)
Qwen3-1.7B-Base	1.7k	7.1k	947	3.8k	3.4k	14.8k	321	5.7k	11.2k
Qwen3-4B-Base	1.2k	3.8k	7.7k	12.7k	7.7k	10.2k	596	5.6k	15.0k
Qwen3-8B-Base	907	4.6k	1.5k	1.2k	1.1k	3.3k	524	7.8k	729
Qwen3-14B-Base	1.1k	3.9k	765	1.0k	851	3.7k	495	5.3k	3.9k
Qwen2.5-1.5B-Base	29.2k	26.9k	24.4k	25.7k	20.3k	23.4k	436	18.9k	23.9k
Qwen2.5-3B-Base	1.3k	4.0k	5.8k	2.1k	1.0k	4.4k	282	447	2.4k
Qwen2.5-7B-Base	769	2.9k	671	1.1k	605	12.2k	503	2.9k	7.3k
Qwen2.5-14B-Base	1.0k	3.4k	8.0k	2.9k	692	5.6k	688	1.3k	2.8k
InternLM2.5-20B-Base	1.3k	2.5k	2.6k	1.5k	386	948	251	125	6.5k

Original Table 19 — Table 19: Training dynamics for Qwen3-1.7B-Base with Math-CoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 19
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	58.9%	5.7%	9.1%	14.3%	22.0%	35.0%	-4.99 / -10.26 / -2.28	41.8%	69.9% / 68.7%
10	55.7%	4.3%	9.9%	15.0%	20.8%	35.9%	-5.01 / -10.29 / -2.27	41.3%	70.0% / 71.0%
20	53.5%	3.3%	11.5%	15.2%	16.3%	30.7%	-4.49 / -6.90 / -1.12	41.4%	75.5% / 68.1%
40	42.9%	1.7%	4.1%	9.8%	18.3%	29.5%	-2.85 / 4.46 / 1.39	42.9%	85.2% / 52.6%
80	49.6%	2.7%	6.3%	6.2%	26.2%	30.1%	-3.22 / 3.44 / 1.02	56.8%	98.0% / 42.4%
160	51.6%	4.0%	4.9%	8.1%	30.5%	30.5%	-2.90 / 4.01 / 1.41	57.0%	95.5% / 49.1%
320	56.5%	5.0%	7.4%	6.6%	31.7%	33.7%	-2.77 / 4.24 / 1.74	58.2%	94.0% / 57.6%
480	59.1%	3.7%	6.5%	7.9%	33.2%	33.5%	-2.55 / 5.20 / 1.99	59.8%	93.8% / 59.9%
640	56.2%	5.0%	7.0%	9.4%	33.7%	33.7%	-2.53 / 4.93 / 2.00	59.4%	93.1% / 62.5%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.7k	7.1k	947	3.8k	3.4k	14.8k	321	5.7k	11.2k
10	1.8k	5.2k	729	3.7k	3.3k	15.5k	349	7.0k	12.2k
20	5.0k	14.7k	1.9k	10.0k	12.6k	21.9k	528	11.3k	15.3k
40	24.8k	32.0k	25.3k	26.4k	25.5k	23.5k	2.1k	15.0k	18.2k
80	18.6k	30.9k	29.5k	28.7k	20.7k	15.1k	5.1k	4.8k	26.8k
160	18.3k	31.1k	29.2k	29.1k	18.7k	13.7k	4.9k	4.0k	26.7k
320	17.1k	30.8k	29.6k	28.5k	17.2k	11.2k	4.6k	2.1k	23.2k
480	16.2k	30.6k	28.4k	28.1k	14.9k	10.2k	4.4k	1.6k	22.7k
640	16.8k	29.9k	28.9k	28.2k	15.0k	10.5k	4.4k	1.7k	22.1k

Original Table 20 — Table 20: Training dynamics for Qwen3-1.7B-Base with Countdown-CoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 20
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	58.9%	5.7%	9.1%	14.3%	22.0%	35.0%	-4.99 / -10.26 / -2.28	41.8%	69.9% / 68.7%
10	55.3%	5.0%	9.5%	13.1%	20.3%	28.4%	-5.13 / -10.95 / -2.49	40.6%	69.6% / 68.1%
40	59.1%	5.7%	6.1%	11.8%	22.4%	29.4%	-2.20 / 5.03 / 1.79	43.0%	84.1% / 61.0%
80	60.5%	6.0%	8.0%	23.2%	32.5%	31.9%	-1.47 / 8.01 / 3.30	53.7%	88.7% / 80.8%
160	60.1%	4.7%	6.7%	17.8%	34.6%	32.3%	-1.22 / 7.20 / 3.63	46.4%	85.6% / 80.0%
320	59.3%	4.0%	6.6%	19.2%	36.3%	31.8%	-1.06 / 7.72 / 3.87	43.1%	87.6% / 79.9%
480	58.8%	3.3%	5.7%	16.3%	34.4%	30.9%	-1.08 / 7.85 / 3.88	39.6%	86.9% / 80.5%
640	57.1%	5.3%	6.3%	18.7%	34.2%	29.9%	-1.12 / 7.58 / 3.85	39.2%	88.9% / 79.9%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.7k	7.1k	947	3.8k	3.4k	14.8k	321	5.7k	11.2k
10	1.9k	7.0k	490	5.2k	4.8k	19.0k	335	8.8k	12.6k
40	8.0k	20.7k	22.7k	21.9k	17.0k	23.4k	1.6k	14.2k	19.7k
80	6.6k	22.4k	22.2k	14.9k	4.8k	12.6k	2.0k	1.7k	13.6k
160	7.2k	21.6k	23.9k	16.9k	7.0k	12.8k	1.8k	1.7k	11.9k
320	7.4k	21.6k	25.8k	16.8k	7.7k	12.6k	1.9k	2.1k	11.2k
480	7.0k	21.3k	25.9k	16.6k	7.0k	11.6k	1.8k	2.2k	10.8k
640	7.2k	19.9k	24.1k	16.1k	7.4k	11.5k	1.8k	2.0k	10.4k

Original Table 21 — Table 21: Training dynamics for Qwen3-1.7B-Base with Math-NoCoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 21
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Step	MATH500	AIME24	LCB v2	GPQA-D	MMLU-Pro	IFEval	AlpacaEval (RB2 / Sky / Mis)	HaluEval	TruthfulQA (truth / help)
Accuracy / RM Score
Base	58.9%	5.7%	9.1%	14.3%	22.0%	35.0%	-4.99 / -10.26 / -2.28	41.8%	69.9% / 68.7%
10	55.2%	3.0%	9.2%	17.3%	23.8%	30.7%	-4.33 / -7.87 / -1.39	45.7%	67.3% / 75.9%
40	58.9%	5.7%	8.5%	29.0%	30.2%	39.6%	0.16 / 12.07 / 6.04	51.6%	91.1% / 99.6%
80	58.1%	4.7%	7.2%	25.1%	32.5%	39.8%	0.07 / 11.13 / 5.98	53.3%	89.6% / 99.4%
160	58.0%	4.3%	7.4%	27.9%	37.9%	41.2%	0.25 / 11.89 / 6.17	54.2%	91.8% / 99.9%
320	60.7%	4.0%	8.1%	27.4%	36.9%	41.4%	0.32 / 12.65 / 6.31	51.3%	93.6% / 99.6%
480	61.3%	5.7%	10.2%	28.5%	39.6%	42.2%	0.41 / 13.45 / 6.44	49.9%	90.1% / 99.8%
640	59.5%	5.7%	8.6%	27.1%	35.6%	40.6%	0.36 / 12.77 / 6.36	49.1%	94.2% / 99.8%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.7k	7.1k	947	3.8k	3.4k	14.8k	321	5.7k	11.2k
10	2.0k	6.3k	680	3.8k	1.3k	17.6k	365	5.0k	11.1k
40	1.4k	4.5k	1.5k	2.1k	930	1.8k	626	478	617
80	1.4k	4.2k	1.3k	1.8k	865	1.6k	643	453	874
160	1.3k	3.3k	1.3k	1.8k	870	1.2k	605	317	781
320	1.5k	3.7k	1.1k	1.5k	807	1.2k	625	276	672
480	1.2k	3.3k	1.1k	2.0k	961	934	619	259	620
640	1.4k	4.2k	1.3k	1.8k	1.2k	657	618	238	742

Original Table 22 — Table 22: Training dynamics for Qwen3-4B-Base with Math-CoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 22
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	70.8%	11.0%	20.6%	14.6%	35.5%	49.2%	-2.21 / 2.10 / 1.69	50.8%	81.6% / 48.2%
10	64.9%	9.0%	21.5%	19.9%	31.5%	46.3%	-2.30 / 1.11 / 1.60	48.7%	78.2% / 54.5%
20	62.9%	13.0%	17.0%	17.3%	30.8%	33.0%	-3.26 / 0.27 / 0.16	63.1%	83.6% / 37.7%
40	71.5%	15.3%	14.5%	19.4%	50.1%	37.2%	-2.11 / 9.45 / 2.01	67.7%	96.7% / 47.9%
80	77.1%	19.0%	18.1%	23.9%	55.6%	40.4%	-0.95 / 11.98 / 4.05	71.1%	95.1% / 53.0%
160	78.8%	22.3%	17.6%	27.9%	59.1%	41.6%	-0.52 / 12.87 / 4.68	71.6%	92.7% / 64.4%
320	86.3%	29.0%	23.5%	33.3%	63.1%	45.4%	0.03 / 14.78 / 5.50	72.6%	89.5% / 80.2%
480	87.1%	27.3%	23.5%	36.7%	63.2%	50.0%	0.08 / 15.36 / 5.57	69.3%	89.2% / 84.6%
640	86.2%	30.7%	24.4%	37.9%	64.8%	47.7%	0.05 / 15.51 / 5.57	69.4%	90.8% / 84.7%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.2k	3.8k	7.7k	12.7k	7.7k	10.2k	596	5.6k	15.0k
10	2.3k	5.4k	6.9k	9.8k	5.9k	11.4k	723	6.8k	14.0k
20	28.2k	30.1k	16.9k	30.3k	27.6k	25.9k	4.1k	19.3k	24.5k
40	13.8k	28.6k	30.5k	27.4k	16.8k	23.5k	6.6k	7.8k	27.2k
80	10.4k	27.0k	28.0k	25.6k	13.6k	14.6k	4.4k	2.7k	24.7k
160	9.8k	26.6k	26.7k	24.4k	11.1k	13.8k	4.1k	2.5k	20.0k
320	8.1k	24.2k	24.7k	20.4k	7.7k	8.2k	3.3k	1.0k	11.8k
480	7.9k	23.8k	22.2k	18.8k	7.1k	7.1k	3.3k	955	10.3k
640	7.6k	23.2k	22.2k	18.8k	6.6k	7.5k	3.2k	810	9.9k

