mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

When Inverse Data Outperforms: Exploring the Pitfalls of Mixed Data in Multi-Stage Fine-Tuning

arXiv 2509.13079 ↗First posted 16 Sep 2025cs.LG cs.CLcited by 2

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Process reward models for reasoning

Abstract (arXiv)

Existing work has shown that o1-level performance can be achieved with limited data distillation, but most existing methods focus on unidirectional supervised fine-tuning (SFT), overlooking the intricate interplay between diverse reasoning patterns. In this paper, we construct r1k, a high-quality reverse reasoning dataset derived by inverting 1,000 forward examples from s1k, and examine how SFT and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) affect alignment under bidirectional reasoning objectives. SFT on r1k yields a 1.6%--6.8% accuracy improvement over s1k across evaluated benchmarks. However, naively mixing forward and reverse data during SFT weakens the directional distinction. Although DPO can partially recover this distinction, it also suppresses less preferred reasoning paths by shifting the probability mass toward irrelevant outputs. These findings suggest that mixed reasoning data introduce conflicting supervision signals, underscoring the need for robust and direction-aware alignment strategies.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Process reward models for reasoning, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 16 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Sep 2025.

Builds on

16 of 24 references.

References · 16

  1. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  2. 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
  3. 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
  4. 2018Neural Tangent Kernel: Convergence and Generalization in Neural Networkscited by 2,621
  5. 2023Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflectioncited by 1,839
  6. 2025s1: Simple test-time scalingcited by 1,341
  7. 2020Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient Descentcited by 580
  8. 2024FlashAttention-3: Fast and Accurate Attention with Asynchrony and Low-precisioncited by 519
  9. 2025LIMO: Less is More for Reasoningcited by 498
  10. 2023DeepSpeed Ulysses: System Optimizations for Enabling Training of Extreme Long Sequence Transformer Modelscited by 245
  11. 2019Harnessing the Power of Infinitely Wide Deep Nets on Small-data Taskscited by 87
  12. 2024MathGenie: Generating Synthetic Data with Question Back-translation for Enhancing Mathematical Reasoning of LLMscited by 72
4 more
  1. 2024OptiBench Meets ReSocratic: Measure and Improve LLMs for Optimization Modelingcited by 68
  2. 2024Augmenting Math Word Problems via Iterative Question Composingcited by 59
  3. 2025Weight Ensembling Improves Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 38
  4. 2024DELIFT: Data Efficient Language model Instruction Fine Tuningcited by 14

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Not All Preferences Deserve Gradients: Understanding Gradient Utility in Offline Reasoning Alignment
  2. 2025Audited Reasoning Refinement: Fine-Tuning Language Models via LLM-Guided Step-Wise Evaluation and Correction
  3. 2026GRACE: Gradient-aligned Reasoning Data Curation for Efficient Post-training
  4. 2026Reasoning Quality Emerges Early: Data Curation for Reasoning Models
  5. 2026How Does Prefix Matter in Reasoning Model Tuning?
  6. 2025InfiAlign: A Scalable and Sample-Efficient Framework for Aligning LLMs to Enhance Reasoning Capabilities
  7. 2025Turning Drift into Constraint: Robust Reasoning Alignment in Non-Stationary Multi-Stream Environments
  8. 2025Retro-Search: Exploring Untaken Paths for Deeper and Efficient Reasoning