# Revisiting Complete Reasoning Traces for Post-Training

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.07103 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.07103/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 29 of its 59 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 29 of 29)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [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)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.06261/) (2025)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.14476/) (2025)
- [LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07974/) (2024)
- [What Does BERT Look At? An Analysis of BERT's Attention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.04341/) (2019)
- [DeepSeek-V3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.19437/) (2024)
- [SFT Memorizes, RL Generalizes: A Comparative Study of Foundation Model Post-training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.17161/) (2025)
- [OLMo: Accelerating the Science of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.00838/) (2024)
- [2 OLMo 2 Furious](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.00656/) (2024)
- [OpenThoughts: Data Recipes for Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.04178/) (2025)
- [ThinkPrune: Pruning Long Chain-of-Thought of LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01296/) (2025)
- [Reasoning Models Can Be Effective Without Thinking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.09858/) (2025)
- [When More is Less: Understanding Chain-of-Thought Length in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.07266/) (2025)
- [MiniLLM: On-Policy Distillation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.08543/) (2023)
- [CodeElo: Benchmarking Competition-level Code Generation of LLMs with Human-comparable Elo Ratings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.01257/) (2025)
- [Don't Overthink it. Preferring Shorter Thinking Chains for Improved LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.17813/) (2025)
- [Wait, We Don't Need to "Wait"! Removing Thinking Tokens Improves Reasoning Efficiency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.08343/) (2025)
- [Does Thinking More always Help? Mirage of Test-Time Scaling in Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.04210/) (2025)
- [Long-Short Chain-of-Thought Mixture Supervised Fine-Tuning Eliciting Efficient Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.03469/) (2025)
- [Not All Tokens Are What You Need In Thinking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.17827/) (2025)
- [The Price of a Second Thought: On the Evaluation of Reasoning Efficiency in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.22017/) (2025)
- [Large Reasoning Models are not thinking straight: on the unreliability of thinking trajectories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.00711/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are often post-trained on pre-collected reasoning trajectories to improve their reasoning capability. Such trajectories tend to be long due to complex, interwoven paths, which often include detours on the path toward the answer. However, it has been underexplored whether LLMs indeed benefit from learning complete trajectories in post-training, such as supervised fine-tuning (SFT). Starting from our pilot study, we find that full trajectories provide only limited benefit, while partial trajectories are effective even under heavy truncation. We analyze redundancy in reasoning trajectories through attention-based analyses and controlled token-removal studies, both of which show that intermediate tokens contribute minimally to final reasoning quality. This suggests that avoiding redundant information may allow LLMs to internally infer coherent alternatives by inferring missing steps from their internal knowledge, given known trajectory endpoints. Furthermore, we show that training LLMs using endpoints leads to consistent changes in reasoning behavior, and that it also benefits post-training methods based on reinforcement learning or on-policy distillation, highlighting the need to revisit complete reasoning traces. Code is available at https://github.com/naver-ai/revisiting-trace.