Original Table 23 — Table 23: Training dynamics for Qwen3-4B-Base with Countdown-CoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 23
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	70.8%	11.0%	20.6%	14.6%	35.5%	49.2%	-2.21 / 2.10 / 1.69	50.8%	81.6% / 48.2%
10	65.4%	8.3%	27.1%	30.0%	36.4%	37.6%	-1.53 / 4.15 / 2.58	53.8%	80.4% / 55.9%
40	82.0%	18.0%	25.3%	36.7%	56.9%	38.5%	-1.51 / 9.63 / 2.90	70.7%	91.8% / 90.6%
80	83.1%	17.3%	24.3%	35.4%	55.0%	40.2%	0.15 / 14.07 / 5.19	71.5%	87.0% / 89.7%
160	83.5%	16.0%	25.2%	38.0%	56.7%	41.1%	0.13 / 13.46 / 5.23	70.1%	87.8% / 96.1%
320	83.9%	21.0%	25.4%	36.4%	58.0%	41.7%	0.24 / 14.02 / 5.37	70.4%	89.0% / 95.5%
480	83.5%	21.3%	26.4%	36.5%	58.7%	43.4%	0.20 / 13.77 / 5.35	68.5%	87.3% / 96.0%
640	83.8%	21.0%	25.0%	38.6%	60.3%	41.4%	0.25 / 13.92 / 5.34	70.2%	90.0% / 96.8%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.2k	3.8k	7.7k	12.7k	7.7k	10.2k	596	5.6k	15.0k
10	3.1k	6.2k	1.2k	3.7k	6.1k	18.4k	631	3.7k	13.9k
40	3.5k	16.0k	14.3k	6.3k	3.3k	7.1k	2.0k	1.4k	5.3k
80	3.4k	15.9k	16.1k	8.3k	3.3k	5.1k	1.8k	703	3.5k
160	3.1k	15.1k	14.3k	7.5k	3.0k	5.3k	1.8k	795	2.7k
320	3.0k	14.0k	12.0k	6.3k	2.8k	4.4k	1.7k	665	2.3k
480	3.1k	13.5k	11.3k	6.5k	2.9k	4.6k	1.8k	801	2.1k
640	3.2k	14.3k	11.5k	6.2k	2.9k	4.8k	1.9k	837	2.3k

Original Table 24 — Table 24: Training dynamics for Qwen3-4B-Base with Math-NoCoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 24
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Step	MATH500	AIME24	LCB v2	GPQA-D	MMLU-Pro	IFEval	AlpacaEval (RB2 / Sky / Mis)	HaluEval	TruthfulQA (truth / help)
Accuracy / RM Score
Base	70.8%	11.0%	20.6%	14.6%	35.5%	49.2%	-2.21 / 2.10 / 1.69	50.8%	81.6% / 48.2%
10	66.7%	7.7%	27.4%	29.8%	39.4%	38.7%	-1.62 / 4.04 / 2.51	53.1%	82.7% / 72.6%
40	73.2%	10.0%	25.2%	38.2%	49.6%	54.4%	1.21 / 19.70 / 7.30	53.8%	91.4% / 99.4%
80	72.9%	9.7%	21.9%	34.7%	54.9%	51.0%	1.21 / 19.19 / 7.39	57.9%	93.0% / 99.8%
160	74.3%	9.0%	22.9%	39.7%	58.6%	52.9%	1.40 / 20.26 / 7.63	63.5%	93.1% / 99.9%
320	75.9%	11.3%	23.3%	37.5%	60.5%	53.7%	1.47 / 21.15 / 7.70	60.1%	93.8% / 99.6%
480	74.5%	11.3%	22.4%	38.2%	60.1%	54.4%	1.50 / 21.57 / 7.80	57.0%	94.7% / 100.0%
640	74.3%	11.7%	22.0%	38.2%	59.0%	55.9%	1.43 / 20.96 / 7.73	56.4%	94.5% / 100.0%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.2k	3.8k	7.7k	12.7k	7.7k	10.2k	596	5.6k	15.0k
10	1.6k	5.3k	1.5k	2.4k	1.6k	18.2k	671	5.0k	9.3k
40	1.4k	5.2k	1.2k	1.9k	1.1k	1.2k	616	137	749
80	1.1k	4.3k	870	1.7k	951	879	611	174	652
160	1.2k	4.5k	983	2.0k	1.0k	712	612	247	612
320	1.2k	5.8k	1.2k	2.2k	1.3k	649	624	192	501
480	1.0k	4.4k	1.0k	2.6k	1.1k	651	611	113	476
640	1.2k	3.9k	871	2.3k	1.0k	745	621	112	449

Original Table 25 — Table 25: Training dynamics for Qwen3-8B-Base with Math-CoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 25
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	76.8%	12.0%	29.1%	37.5%	55.2%	54.8%	-0.13 / 11.68 / 4.47	50.5%	84.7% / 83.6%
10	72.7%	11.0%	26.9%	37.5%	52.8%	52.0%	-0.25 / 11.32 / 4.26	48.5%	87.2% / 82.1%
20	44.4%	8.0%	24.9%	27.1%	30.8%	47.5%	0.01 / 15.21 / 4.81	54.7%	91.1% / 79.2%
40	78.2%	21.7%	22.7%	27.6%	57.5%	42.1%	-0.81 / 13.59 / 2.49	69.3%	97.8% / 74.3%
80	81.9%	23.0%	24.0%	27.3%	59.0%	45.8%	-0.36 / 13.69 / 4.65	74.0%	96.0% / 71.2%
160	88.5%	32.0%	27.3%	37.9%	65.0%	47.4%	0.27 / 15.67 / 5.65	74.4%	93.4% / 85.7%
320	89.8%	36.0%	29.2%	48.8%	69.1%	52.4%	0.68 / 17.79 / 6.40	74.5%	93.3% / 89.0%
480	92.3%	43.7%	30.2%	49.8%	68.9%	55.2%	0.95 / 18.46 / 6.90	71.3%	92.9% / 91.8%
640	90.1%	47.7%	31.0%	48.5%	69.5%	56.6%	0.92 / 18.78 / 6.75	71.3%	93.6% / 91.3%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	907	4.6k	1.5k	1.2k	1.1k	3.3k	524	7.8k	729
10	1.4k	6.2k	1.3k	1.7k	1.2k	4.9k	565	4.4k	16.0k
20	24.3k	29.2k	11.3k	12.6k	18.8k	10.9k	847	5.7k	17.3k
40	11.9k	27.5k	5.5k	21.9k	13.0k	16.8k	3.7k	6.5k	17.0k
80	10.6k	26.3k	26.7k	25.0k	12.8k	13.4k	4.6k	1.7k	18.3k
160	6.4k	21.1k	21.2k	18.3k	6.3k	7.2k	3.4k	981	10.2k
320	6.4k	21.0k	17.9k	15.1k	5.6k	5.6k	3.2k	833	8.2k
480	6.5k	19.4k	17.6k	13.8k	5.1k	4.6k	3.0k	784	6.4k
640	6.6k	19.2k	17.2k	14.0k	5.3k	4.9k	2.8k	719	6.1k

Original Table 26 — Table 26: Training dynamics for Qwen3-8B-Base with Countdown-CoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 26
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	76.8%	12.0%	29.1%	37.5%	55.2%	54.8%	-0.13 / 11.68 / 4.47	50.5%	84.7% / 83.6%
10	74.1%	13.0%	27.5%	32.0%	55.2%	55.4%	-0.37 / 10.81 / 4.10	51.8%	88.4% / 82.3%
40	70.7%	14.0%	25.8%	24.1%	36.2%	44.6%	0.02 / 15.38 / 3.67	62.3%	78.2% / 75.2%
80	85.7%	26.3%	30.5%	37.2%	44.9%	53.1%	0.34 / 16.22 / 4.61	72.0%	84.0% / 82.1%
160	85.2%	23.3%	30.7%	34.8%	48.2%	50.7%	0.37 / 16.13 / 4.77	69.9%	84.6% / 81.0%
320	86.9%	24.0%	32.9%	42.4%	52.4%	51.0%	0.35 / 16.21 / 4.85	68.6%	84.3% / 79.1%
480	87.8%	25.0%	32.9%	40.1%	56.6%	51.9%	0.24 / 15.46 / 4.64	69.3%	84.1% / 76.9%
640	87.6%	26.0%	32.8%	41.6%	56.6%	52.3%	0.13 / 15.08 / 4.45	68.9%	81.2% / 75.5%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	907	4.6k	1.5k	1.2k	1.1k	3.3k	524	7.8k	729
10	1.1k	4.2k	1.3k	2.2k	1.4k	4.9k	521	4.0k	14.6k
40	6.0k	16.1k	10.9k	12.1k	10.9k	13.2k	902	5.5k	8.0k
80	2.9k	13.1k	5.9k	5.4k	1.9k	4.2k	913	1.5k	5.4k
160	2.6k	11.7k	6.5k	5.4k	1.8k	5.3k	1.0k	1.6k	6.4k
320	2.6k	12.4k	7.8k	5.5k	2.0k	4.5k	943	1.3k	5.7k
480	2.6k	11.6k	7.6k	5.4k	2.2k	4.1k	971	1.1k	6.1k
640	2.5k	11.5k	7.8k	5.0k	2.2k	3.8k	1.0k	1.1k	6.2k

