Reasoning-Trace Collapse: Evaluating the Loss of Explicit Reasoning During Fine-Tuning
TL;DR
It is found that standard supervised fine-tuning can rapidly suppress valid reasoning traces, and that answer-only metrics can substantially obscure this failure: in several settings, performance conditional on valid reasoning remains high while the rate of valid reasoning falls sharply.
Abstract
Explicit reasoning models are trained to produce intermediate reasoning traces before final answers, but downstream fine-tuning is often performed on ordinary instruction--response data that contains no such traces. We show that this mismatch can induce reasoning-trace collapse: a fine-tuned model continues to produce plausible final answers while losing the structurally valid explicit reasoning traces that made it a reasoning model in the first place. We introduce a structural evaluation framework that separates answer correctness from reasoning-trace validity, measuring valid, empty, missing, and truncated reasoning alongside reasoning-conditioned task performance. Using this framework, we study four open-weight reasoning models and find that standard supervised fine-tuning can rapidly suppress valid reasoning traces, and that answer-only metrics can substantially obscure this failure: in several settings, performance conditional on valid reasoning remains high while the rate of valid reasoning falls sharply. We further show that simple loss-masking strategies can substantially mitigate collapse without requiring teacher-generated reasoning traces. These results suggest that evaluations of fine-tuned reasoning models should report structural reasoning reliability metrics in addition to final-answer performance, especially when adaptation data does not contain explicit reasoning traces.
