# Understanding Reasoning from Pretraining to Post-Training

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.16097 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.16097/

## Key facts

- Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reinforcement learning for reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 39 of its 44 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reinforcement learning for reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reinforcement-learning-for-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 39)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08361/) (2020)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.15556/) (2022)
- [DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.14476/) (2025)
- [HybridFlow: A Flexible and Efficient RLHF Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.19256/) (2024)
- [Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15124/) (2024)
- [Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13837/) (2025)
- [Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1712.01815/) (2017)
- [SimpleRL-Zoo: Investigating and Taming Zero Reinforcement Learning for Open Base Models in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18892/) (2025)
- [Weak-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities With Weak Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.09390/) (2023)
- [2 OLMo 2 Furious](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.00656/) (2024)
- [MobileLLM: Optimizing Sub-billion Parameter Language Models for On-Device Use Cases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14905/) (2024)
- [Large Language Model Guided Tree-of-Thought](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.08291/) (2023)
- [When Scaling Meets LLM Finetuning: The Effect of Data, Model and Finetuning Method](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17193/) (2024)
- [Beyond Chinchilla-Optimal: Accounting for Inference in Language Model Scaling Laws](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.00448/) (2023)
- [Language models scale reliably with over-training and on downstream tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.08540/) (2024)
- [Physics of Language Models: Part 2.1, Grade-School Math and the Hidden Reasoning Process](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.20311/) (2024)
- [The Art of Scaling Reinforcement Learning Compute for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.13786/) (2025)
- [Is Best-of-N the Best of Them? Coverage, Scaling, and Optimality in Inference-Time Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.21878/) (2025)
- [Reasoning with Sampling: Your Base Model is Smarter Than You Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.14901/) (2025)
- [ChessGPT: Bridging Policy Learning and Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.09200/) (2023)
- [On the Interplay of Pre-Training, Mid-Training, and RL on Reasoning Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.07783/) (2025)
- [Amortized Planning with Large-Scale Transformers: A Case Study on Chess](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04494/) (2024)
- [Scaling Laws of Synthetic Data for Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.19551/) (2025)
- [From f(x) and g(x) to f(g(x)): LLMs Learn New Skills in RL by Composing Old Ones](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25123/) (2025)
- [Nemotron-CC-Math: A 133 Billion-Token-Scale High Quality Math Pretraining Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.15096/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Synthetic Persona Pretraining: Alignment from Token Zero](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.13482/) (2026)
- [Building Multilingual Bridges: Data Mixing as the Pillar of Generalization for In-Language Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.10445/) (2026)
- [Scaling Properties of Same-Family On-Policy Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.32722/) (2026)
- [Sharpening Tax in Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.01509/) (2026)
- [How RL Reshapes LLM Reasoning: Transferability, Coverage, and Scaling Laws](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.04158/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become central to improving large language models (LLMs) on complex reasoning tasks, yet RL post-training is largely studied in isolation from the pretraining that precedes it. As a result, two basic questions remain open: (1) how do pretraining choices (model size, data) shape the returns to RL compute, and (2) what does RL actually do to the model? These questions are difficult to study in the standard LLM setting: pretraining corpora are vast and uncontrolled, making it hard to attribute behaviors to pretraining versus RL, and systematic compute sweeps across both stages are prohibitively expensive. To address these challenges, we use chess as a controlled testbed for studying reasoning across the full pretraining-to-post-training pipeline. We follow the standard LLM training pipeline by pretraining language models from 5M to 1B parameters on human chess games, supervised fine-tuning on synthetic reasoning traces, and running RL on chess puzzles with verifiable rewards. Using this framework, we find that the post-RL performance at given RL compute level is well-predicted from the pretraining loss, and slope of the RL reward curves improves approximately linearly with the pretraining tokens. Beyond scaling, we find that RL does not simply sharpen the SFT policy: on easy puzzles it amplifies correct moves the SFT policy already preferred, while on hard puzzles it surfaces correct moves that were nearly absent under SFT. We further test whether our findings transfer beyond chess by training a 1B language model on math-domain text, where the same predictive pattern emerges: longer-pretrained checkpoints reach higher post-RL performance and improve faster under RL. In sum, we provide a quantitative account of the pretraining-to-RL interface and a controlled testbed for studying the science of reasoning across the full pretraining-to-post-training pipeline.