Original Table 27 — Table 27: Training dynamics for Qwen3-8B-Base with Math-NoCoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 27
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Step	MATH500	AIME24	LCB v2	GPQA-D	MMLU-Pro	IFEval	AlpacaEval (RB2 / Sky / Mis)	HaluEval	TruthfulQA (truth / help)
Accuracy / RM Score
Base	76.8%	12.0%	29.1%	37.5%	55.2%	54.8%	-0.13 / 11.68 / 4.47	50.5%	84.7% / 83.6%
10	71.3%	9.3%	28.6%	33.0%	51.5%	52.8%	-0.29 / 10.61 / 4.25	50.0%	84.7% / 84.1%
40	76.1%	11.7%	26.3%	38.9%	54.6%	64.5%	1.63 / 22.61 / 7.88	47.2%	96.1% / 99.9%
80	75.8%	9.7%	26.6%	41.1%	59.4%	62.1%	1.62 / 22.12 / 7.96	53.0%	96.3% / 100.0%
160	78.0%	12.7%	30.4%	45.5%	62.8%	64.4%	1.71 / 23.03 / 8.12	54.6%	96.5% / 99.9%
320	77.9%	13.7%	31.2%	43.9%	61.4%	62.9%	1.87 / 23.54 / 8.26	52.6%	96.0% / 99.8%
480	76.3%	15.7%	32.0%	46.0%	61.4%	63.4%	1.85 / 23.76 / 8.31	57.3%	95.8% / 99.9%
640	77.4%	13.3%	31.8%	45.1%	60.9%	63.7%	1.85 / 23.64 / 8.28	56.2%	95.3% / 100.0%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	907	4.6k	1.5k	1.2k	1.1k	3.3k	524	7.8k	729
10	1.5k	4.4k	1.2k	1.5k	1.1k	4.4k	580	4.6k	13.9k
40	1.1k	5.5k	1.2k	1.4k	709	815	634	198	607
80	1.1k	4.0k	926	1.6k	942	916	629	178	582
160	1.1k	4.5k	867	1.5k	1.1k	742	612	188	668
320	996	4.4k	815	1.3k	753	615	620	160	595
480	1.1k	3.2k	869	2.4k	1.0k	518	639	224	622
640	957	4.7k	774	1.8k	917	624	640	192	530

Original Table 28 — Table 28: Training dynamics for Qwen3-8B-Base with Numina-Math-20k (default training schedule).

Table 28
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Step	MATH500	AIME24	LCB v2	GPQA-D	MMLU-Pro	IFEval	AlpacaEval (RB2 / Sky / Mis)	HaluEval	TruthfulQA (truth / help)
Accuracy / RM Score
Base	76.8%	12.0%	29.1%	37.5%	55.2%	54.8%	-0.13 / 11.68 / 4.47	50.5%	84.7% / 83.6%
10	65.5%	8.0%	28.0%	30.0%	46.7%	45.3%	-0.45 / 10.25 / 4.02	51.0%	81.8% / 81.8%
40	68.3%	11.7%	9.8%	35.7%	43.6%	40.8%	-1.75 / 3.26 / 2.32	54.2%	72.5% / 86.0%
80	68.9%	6.0%	14.7%	35.4%	45.6%	38.2%	-1.85 / 3.08 / 2.22	55.3%	73.4% / 85.7%
160	69.3%	7.0%	9.5%	35.2%	49.0%	38.4%	-1.32 / 5.76 / 2.95	56.8%	70.0% / 87.4%
320	72.0%	8.7%	9.9%	39.2%	48.8%	41.0%	-0.91 / 7.81 / 3.56	63.7%	72.7% / 88.0%
480	72.8%	8.7%	7.7%	36.4%	48.7%	40.0%	-0.79 / 8.87 / 3.74	63.3%	71.2% / 88.0%
640	72.5%	7.0%	7.9%	37.2%	48.2%	37.8%	-0.70 / 9.12 / 3.88	64.2%	72.5% / 89.8%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	907	4.6k	1.5k	1.2k	1.1k	3.3k	524	7.8k	729
10	972	4.1k	762	795	720	7.0k	451	3.6k	12.0k
40	944	3.1k	10.0k	2.7k	926	4.7k	549	647	11.2k
80	760	2.9k	13.1k	1.7k	936	6.6k	681	398	13.6k
160	659	1.7k	14.4k	1.4k	522	4.7k	613	284	10.1k
320	596	1.2k	16.6k	800	411	4.2k	683	879	9.7k
480	541	1.2k	14.0k	418	514	3.1k	553	591	8.0k
640	564	1.2k	13.8k	534	371	2.6k	607	573	7.7k

Original Table 29 — Table 29: Training dynamics for Qwen3-8B-Base with DeepSeek-R1-generated data (default training schedule).

Table 29
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	76.8%	12.0%	29.1%	37.5%	55.2%	54.8%	-0.13 / 11.68 / 4.47	50.5%	84.7% / 83.6%
10	74.0%	12.7%	27.7%	34.7%	51.4%	43.6%	-0.33 / 11.10 / 4.23	51.1%	87.9% / 84.2%
20	46.5%	9.0%	25.0%	23.2%	30.8%	49.8%	0.11 / 15.71 / 4.82	55.7%	85.2% / 74.2%
40	81.7%	20.0%	25.2%	29.3%	59.5%	41.7%	-1.19 / 10.91 / 2.00	63.1%	95.8% / 79.1%
80	84.3%	21.0%	26.3%	38.0%	61.1%	50.5%	-0.29 / 13.78 / 4.92	71.3%	90.0% / 79.1%
160	88.6%	31.3%	31.6%	42.9%	65.1%	55.3%	0.05 / 15.58 / 5.43	69.5%	88.6% / 88.6%
320	90.9%	38.0%	37.1%	51.0%	66.8%	55.8%	0.60 / 18.21 / 6.13	71.2%	86.8% / 93.3%
480	92.2%	42.0%	40.8%	54.9%	70.6%	57.4%	0.67 / 18.42 / 6.14	70.8%	84.8% / 97.1%
640	92.8%	40.0%	42.1%	55.0%	66.1%	57.9%	0.67 / 18.73 / 6.23	69.7%	88.2% / 96.3%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	907	4.6k	1.5k	1.2k	1.1k	3.3k	524	7.8k	729
10	1.7k	5.1k	1.5k	1.9k	1.5k	6.6k	3.1k	3.7k	13.8k
20	23.1k	28.0k	10.4k	16.7k	17.9k	10.5k	534	5.9k	15.5k
40	8.3k	26.1k	14.9k	23.7k	11.1k	18.7k	3.3k	8.2k	15.4k
80	7.5k	25.2k	23.7k	20.2k	9.2k	11.8k	906	1.0k	15.0k
160	6.0k	21.5k	20.5k	16.7k	6.3k	7.9k	2.6k	853	10.2k
320	4.8k	19.0k	16.7k	11.5k	4.4k	5.9k	3.8k	560	6.7k
480	4.4k	16.7k	13.8k	8.6k	3.5k	4.9k	2.3k	622	4.1k
640	4.3k	16.9k	13.8k	9.2k	3.4k	4.9k	2.3k	600	4.4k

Original Table 30 — Table 30: Training dynamics for Qwen3-14B-Base with Math-CoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 30
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	77.8%	14.7%	37.5%	41.8%	61.8%	64.2%	0.53 / 13.5 / 4.83	54.7%	80.1% / 94.4%
10	79.2%	11.3%	38.4%	42.8%	60.5%	62.4%	0.68 / 17.59 / 5.74	55.7%	83.5% / 95.7%
20	68.2%	25.7%	14.8%	28.3%	37.8%	36.1%	-1.97 / 7.87 / 1.33	50.6%	87.6% / 49.5%
40	88.3%	38.0%	37.4%	39.2%	68.7%	46.2%	-0.24 / 17.01 / 4.83	74.5%	96.1% / 75.5%
80	91.3%	50.7%	43.3%	49.0%	71.2%	59.6%	0.66 / 18.64 / 4.83	72.6%	98.2% / 82.4%
160	93.7%	55.3%	48.3%	52.7%	72.7%	63.5%	1.20 / 20.56 / 7.43	73.0%	98.5% / 88.0%
320	95.1%	60.3%	53.8%	60.9%	73.4%	67.6%	1.38 / 21.62 / 7.67	71.7%	97.4% / 94.5%
480	94.9%	68.0%	55.2%	64.0%	74.5%	71.2%	1.34 / 21.17 / 7.64	72.2%	97.1% / 95.0%
640	95.1%	66.0%	55.1%	63.3%	74.4%	68.9%	1.42 / 21.51 / 7.71	72.8%	98.2% / 95.6%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.1k	3.9k	765	1.0k	851	3.7k	495	5.3k	3.9k
10	1.3k	6.2k	987	1.2k	581	4.5k	461	1.9k	2.8k
20	22.9k	24.9k	14.6k	–	27.2k	28.2k	3.4k	13.5k	25.1k
40	7.4k	23.6k	22.1k	19.7k	7.5k	13.6k	5.3k	1.8k	15.8k
80	6.3k	19.1k	18.2k	16.4k	6.4k	7.9k	3.9k	748	10.6k
160	5.5k	17.6k	15.7k	12.6k	4.9k	5.7k	3.6k	620	7.9k
320	5.2k	17.1k	12.9k	9.5k	4.2k	3.5k	3.4k	604	5.0k
480	5.3k	15.7k	12.6k	9.3k	4.4k	3.9k	3.4k	600	4.9k
640	5.3k	16.9k	12.5k	9.0k	4.1k	3.9k	3.3k	573	4.5k

