# Probing the Origins of Reasoning Performance: Representational Quality for Mathematical Problem-Solving in RL vs. SFT Fine-Tuned Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.26119 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.26119/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reinforcement learning for reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 9 of its 19 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.05262/) (2022)
- [Demystifying Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.03373/) (2025)
- [Reasoning Models Know When They're Right: Probing Hidden States for Self-Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.05419/) (2025)
- [How Well do LLMs Compress Their Own Chain-of-Thought? A Token Complexity Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.01141/) (2025)
- [Do Large Language Model Benchmarks Test Reliability?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.03461/) (2025)
- [On the Interplay Between Fine-tuning and Sentence-level Probing for Linguistic Knowledge in Pre-trained Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.02616/) (2020)
- [How does Chain of Thought Think? Mechanistic Interpretability of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning with Sparse Autoencoding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.22928/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large reasoning models trained via reinforcement learning (RL) have been increasingly shown to outperform their supervised fine-tuned (SFT) counterparts on mathematical reasoning tasks; Yet the mechanistic basis for this advantage remains unclear. We therefore ask, what internal representational differences enable RL models' superior performance? Our work presents two converging lines of evidence: First, linear probes trained on layer-wise hidden states reveal that RL models tend to achieve higher accuracy in predicting answer correctness compared to SFT models, indicating more linearly separable and structured representations. Second, mean ablation studies show that RL models develop a hierarchical architecture where deeper layers become progressively more critical, whereas SFT models distribute importance uniformly across layers. Together, these findings demonstrate that RL training fundamentally restructures how models represent and process reasoning problems. Finally, we analyze token-count variability under repeated sampling across problems to assess adaptive compute allocation. While we observe higher variability in some RL-tuned models than in their SFT counterparts, we see strong consistency in others, suggesting that token allocation may depend more on the overall training pipeline than on RL versus SFT alone. We believe this token-allocation variability reveals the spread of plausible on-policy reasoning, highlighting which models exhibit stable policies versus those that are under-determined, potentially non-identifiable solution behaviour.