# Generalizable LLM Learning of Graph Synthetic Data with Post-training Alignment

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.00845 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.00845/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 59 of its 91 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/knowledge-and-tool-augmented-reasoning/)
- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [LLM preference optimization methods](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/llm-preference-optimization-methods/)
- Synthetic data and self-improvement for LLMs / [Synthetic reasoning data and bootstrapping](https://mlsanity.com/synth/synthetic-reasoning-data-and-bootstrapping/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 59)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [Learning to summarize from human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.01325/) (2020)
- [Trust Region Policy Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1502.05477/) (2015)
- [HybridFlow: A Flexible and Efficient RLHF Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.19256/) (2024)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [s1: Simple test-time scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.19393/) (2025)
- [Constructing A Multi-hop QA Dataset for Comprehensive Evaluation of Reasoning Steps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.01060/) (2020)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13837/) (2025)
- [SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Reward](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.14734/) (2024)
- [On-Policy Distillation of Language Models: Learning from Self-Generated Mistakes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13649/) (2023)
- [Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.14275/) (2022)
- [Did Aristotle Use a Laptop? A Question Answering Benchmark with Implicit Reasoning Strategies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.02235/) (2021)
- [SFT Memorizes, RL Generalizes: A Comparative Study of Foundation Model Post-training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.17161/) (2025)
- [WizardMath: Empowering Mathematical Reasoning for Large Language Models via Reinforced Evol-Instruct](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.09583/) (2023)
- [BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15877/) (2024)
- [Contrastive Preference Optimization: Pushing the Boundaries of LLM Performance in Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.08417/) (2024)
- [PlanBench: An Extensible Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models on Planning and Reasoning about Change](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.10498/) (2022)
- [KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01306/) (2024)
- [SWE-RL: Advancing LLM Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning on Open Software Evolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18449/) (2025)
- [Can Language Models Solve Graph Problems in Natural Language?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10037/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-Prover: Advancing Theorem Proving in LLMs through Large-Scale Synthetic Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.14333/) (2024)
- [EmbodiedBench: Comprehensive Benchmarking Multi-modal Large Language Models for Vision-Driven Embodied Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.09560/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [TheoremGraph: Bridging Formal and Informal Mathematics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.25363/) (2026)
- [Are Large Language Models Suitable for Graph Computation? Progress and Prospects](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.06865/) (2026)
- [GTA: Graph Theory Agent and Benchmark for Algorithmic Graph Reasoning with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.12265/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Previous research has sought to enhance the graph reasoning capabilities of LLMs by supervised fine-tuning on synthetic graph data. While these led to specialized LLMs better at solving graph algorithm problems, we don't need LLMs for shortest path: we need generalization from synthetic graph data to real-world tasks with implicit graph structures. In this work, we propose to unlock generalizable learning of graph with post-training alignment with synthetic data. We first design solution-based and process-based rewards for synthetic graph problems: instead of rigid memorizing response patterns in direct fine-tuning, we posit that post-training alignment would help LLMs grasp the essentials underlying graph reasoning and alleviate overfitting on synthetic data. We employ post-training alignment algorithms such as GRPO and DPO, aligning both off-the-shelf LLMs and LLMs fine-tuned on synthetic graph data. We then compare them against existing settings on both in-domain synthetic tasks and out-of-domain real-world tasks with implicit graph structures such as multi-hop QA, structured planning, and more. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our post-training alignment recipe leads to statistically significant improvement on 5 datasets, with an average gain of 12.9% over baseline settings. Further analysis reveals that process-based rewards consistently outperform solution-based rewards on synthetic data but not on real-world tasks, and compositionality and explainable intermediate steps remains a critical challenge even after post-training alignment.