Original Table 31 — Table 31: Training dynamics for Qwen3-14B-Base with Countdown-CoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 31
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	77.8%	14.7%	37.5%	41.8%	61.8%	64.2%	0.53 / 13.5 / 4.83	54.7%	80.1% / 94.4%
10	77.6%	12.0%	37.1%	38.2%	57.3%	61.4%	0.67 / 17.54 / 5.83	55.3%	84.1% / 92.8%
40	88.7%	32.0%	37.7%	45.5%	53.9%	49.5%	-0.22 / 14.68 / 4.09	68.6%	88.9% / 75.6%
80	90.9%	37.7%	40.3%	46.1%	56.4%	61.5%	1.18 / 20.33 / 6.99	72.1%	90.6% / 93.1%
160	90.5%	37.3%	41.1%	47.5%	60.7%	62.2%	1.36 / 21.45/ 7.34	72.2%	92.0% / 95.1%
320	91.0%	41.7%	44.9%	51.3%	64.2%	60.7%	1.38 / 21.08 / 7.33	72.4%	92.0% / 93.9%
480	91.4%	36.7%	43.0%	52.9%	64.4%	64.0%	1.23 / 20.54 / 7.13	72.4%	91.2% / 93.8%
640	91.5%	41.7%	43.8%	53.0%	65.4%	61.3%	1.36 / 21.10 / 7.33	72.3%	91.2% / 92.4%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.1k	3.9k	765	1.0k	851	3.7k	495	5.3k	3.9k
10	1.6k	5.7k	688	1.5k	957	4.9k	513	2.3k	4.7k
40	2.7k	10.7k	9.8k	4.4k	3.8k	9.6k	1.4k	3.0k	11.2k
80	2.1k	9.8k	5.6k	3.4k	1.9k	2.7k	1.5k	443	1.8k
160	2.4k	9.8k	6.6k	4.3k	2.0k	2.8k	1.7k	483	1.8k
320	2.4k	9.9k	5.7k	4.0k	2.0k	2.7k	1.7k	449	1.8k
480	2.3k	9.6k	6.0k	4.1k	2.0k	2.4k	1.8k	520	1.6k
640	2.3k	9.3k	5.4k	4.0k	1.9k	2.6k	1.7k	513	2.1k

Original Table 32 — Table 32: Training dynamics for Qwen3-14B-Base with Math-NoCoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 32
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Step	MATH500	AIME24	LCB v2	GPQA-D	MMLU-Pro	IFEval	AlpacaEval (RB2 / Sky / Mis)	HaluEval	TruthfulQA (truth / help)
Accuracy / RM Score
Base	77.8%	14.7%	37.5%	41.8%	61.8%	64.2%	0.53 / 13.5 / 4.83	54.7%	80.1% / 94.4%
10	75.0%	15.3%	36.3%	42.6%	60.1%	61.6%	0.40 / 14.78 / 5.39	55.6%	85.924% / 88.0%
40	80.5%	15.0%	36.7%	44.4%	61.4%	66.8%	1.97 / 24.85 / 8.33	68.7%	96.45% / 100.0%
80	80.7%	14.3%	35.9%	45.5%	65.3%	65.8%	1.88 / 24.53 / 8.33	69.0%	97.429% / 99.8%
160	81.1%	16.3%	40.3%	49.2%	67.0%	69.1%	2.03 / 25.57 / 8.51	72.7%	96.817% / 100.0%
320	81.5%	18.0%	40.4%	48.0%	67.4%	69.9%	2.12 / 26.22 / 8.63	72.2%	97.552% / 100.0%
480	81.5%	17.0%	40.1%	51.7%	69.3%	71.3%	2.09 / 26.18 / 8.56	72.8%	95.96% / 100.0%
640	82.4%	17.0%	40.3%	48.3%	69.1%	71.7%	2.11 / 26.06 / 8.57	70.9%	96.328% / 100.0%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.1k	3.9k	765	1.0k	851	3.7k	495	5.3k	3.9k
10	1.8k	5.6k	1.4k	1.6k	1.2k	5.3k	549	3.6k	7.7k
40	990	5.6k	1.6k	1.6k	914	602	640	364	501
80	975	3.8k	1.1k	1.3k	707	615	637	350	632
160	980	3.3k	962	1.5k	909	460	632	392	501
320	870	2.7k	1.0k	1.4k	729	517	648	406	497
480	879	3.6k	920	1.6k	760	454	636	369	483
640	815	3.5k	1.1k	1.7k	882	582	639	354	530

Original Table 33 — Table 33: Training dynamics for Qwen3-14B-Base with Numina-Math-20k (default training schedule).

Table 33
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Step	MATH500	AIME24	LCB v2	GPQA-D	MMLU-Pro	IFEval	AlpacaEval (RB2 / Sky / Mis)	HaluEval	TruthfulQA (truth / help)
Accuracy / RM Score
Base	77.8%	14.7%	37.5%	41.8%	61.8%	64.2%	0.53 / 13.5 / 4.83	54.7%	80.1% / 94.4%
10	66.6%	8.0%	34.1%	38.7%	49.9%	64.1%	0.10 / 13.45 / 4.87	52.7%	74.7% / 90.3%
40	75.7%	11.3%	6.5%	37.5%	50.4%	47.5%	-1.95 / 1.35 / 1.76	56.3%	79.3% / 88.5%
80	73.0%	13.0%	12.5%	38.6%	49.7%	47.1%	-1.82 / 2.92 / 2.18	59.9%	78.6% / 87.8%
160	73.7%	10.0%	12.2%	39.6%	54.4%	45.0%	-1.50 / 4.20 / 2.67	63.5%	72.8% / 89.0%
320	77.5%	13.3%	19.6%	37.5%	54.1%	49.2%	-0.74 / 8.04 / 3.55	65.3%	71.5% / 87.6%
480	77.1%	12.0%	21.5%	41.9%	55.1%	52.9%	-0.51 / 9.24 / 3.83	64.1%	77.2% / 88.4%
640	74.8%	14.0%	20.4%	38.4%	59.0%	52.8%	-0.45 / 9.79 / 3.95	62.7%	76.6% / 88.6%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.1k	3.9k	765	1.0k	851	3.7k	495	5.3k	3.9k
10	1.5k	6.6k	415	1.2k	928	3.1k	414	616	4.9k
40	773	2.6k	9.4k	2.1k	802	13.2k	640	1.0k	12.7k
80	828	1.4k	6.2k	1.4k	794	9.5k	628	1.0k	11.6k
160	668	1.7k	7.1k	1.1k	432	6.8k	551	300	9.6k
320	568	1.1k	2.5k	560	395	5.6k	622	559	7.4k
480	576	1.2k	2.5k	410	236	4.4k	605	728	6.3k
640	558	946	2.8k	364	370	4.7k	570	676	5.8k

Original Table 34 — Table 34: Training dynamics for Qwen3-14B-Base with DeepSeek-R1-generated data (default training schedule).

Table 34
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	77.8%	14.7%	37.5%	41.8%	61.8%	64.2%	0.53 / 13.5 / 4.83	54.7%	80.1% / 94.4%
10	78.5%	10.0%	36.7%	41.9%	58.7%	59.8%	0.75 / 17.75 / 5.89	56.2%	84.455% / 94.9%
20	71.6%	20.3%	29.8%	36.5%	47.6%	38.1%	-1.50 / 8.52 / 1.68	53.7%	88.25% / 51.8%
40	89.4%	34.7%	36.5%	42.1%	67.8%	54.8%	-0.29 / 14.84 / 4.76	68.0%	91.676% / 79.4%
80	90.1%	38.3%	41.5%	43.6%	65.2%	61.5%	0.46 / 17.24 / 6.04	74.2%	89.596% / 88.1%
160	94.1%	49.7%	48.0%	53.2%	66.4%	64.0%	0.83 / 19.72 / 6.69	71.2%	89.351% / 92.7%
320	94.8%	51.7%	54.5%	56.9%	64.1%	63.9%	1.04 / 20.87 / 6.93	72.4%	86.903% / 98.0%
480	94.9%	59.0%	58.0%	57.7%	62.0%	66.9%	1.03 / 20.89 / 6.84	71.6%	90.208% / 98.8%
640	95.3%	59.3%	56.9%	57.9%	63.6%	66.0%	1.09 / 21.22 / 6.95	71.3%	89.84% / 98.3%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.1k	3.9k	765	1.0k	851	3.7k	495	5.3k	3.9k
10	1.2k	6.0k	1.0k	1.7k	1.0k	4.8k	502	1.6k	13.8k
20	23.0k	26.6k	17.0k	27.1k	25.5k	27.3k	3.1k	16.5k	26.1k
40	5.5k	21.2k	21.8k	16.5k	6.5k	8.9k	4.0k	1.7k	15.4k
80	5.4k	19.3k	18.7k	16.2k	5.0k	6.0k	3.2k	861	15.0k
160	4.2k	15.9k	15.4k	10.4k	3.8k	5.3k	3.0k	800	10.2k
320	3.8k	14.5k	12.5k	7.4k	3.2k	3.9k	2.6k	748	6.7k
480	3.7k	13.3k	11.7k	7.0k	3.1k	3.3k	2.6k	739	4.1k
640	3.7k	13.4k	11.6k	6.6k	3.0k	2.8k	2.5k	751	4.4k

Original Table 35 — Table 35: Training dynamics for Qwen3-14B-Base with Math-CoT-20k (16 epochs with Cosine LR).

Table 35
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	77.8%	14.7%	37.5%	41.8%	61.8%	64.2%	0.53 / 13.5 / 4.83	54.7%	80.1% / 94.4%
10	77.9%	15.3%	37.9%	39.1%	61.0%	66.3%	0.58 / 16.59 / 5.69	54.2%	80.5% / 94.7%
20	79.2%	15.0%	35.9%	40.9%	58.6%	41.4%	0.83 / 18.64 / 5.98	55.6%	88.9% / 94.9%
40	84.0%	27.0%	40.8%	46.3%	60.5%	41.5%	-1.11 / 11.36 / 1.96	61.5%	92.0% / 59.6%
80	90.3%	45.3%	44.4%	44.3%	70.0%	52.4%	0.02 / 16.48 / 5.35	72.4%	94.5% / 87.4%
160	92.8%	53.3%	47.0%	50.0%	71.9%	62.4%	0.93 / 19.54 / 7.03	72.4%	95.2% / 91.9%
320	94.3%	58.7%	53.0%	57.7%	73.2%	65.5%	1.30 / 20.98 / 7.56	72.6%	93.5% / 94.5%
480	94.6%	62.7%	55.1%	64.0%	74.5%	64.3%	1.45 / 21.37 / 7.87	72.2%	93.6% / 96.1%
640	95.5%	62.0%	57.2%	62.3%	75.6%	67.2%	1.39 / 21.23 / 7.61	71.5%	93.0% / 97.6%
800	95.1%	65.3%	55.8%	63.5%	74.7%	64.6%	1.45 / 21.30 / 7.68	72.4%	93.5% / 98.2%
960	95.2%	65.3%	57.3%	64.8%	73.1%	67.3%	1.48 / 21.49 / 7.72	72.4%	92.4% / 98.7%
1120	95.2%	68.0%	57.3%	62.6%	74.8%	62.4%	1.44 / 21.28 / 7.63	70.4%	93.9% / 98.5%
1280	95.5%	68.7%	58.0%	63.3%	74.3%	65.6%	1.41 / 21.41 / 7.64	71.6%	93.9% / 99.1%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.1k	3.9k	765	1.0k	851	3.7k	495	5.3k	3.9k
10	1.1k	4.1k	757	1.5k	681	3.1k	449	1.0k	3.0k
20	2.4k	8.2k	1.7k	2.1k	2.4k	6.4k	535	2.8k	3.9k
40	12.4k	26.1k	10.2k	20.3k	19.5k	26.6k	5.7k	16.3k	26.1k
80	6.9k	21.4k	19.7k	17.3k	7.3k	12.3k	5.4k	1.5k	9.8k
160	6.1k	19.2k	17.8k	14.4k	5.4k	7.4k	4.0k	1.0k	5.9k
320	5.4k	16.9k	14.3k	10.7k	4.5k	5.7k	3.4k	770	5.3k
480	5.5k	16.7k	13.1k	9.2k	4.2k	5.2k	3.6k	803	5.5k
640	5.9k	18.1k	13.8k	10.0k	4.9k	4.8k	3.8k	830	4.7k
800	5.4k	16.7k	12.8k	9.3k	4.3k	5.2k	3.6k	866	3.9k
960	5.3k	16.0k	11.8k	8.6k	4.1k	4.8k	3.3k	744	3.7k
1120	5.3k	15.4k	12.2k	8.9k	4.1k	5.0k	3.3k	857	3.7k
1280	5.4k	15.8k	12.3k	8.9k	4.2k	4.6k	3.3k	888	3.2k

Original Table 36 — Table 36: Training dynamics for Qwen3-14B-Base with Math-CoT-20k (16 epochs with Constant LR).

Table 36
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	77.8%	14.7%	37.5%	41.8%	61.8%	64.2%	0.53 / 13.5 / 4.83	54.7%	80.1% / 94.4%
10	77.4%	13.7%	37.2%	42.3%	60.8%	63.3%	0.59 / 16.68 / 5.66	54.8%	84.2% / 95.6%
20	78.7%	12.3%	35.4%	43.8%	59.2%	42.9%	0.80 / 18.47 / 5.97	55.7%	86.2% / 95.6%
40	83.1%	32.3%	39.0%	44.1%	61.5%	40.3%	-1.09 / 11.76 / 2.08	64.2%	91.4% / 59.4%
80	91.1%	47.0%	44.3%	42.8%	71.7%	57.2%	0.00 / 16.85 / 5.48	72.2%	93.5% / 82.7%
160	91.3%	53.3%	45.9%	48.7%	72.2%	61.8%	0.67 / 18.56 / 6.61	72.8%	96.1% / 87.4%
320	93.9%	62.7%	54.6%	56.7%	74.9%	65.5%	1.34 / 20.72 / 7.59	72.9%	93.6% / 92.0%
480	94.7%	63.0%	53.3%	61.6%	73.4%	66.8%	1.42 / 21.44 / 7.75	72.4%	93.6% / 94.7%
640	95.1%	64.0%	56.1%	60.6%	75.7%	66.8%	1.46 / 22.06 / 7.79	71.0%	91.7% / 97.6%
800	94.5%	61.3%	55.8%	63.1%	74.3%	67.0%	1.41 / 21.47 / 7.61	70.0%	92.7% / 97.3%
960	94.1%	59.7%	50.4%	62.3%	74.0%	61.3%	1.53 / 21.74 / 7.78	68.4%	94.1% / 99.0%
1120	94.4%	60.0%	51.9%	61.8%	74.0%	62.0%	1.33 / 20.74 / 7.51	69.4%	94.7% / 98.7%
1280	94.9%	64.7%	54.7%	62.3%	73.5%	60.9%	1.33 / 20.25 / 7.53	71.5%	90.0% / 98.3%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.1k	3.9k	765	1.0k	851	3.7k	495	5.3k	3.9k
10	1.2k	4.0k	570	1.4k	709	3.5k	444	1.1k	2.9k
20	2.2k	8.1k	1.7k	1.8k	2.3k	6.6k	551	2.9k	3.2k
40	12.4k	24.1k	9.4k	21.1k	19.3k	26.4k	5.6k	15.7k	26.3k
80	6.4k	20.3k	19.2k	17.5k	6.7k	11.2k	4.9k	1.4k	11.3k
160	7.4k	20.3k	19.4k	17.4k	7.1k	8.7k	4.3k	1.1k	9.0k
320	5.7k	17.8k	14.8k	10.6k	4.6k	5.5k	3.4k	816	6.6k
480	5.5k	16.8k	13.7k	10.2k	4.6k	5.2k	3.6k	753	5.6k
640	5.2k	16.2k	12.7k	9.3k	4.6k	4.8k	3.4k	863	4.6k
800	5.9k	17.7k	14.3k	11.5k	5.2k	4.6k	3.7k	852	4.4k
960	4.7k	15.9k	12.5k	8.6k	4.1k	5.9k	3.3k	1.0k	3.4k
1120	6.4k	19.3k	15.1k	12.0k	5.3k	4.9k	3.9k	997	4.4k
1280	6.0k	17.0k	14.0k	10.6k	5.2k	6.1k	3.9k	1.1k	4.5k

Original Table 37 — Table 37: Training dynamics for Qwen3-14B-Base with Math-CoT-20k (1 epoch with LR 1e-5).

Table 37
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	77.8%	14.7%	37.5%	41.8%	61.8%	64.2%	0.53 / 13.5 / 4.83	54.7%	80.1% / 94.4%
10	79.7%	15.0%	37.1%	42.8%	58.5%	56.4%	0.74 / 18.20 / 5.85	55.4%	87.8% / 96.3%
40	81.9%	30.0%	35.7%	44.9%	59.1%	39.4%	-1.05 / 11.12 / 2.06	58.7%	91.3% / 61.3%
80	82.2%	28.7%	34.4%	41.8%	58.6%	40.5%	-0.84 / 11.61 / 2.38	59.8%	91.1% / 61.6%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.1k	3.9k	765	1.0k	851	3.7k	495	5.3k	3.9k
10	2.2k	7.9k	1.7k	2.2k	3.0k	5.9k	540	2.5k	2.7k
40	13.9k	24.6k	11.7k	24.4k	23.1k	24.1k	3.9k	13.7k	24.2k
80	13.3k	23.7k	11.8k	22.5k	23.0k	24.9k	3.9k	14.3k	23.3k

Original Table 38 — Table 38: Training dynamics for Qwen3-14B-Base with Math-CoT-20k (2 epochs with LR 1e-5).

Table 38
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	77.8%	14.7%	37.5%	41.8%	61.8%	64.2%	0.53 / 13.5 / 4.83	54.7%	80.1% / 94.4%
10	78.1%	15.0%	37.3%	38.7%	60.0%	57.7%	0.65 / 16.95 / 5.70	54.9%	84.5% / 95.3%
40	82.1%	33.3%	38.3%	44.1%	59.4%	38.6%	-1.11 / 11.51 / 2.06	60.4%	88.7% / 57.3%
80	87.3%	36.3%	38.4%	39.9%	66.2%	41.2%	-0.69 / 12.55 / 2.68	67.3%	88.1% / 61.9%
160	88.9%	39.0%	38.2%	40.1%	69.4%	41.6%	-0.89 / 13.19 / 2.90	68.3%	87.5% / 63.6%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.1k	3.9k	765	1.0k	851	3.7k	495	5.3k	3.9k
10	1.4k	5.4k	873	1.3k	628	4.0k	464	1.3k	2.9k
40	13.4k	25.1k	11.2k	22.5k	22.1k	26.3k	4.7k	14.3k	25.3k
80	8.0k	23.7k	15.8k	20.6k	10.6k	22.9k	4.1k	12.1k	22.9k
160	7.4k	22.9k	20.3k	19.7k	8.5k	20.6k	4.8k	9.6k	21.7k

Original Table 39 — Table 39: Training dynamics for Qwen3-14B-Base with Math-CoT-20k (16 epochs with constant LR 1e-4).

Table 39
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	77.8%	14.7%	37.5%	41.8%	61.8%	64.2%	0.53 / 13.5 / 4.83	54.7%	80.1% / 94.4%
10	79.5%	11.3%	37.2%	41.1%	61.0%	55.4%	0.70 / 17.53 / 5.82	54.2%	84.8% / 93.8%
20	69.4%	26.0%	16.7%	30.5%	41.7%	20.3%	-1.90 / 8.16 / 1.42	53.0%	87.0% / 50.9%
40	88.3%	38.0%	38.2%	43.4%	68.4%	44.1%	-0.21 / 17.54 / 4.85	74.1%	96.7% / 78.6%
80	91.5%	46.7%	41.8%	42.4%	69.5%	55.2%	0.31 / 17.56 / 6.17	72.7%	96.1% / 76.5%
160	93.7%	55.7%	46.2%	55.2%	73.2%	63.3%	1.15 / 20.88 / 7.34	73.7%	95.0% / 89.6%
320	93.3%	56.7%	51.3%	58.1%	73.5%	63.9%	1.04 / 20.95 / 7.09	74.9%	92.4% / 95.5%
480	92.5%	52.7%	45.0%	57.6%	72.4%	60.0%	1.39 / 21.68 / 7.67	75.2%	92.8% / 98.7%
640	92.5%	49.7%	46.8%	51.3%	71.1%	55.3%	0.90 / 18.89 / 6.81	74.7%	91.6% / 99.1%
800	92.4%	45.3%	38.0%	54.5%	70.6%	56.7%	0.91 / 17.09 / 6.69	73.5%	89.2% / 94.4%
960	91.1%	52.7%	32.0%	42.3%	65.8%	46.6%	-1.76 / 9.91 / 2.37	73.7%	89.1% / 95.3%
1120	92.6%	45.0%	34.8%	57.2%	69.2%	53.5%	0.95 / 16.92 / 6.71	72.1%	88.1% / 98.3%
1280	90.7%	37.0%	30.9%	49.7%	67.8%	49.5%	-0.76 / 11.13 / 3.81	74.2%	85.4% / 98.3%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.1k	3.9k	765	1.0k	851	3.7k	495	5.3k	3.9k
10	1.2k	5.4k	740	1.1k	768	4.0k	454	1.4k	3.0k
20	22.6k	26.2k	14.4k	22.1k	27.3k	28.5k	3.4k	13.6k	24.5k
40	7.1k	22.9k	20.2k	17.9k	7.5k	12.8k	4.6k	2.7k	13.1k
80	7.7k	21.6k	19.7k	19.4k	8.6k	10.7k	5.2k	1.5k	16.3k
160	5.6k	17.5k	15.2k	11.3k	5.0k	5.7k	3.4k	813	8.6k
320	6.7k	18.8k	14.4k	11.2k	5.8k	4.5k	3.0k	996	6.8k
480	5.8k	18.0k	14.4k	10.4k	4.3k	3.5k	2.3k	934	2.3k
640	5.5k	17.2k	14.4k	11.3k	4.9k	5.3k	3.9k	1.1k	4.2k
800	5.7k	19.0k	14.0k	9.9k	5.1k	6.1k	3.6k	856	7.0k
960	10.4k	24.8k	26.3k	23.7k	14.5k	17.7k	10.5k	3.9k	14.5k
1120	4.9k	17.6k	13.1k	10.1k	4.9k	6.1k	3.7k	1.2k	4.6k
1280	9.0k	23.5k	23.3k	16.5k	8.5k	12.4k	6.8k	2.1k	7.8k

Original Table 40 — Table 40: Training dynamics for Qwen2.5-1.5B-Base with Math-CoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 40
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	3.9%	0.7%	0.4%	1.3%	1.3%	30.5%	-6.71 / -16.28 / -3.94	31.0%	78.5% / 24.2%
10	19.1%	0.7%	0.6%	9.4%	2.3%	29.5%	-5.56 / -13.56 / -2.69	38.6%	79.3% / 36.4%
20	33.6%	1.7%	1.0%	11.4%	8.8%	34.8%	-3.40 / -5.00 / 0.02	43.6%	85.4% / 63.2%
40	25.1%	0.3%	1.3%	10.1%	15.4%	27.3%	-3.38 / -2.46 / 0.30	44.5%	96.1% / 51.2%
80	32.9%	1.0%	2.5%	7.4%	17.2%	28.2%	-3.28 / -2.48 / 0.87	46.1%	93.8% / 47.9%
160	35.3%	1.0%	2.3%	7.2%	16.0%	29.0%	-3.09 / -1.94 / 1.19	48.1%	93.4% / 52.0%
320	36.5%	0.7%	2.4%	8.6%	20.4%	29.6%	-2.69 / -0.46 / 1.86	47.3%	91.4% / 63.5%
480	38.2%	0.3%	2.3%	8.2%	21.2%	32.1%	-2.66 / -0.10 / 1.82	49.2%	92.4% / 65.2%
640	38.0%	1.3%	2.7%	7.4%	20.5%	31.7%	-2.58 / -0.01 / 1.96	47.6%	92.0% / 66.7%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	29.2k	26.9k	24.4k	25.7k	20.3k	23.4k	436	18.9k	23.9k
10	14.0k	15.3k	12.8k	21.0k	15.5k	20.4k	540	17.4k	20.1k
20	8.7k	11.6k	12.7k	10.9k	3.1k	13.9k	791	15.5k	13.4k
40	27.8k	31.8k	31.3k	27.3k	21.4k	28.3k	4.2k	13.3k	25.8k
80	22.8k	31.2k	27.9k	28.3k	19.6k	24.6k	3.9k	8.6k	25.1k
160	21.8k	31.2k	29.0k	29.1k	20.8k	22.2k	4.4k	7.0k	23.3k
320	22.2k	31.3k	29.4k	28.7k	18.3k	18.9k	4.2k	6.3k	20.3k
480	21.6k	31.0k	29.8k	28.0k	18.3k	17.2k	4.2k	5.6k	19.7k
640	21.5k	31.3k	29.9k	28.5k	18.8k	18.1k	3.9k	5.3k	19.4k

Original Table 41 — Table 41: Training dynamics for Qwen2.5-3B-Base with Math-CoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 41
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	58.7%	4.3%	9.4%	21.0%	15.0%	37.0%	-1.12 / 6.08 / 3.35	45.7%	68.5% / 88.7%
10	59.2%	3.7%	9.5%	21.5%	16.4%	34.9%	-1.25 / 5.68 / 3.12	44.5%	65.9% / 85.1%
20	30.8%	1.3%	6.0%	4.7%	13.0%	27.1%	-5.07 / -9.10 / -2.44	43.7%	89.1% / 52.9%
40	38.9%	3.0%	2.2%	9.6%	23.5%	26.4%	-1.70 / 4.58 / 3.00	43.1%	97.1% / 52.0%
80	49.5%	3.7%	5.3%	8.2%	24.7%	28.9%	-1.05 / 5.45 / 4.21	48.6%	94.4% / 64.7%
160	53.9%	5.7%	5.7%	9.4%	29.1%	29.4%	-0.62 / 6.92 / 4.77	48.2%	92.9% / 71.2%
320	58.3%	5.7%	5.1%	9.6%	32.1%	29.7%	-0.49 / 8.19 / 4.99	51.5%	91.2% / 78.0%
480	61.5%	6.7%	5.2%	9.9%	34.5%	30.3%	-0.29 / 8.73 / 5.32	51.7%	91.3% / 82.3%
640	60.6%	7.7%	7.7%	10.4%	35.6%	31.3%	-0.32 / 8.91 / 5.23	51.2%	89.7% / 82.5%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.3k	4.0k	5.8k	2.1k	1.0k	4.4k	282	447	2.4k
10	1.5k	4.9k	2.0k	2.5k	898	4.1k	318	756	2.3k
20	30.6k	31.5k	9.6k	30.8k	26.3k	22.5k	2.4k	6.6k	25.9k
40	24.7k	31.6k	31.4k	28.7k	22.5k	27.6k	4.6k	14.9k	28.3k
80	17.5k	30.9k	28.6k	28.1k	18.2k	21.3k	4.0k	9.0k	20.6k
160	16.7k	30.5k	28.2k	26.8k	16.7k	18.3k	3.7k	6.7k	18.1k
320	16.0k	30.1k	28.0k	27.9k	15.2k	14.7k	3.7k	4.9k	14.8k
480	14.7k	30.1k	27.3k	26.5k	13.6k	11.7k	3.4k	4.3k	13.1k
640	14.8k	29.4k	26.9k	27.5k	13.4k	11.0k	3.5k	4.2k	12.1k

Original Table 42 — Table 42: Training dynamics for Qwen2.5-7B-Base with Math-CoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 42
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	66.7%	7.7%	15.7%	26.9%	34.8%	41.1%	-1.00 / 6.61 / 3.26	45.4%	80.7% / 86.5%
10	66.1%	8.7%	9.5%	27.9%	34.4%	41.5%	-1.19 / 6.13 / 3.03	41.0%	80.0% / 83.5%
20	41.3%	7.3%	4.2%	9.6%	29.5%	31.4%	-1.95 / 4.93 / 2.20	63.5%	96.1% / 50.3%
40	60.1%	7.7%	9.8%	13.6%	40.9%	29.3%	-1.44 / 10.03 / 3.24	65.1%	95.2% / 54.2%
80	69.8%	11.0%	11.5%	14.3%	44.4%	35.6%	-0.77 / 10.49 / 4.29	66.9%	96.1% / 66.7%
160	78.0%	17.0%	14.4%	17.8%	51.5%	38.2%	0.15 / 13.43 / 5.62	72.8%	94.6% / 79.4%
320	82.1%	20.0%	19.7%	27.1%	56.7%	38.0%	0.44 / 14.63 / 6.10	74.3%	91.8% / 87.5%
480	85.5%	27.7%	23.6%	34.0%	56.3%	39.8%	0.66 / 16.14 / 6.57	74.3%	91.4% / 93.1%
640	84.7%	25.0%	24.3%	35.9%	58.1%	40.2%	0.72 / 16.61 / 6.65	74.2%	91.7% / 92.3%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	769	2.9k	671	1.1k	605	12.2k	503	2.9k	7.3k
10	1.6k	6.0k	1.8k	2.0k	1.4k	6.3k	558	6.4k	10.1k
20	30.0k	32.0k	31.6k	30.6k	23.9k	27.5k	2.4k	5.9k	25.0k
40	18.2k	30.9k	29.8k	28.0k	17.0k	24.0k	4.0k	6.3k	25.5k
80	13.5k	29.8k	29.2k	28.6k	17.4k	17.4k	3.8k	6.2k	20.7k
160	10.4k	27.7k	26.1k	26.4k	11.4k	12.7k	3.2k	3.5k	14.4k
320	8.5k	25.4k	22.9k	21.1k	7.6k	10.1k	3.1k	2.1k	10.4k
480	8.1k	24.7k	21.5k	18.0k	7.3k	7.7k	3.0k	1.6k	7.5k
640	7.9k	24.2k	20.9k	17.5k	7.1k	7.1k	3.0k	1.5k	7.7k

Original Table 43 — Table 43: Training dynamics for Qwen2.5-14B-Base with Math-CoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 43
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	65.7%	8.0%	17.6%	28.6%	40.9%	49.0%	-1.4 / 1.29 / 2.16	56.1%	85.4% / 93.8%
10	61.9%	7.7%	16.8%	30.3%	40.7%	42.8%	-1.63 / 1.34 / 1.84	52.4%	83.2% / 88.1%
20	52.9%	8.7%	7.6%	12.0%	39.2%	29.4%	-1.35 / 9.34 / 2.97	66.0%	97.6% / 54.5%
40	73.6%	16.7%	20.1%	22.7%	57.1%	35.4%	-0.69 / 13.74 / 4.52	73.3%	95.0% / 76.1%
80	83.5%	24.0%	28.0%	27.6%	62.5%	41.6%	0.75 / 17.31 / 6.71	75.6%	92.5% / 82.7%
160	87.2%	33.7%	34.7%	33.5%	67.4%	44.2%	0.88 / 18.19 / 6.92	75.9%	93.0% / 87.1%
320	91.2%	45.7%	38.9%	47.3%	69.7%	51.8%	1.15 / 18.92 / 7.26	76.3%	93.3% / 97.8%
480	92.1%	51.3%	44.5%	53.5%	71.6%	54.2%	1.27 / 19.90 / 7.44	76.9%	94.0% / 97.9%
640	91.7%	51.0%	45.1%	55.6%	71.4%	52.9%	1.40 / 20.60 / 7.69	77.0%	93.4% / 98.3%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.0k	3.4k	8.0k	2.9k	692	5.6k	688	1.3k	2.8k
10	4.5k	6.3k	9.6k	3.3k	2.1k	8.6k	871	4.9k	6.4k
20	29.3k	32.1k	31.0k	30.6k	25.6k	28.5k	5.1k	6.3k	26.8k
40	13.4k	29.8k	27.9k	26.6k	13.5k	22.1k	6.9k	3.7k	19.7k
80	8.5k	26.3k	22.5k	22.3k	9.7k	12.9k	4.1k	2.0k	14.1k
160	8.1k	23.8k	21.3k	21.3k	7.8k	9.8k	4.3k	1.9k	11.7k
320	6.0k	20.2k	17.1k	14.1k	5.5k	5.4k	3.7k	1.2k	4.9k
480	6.3k	19.0k	16.4k	12.1k	5.6k	4.8k	3.6k	1.1k	4.2k
640	6.1k	19.7k	16.6k	11.6k	5.3k	4.9k	3.5k	1.1k	4.3k

Original Table 44 — Table 44: Training dynamics for Qwen2.5-14B-Base with Countdown-CoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 44
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	65.7%	8.0%	17.6%	28.6%	40.9%	49.0%	-1.4 / 1.29 / 2.16	56.1%	85.4% / 93.8%
10	67.1%	8.3%	16.0%	32.3%	41.1%	46.8%	-1.34 / 3.42 / 2.32	55.3%	83.7% / 88.0%
40	79.8%	16.7%	31.7%	37.0%	57.8%	42.7%	1.14 / 19.16 / 6.72	74.4%	92.3% / 98.4%
80	78.3%	16.7%	31.9%	35.7%	59.3%	41.7%	1.23 / 18.94 / 6.91	72.4%	93.5% / 99.1%
160	79.1%	14.7%	30.5%	34.5%	61.0%	41.0%	1.14 / 17.69 / 6.72	69.5%	93.5% / 98.9%
320	82.6%	21.0%	32.8%	36.4%	61.0%	40.4%	1.26 / 18.15 / 6.78	66.8%	90.6% / 99.9%
480	81.7%	23.3%	33.6%	38.4%	62.4%	42.1%	1.22 / 18.43 / 6.84	68.2%	93.0% / 99.8%
640	83.6%	19.7%	34.4%	38.0%	62.3%	41.4%	1.25 / 18.14 / 6.85	68.2%	90.7% / 99.6%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.0k	3.4k	8.0k	2.9k	692	5.6k	688	1.3k	2.8k
10	1.7k	3.4k	6.6k	2.9k	2.0k	5.4k	759	2.3k	5.6k
40	3.2k	15.8k	8.0k	7.7k	2.8k	3.0k	1.2k	594	1.8k
80	3.6k	16.3k	9.3k	9.3k	3.1k	2.9k	1.3k	680	1.7k
160	3.6k	16.9k	8.8k	10.4k	3.4k	2.5k	1.4k	647	1.7k
320	2.9k	13.4k	6.4k	9.0k	2.6k	2.5k	1.3k	593	1.1k
480	2.6k	13.3k	6.1k	8.2k	2.8k	2.3k	1.4k	589	1.3k
640	2.7k	13.9k	6.6k	8.3k	2.6k	2.4k	1.3k	610	1.3k

Original Table 45 — Table 45: Training dynamics for InternLM2.5-20B-Base with Math-CoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 45
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	53.7%	1.7%	17.6%	20.9%	34.3%	51.1%	-0.84 / 8.17 / 3.42	60.6%	70.3% / 72.6%
10	50.8%	2.3%	14.2%	23.1%	32.5%	53.6%	-1.16 / 6.67 / 3.00	58.8%	71.4% / 72.8%
20	37.9%	0.3%	4.1%	11.8%	33.8%	34.2%	-0.92 / 9.78 / 3.59	70.2%	96.2% / 68.9%
40	35.7%	1.0%	8.7%	8.1%	36.6%	33.9%	-1.27 / 10.03 / 3.53	66.8%	96.0% / 59.4%
80	58.1%	6.3%	14.4%	15.8%	48.2%	40.2%	-0.05 / 12.64 / 5.47	74.9%	92.5% / 87.5%
160	67.1%	10.7%	15.7%	24.2%	53.6%	42.8%	0.56 / 15.32 / 6.20	76.2%	91.7% / 82.6%
320	75.4%	15.3%	23.3%	35.9%	58.3%	45.6%	0.62 / 15.96 / 6.33	76.1%	88.4% / 96.0%
480	80.7%	17.0%	26.0%	38.9%	61.6%	48.7%	0.88 / 16.92 / 6.74	75.5%	89.6% / 97.8%
640	80.3%	16.7%	26.0%	41.4%	61.5%	46.9%	0.93 / 16.90 / 6.80	76.1%	89.0% / 97.7%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.3k	2.5k	2.6k	1.5k	386	948	251	125	6.5k
10	3.1k	8.9k	915	2.7k	1.7k	1.5k	303	138	7.8k
20	25.5k	31.8k	28.2k	31.9k	21.2k	22.2k	4.6k	8.2k	18.3k
40	28.0k	32.8k	31.0k	29.8k	22.2k	22.8k	6.8k	12.8k	24.7k
80	17.4k	31.4k	27.5k	27.1k	15.1k	12.2k	5.1k	2.7k	13.7k
160	16.1k	30.2k	26.1k	24.6k	12.3k	8.9k	3.7k	1.6k	13.6k
320	12.5k	27.7k	22.1k	18.4k	8.7k	6.0k	4.5k	1.3k	6.2k
480	10.0k	26.3k	20.0k	15.8k	7.3k	4.0k	3.8k	1.1k	4.7k
640	10.3k	27.7k	19.9k	15.8k	7.6k	3.9k	3.7k	1.1k	4.8k

Original Table 46 — Table 46: Training dynamics for InternLM2.5-20B-Base with Countdown-CoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 46
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	53.7%	1.7%	17.6%	20.9%	34.3%	51.1%	-0.84 / 8.17 / 3.42	60.6%	70.3% / 72.6%
10	55.5%	3.0%	17.5%	23.2%	34.4%	44.4%	-0.61 / 9.47 / 3.87	60.3%	71.1% / 76.9%
20	54.9%	3.7%	17.1%	21.9%	42.6%	44.7%	0.31 / 14.67 / 5.45	70.6%	82.6% / 94.4%
40	54.8%	3.0%	19.0%	25.4%	44.7%	43.9%	0.63 / 15.49 / 5.85	73.4%	87.8% / 98.4%
80	49.4%	0.7%	18.6%	23.9%	46.2%	41.1%	0.57 / 13.86 / 5.56	70.4%	82.9% / 98.9%
160	51.4%	1.3%	18.7%	25.6%	45.6%	38.7%	0.44 / 12.63 / 5.31	72.4%	83.1% / 99.6%
320	54.2%	2.0%	20.0%	27.1%	48.4%	42.9%	0.36 / 12.05 / 5.21	68.3%	86.3% / 99.1%
480	53.7%	2.7%	20.4%	25.9%	48.7%	41.0%	0.45 / 12.38 / 5.33	69.3%	84.0% / 99.9%
640	54.5%	2.3%	22.1%	25.3%	47.5%	39.6%	0.40 / 12.48 / 5.23	70.2%	86.3% / 99.4%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.3k	2.5k	2.6k	1.5k	386	948	251	125	6.5k
10	1.7k	3.2k	1.2k	3.7k	849	1.3k	261	139	5.6k
20	1.8k	4.6k	9.6k	4.0k	2.2k	2.4k	560	417	1.9k
40	5.1k	13.1k	11.8k	7.8k	4.9k	2.5k	1.0k	491	1.4k
80	8.2k	21.4k	14.4k	12.1k	5.9k	2.8k	1.1k	504	1.3k
160	6.8k	18.5k	10.9k	10.2k	4.4k	2.4k	1.2k	605	1.0k
320	7.4k	19.4k	11.7k	11.1k	4.9k	2.8k	1.5k	591	1.3k
480	7.8k	20.5k	11.1k	10.2k	4.9k	2.8k	1.3k	598	1.1k
640	7.9k	19.4k	11.0k	9.3k	4.5k	2.9k	1.3k	608	1.1k

Original Table 47 — Table 47: Training dynamics for InternLM2.5-20B-Base with Math-NoCoT-20k (default training schedule).

Table 47
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Step	MATH500	AIME24	LCB v2	GPQA-D	MMLU-Pro	IFEval	AlpacaEval (RB2 / Sky / Mis)	HaluEval	TruthfulQA (truth / help)
Accuracy / RM Score
Base	53.7%	1.7%	17.6%	20.9%	34.3%	51.1%	-0.84 / 8.17 / 3.42	60.6%	70.3% / 72.6%
10	52.8%	2.3%	16.4%	24.9%	37.4%	45.8%	-0.37 / 10.53 / 4.15	60.0%	69.2% / 72.1%
40	53.6%	4.0%	20.0%	33.2%	47.8%	46.8%	1.23 / 18.02 / 7.24	57.3%	87.0% / 99.9%
80	50.7%	3.7%	15.1%	32.3%	45.9%	45.0%	1.05 / 16.31 / 6.97	64.0%	89.1% / 100.0%
160	53.5%	3.0%	17.9%	38.9%	47.6%	45.3%	1.29 / 18.12 / 7.34	69.7%	92.4% / 99.6%
320	55.9%	6.3%	15.1%	32.7%	47.6%	47.6%	1.23 / 17.59 / 7.15	71.0%	91.1% / 100.0%
480	58.1%	4.0%	17.8%	31.5%	48.8%	51.4%	1.19 / 17.19 / 7.01	68.2%	91.1% / 99.8%
640	57.9%	5.0%	17.9%	35.7%	48.3%	52.6%	1.23 / 17.44 / 7.03	71.0%	89.7% / 99.8%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.3k	2.5k	2.6k	1.5k	386	948	251	125	6.5k
10	2.1k	4.7k	1.3k	2.8k	987	1.6k	316	150	6.1k
40	932	2.5k	1.1k	1.1k	841	702	600	222	565
80	1.3k	2.0k	1.1k	1.4k	1.0k	1.3k	630	363	709
160	1.1k	1.8k	938	1.2k	823	706	597	370	724
320	1.1k	2.0k	1.5k	1.5k	954	811	646	432	686
480	1.3k	2.1k	1.4k	1.7k	1.1k	849	592	374	679
640	1.2k	2.1k	1.0k	1.3k	852	723	600	407	677

Original Table 48 — Table 48: Training dynamics for InternLM2.5-20B-Base with Numina-Math-20k (default training schedule).

Table 48
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Step	MATH500	AIME24	LCB v2	GPQA-D	MMLU-Pro	IFEval	AlpacaEval (RB2 / Sky / Mis)	HaluEval	TruthfulQA (truth / help)
Accuracy / RM Score
Base	53.7%	1.7%	17.6%	20.9%	34.3%	51.1%	-0.84 / 8.17 / 3.42	60.6%	70.3% / 72.6%
10	32.9%	0.3%	11.5%	31.3%	11.9%	45.3%	-1.83 / 3.33 / 2.13	53.3%	67.7% / 69.4%
20	33.8%	0.7%	8.2%	30.6%	33.6%	38.7%	-2.37 / -0.43 / 1.62	51.3%	53.4% / 96.3%
40	41.5%	2.7%	6.6%	29.8%	35.7%	33.5%	-2.28 / 0.52 / 1.90	51.8%	53.7% / 96.7%
80	36.3%	2.3%	6.2%	29.1%	34.5%	34.5%	-2.63 / -0.93 / 1.46	50.1%	49.8% / 97.8%
160	33.5%	1.0%	9.3%	30.6%	38.6%	37.8%	-1.85 / 2.61 / 2.50	56.8%	53.6% / 98.3%
320	40.9%	1.0%	2.6%	31.0%	36.4%	38.1%	-1.82 / 2.83 / 2.43	55.7%	51.5% / 97.3%
480	45.5%	2.3%	5.5%	34.8%	39.5%	38.6%	-1.45 / 4.32 / 2.85	62.8%	55.8% / 99.6%
640	45.1%	1.0%	3.9%	29.3%	38.9%	39.1%	-1.55 / 4.00 / 2.75	58.3%	58.6% / 99.0%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.3k	2.5k	2.6k	1.5k	386	948	251	125	6.5k
10	1.4k	3.9k	549	1.7k	369	1.7k	363	64	8.3k
20	1.5k	3.0k	1.3k	2.4k	786	2.6k	301	184	1.6k
40	1.7k	3.6k	627	2.2k	545	2.0k	307	95	1.1k
80	1.0k	2.6k	939	1.8k	364	2.1k	232	53	704
160	1.5k	3.0k	1.7k	1.2k	828	1.0k	273	50	819
320	989	1.5k	1.8k	422	289	709	270	82	580
480	730	1.4k	1.4k	478	379	643	323	131	566
640	714	1.2k	1.2k	462	368	851	318	97	639

Original Table 49 — Table 49: Training dynamics for InternLM2.5-20B-Base with DeepSeek-R1-generated data (default training schedule).

Table 49
	ID reasoning	OOD reasoning	General capabilities
Base	53.7%	1.7%	17.6%	20.9%	34.3%	51.1%	-0.84 / 8.17 / 3.42	60.6%	70.3% / 72.6%
10	52.6%	2.3%	10.2%	22.4%	31.6%	44.6%	-1.52 / 5.39 / 2.53	60.5%	71.5% / 74.9%
20	41.9%	1.3%	3.8%	16.3%	38.4%	37.0%	-1.46 / 7.98 / 2.82	68.9%	86.4% / 78.3%
40	55.0%	4.3%	13.8%	22.1%	46.4%	38.8%	-0.73 / 11.43 / 4.14	71.4%	83.8% / 84.0%
80	61.0%	5.3%	18.7%	27.1%	50.9%	41.8%	-0.38 / 11.28 / 4.61	72.2%	83.4% / 88.2%
160	71.0%	9.0%	22.4%	35.0%	55.7%	46.6%	0.31 / 14.60 / 5.61	74.8%	83.8% / 96.0%
320	77.5%	15.3%	25.8%	38.2%	59.8%	49.0%	0.28 / 15.07 / 5.57	74.6%	83.6% / 97.9%
480	78.5%	13.0%	28.0%	40.7%	59.6%	53.8%	0.42 / 15.17 / 5.80	76.0%	84.8% / 98.4%
640	78.5%	14.3%	27.5%	39.7%	57.8%	51.1%	0.40 / 15.38 / 5.73	74.8%	85.7% / 98.4%
Average Response length (tokens)
Base	1.3k	2.5k	2.6k	1.5k	386	948	251	125	6.5k
10	3.1k	8.3k	1.1k	3.8k	1.4k	1.7k	345	152	7.3k
20	21.1k	31.4k	31.7k	26.2k	18.1k	19.2k	2.4k	7.4k	13.5k
40	14.2k	27.3k	26.4k	23.4k	11.7k	15.2k	3.9k	3.4k	11.9k
80	9.5k	21.4k	20.7k	20.4k	9.8k	11.5k	2.9k	2.2k	11.6k
160	6.8k	20.7k	16.8k	13.0k	5.8k	6.4k	4.1k	760	5.1k
320	7.6k	21.9k	18.4k	14.1k	6.4k	4.6k	2.6k	906	4.2k
480	6.9k	20.4k	17.2k	11.7k	5.8k	4.5k	2.5k	835	3.3k
640	6.5k	20.3k	17.2k	11.4k	5.5k	4.1k	3.3k	844	3.2k

LLMs were used for language polishing and assisting with plotting scripts and figure/table formatting.

All core research components, including research questions, experimental design, data construction, model training, evaluation, result interpretation, and final scientific claims, were determined and validated by the authors. We manually reviewed and edited all LLM-assisted text and code before inclusion in the paper.

Rethinking Generalization in Reasoning SFT: A Conditional Analysis on Optimization, Data, and Model Capability

Abstract

References

Meow summary

The takeaway

Why training can look worse before it gets better

What transfers—and who can learn it

The cost and the limits

Make notes of your own

Training schedule	ID reasoning		OOD reasoning			General capabilities
(fixed 640-step budget)	MATH500	AIME24	LCB v2	GPQA-D	MMLU-Pro	IFEval	AlpacaEval (RM)	HaluEval	TruthfulQA (helpful)
Setting1: 20k, bsz 256, ep 8	95.1%	66.0%	55.1%	63.3%	74.4%	68.9%	1.42	72.8%	95.6%
Setting2: 2.5k, bsz 32, ep 8	94.9%	61.7%	51.7%	59.9%	73.6%	63.4%	1.10	72.6%	96.2%
Setting3: 20k, bsz 32, ep 1	92.9%	48.0%	45.4%	46.8%	70.5%	59.8%	0.93	75.2%	86.3%

Abstract

1 Introduction

2 Experimental Setup

2.1 Model, dataset, and training protocol

2.2 Evaluation suite

3 Optimization Dynamics of Reasoning SFT

3.1 Apparent non-generalization may be an under-optimization artifact

3.2 Response length as a diagnostic of optimization stage

3.3 Why longer training helps: repeated exposure or simply more steps?

3.4 From underfitting to overfitting: symptoms and regimes

4 How Training Data Shapes Generalization

5 How Model Capability Affects Generalization

6 Asymmetric Generalization: Safety Under Long-CoT SFT

7 Related Work

8 Discussion and Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Reproducibility Statement

References

Appendix A Discussion and Limitation

Discussion.

Limitations.

Appendix B Detailed Experimental Settings

B.1 Dataset generation details

B.2 Optimization details

B.3 Additional experiment details

Multi-seed protocol.

Code-CoT-20k.

Additional model families.

Matched-query GRPO.

Trace-level analysis on reasoning patterns.

Self-rationalization detector.

B.4 Evaluation details

Evaluation framework.

Benchmarks and evaluation settings.

B.5 Evaluation prompts

Appendix C More Experimental Results

C.1 Supplemental experiments for replicating previous findings on weak cross-domain generalization of SFT

C.2 Optimization dynamics results on different teachers and more models

C.3 Multi-seed robustness

C.4 Code-domain long-CoT supervision

C.5 Additional model families

C.6 Case study: early training step vs. late training step

C.7 Full results on overfitting stress test

C.8 Full results on model capability experiment

C.9 Case study: low-capability model vs. high-capability model

C.10 Which tokens do higher-capability models learn better?

C.11 Trace-level behavioral analysis

C.12 Why Countdown transfers differently across models

C.13 Dip-and-recovery versus low-baseline gains

C.14 Matched-query SFT versus GRPO

C.15 Expanded safety analysis

Appendix D Full Result Tables for All Experiments

Appendix E Disclosure of LLM Usage

Meow summary

The takeaway

Why training can look worse before it gets better

What transfers—and who can learn it

The cost and the limits

Make notes of your own