arxiv: 2605.13290 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · 💻 cs.AI

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

What properties of reasoning supervision are associated with improved downstream model quality?

Miko{\l}aj Langner , Dzmitry Pihulski , Jan Eliasz , Micha{\l} Rajkowski , Przemys{\l}aw Kazienko , Maciej Piasecki , Jan Koco\'n , Teddy Ferdinan

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 19:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI

keywords reasoning supervisionintrinsic metricsdata utility predictionscale-dependent performancefine-tuningmodel qualityPolish reasoning dataset

0 comments

The pith

Intrinsic metrics on reasoning data strongly predict downstream model performance in a scale-dependent way.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper tests whether quantitative properties of reasoning supervision data can forecast how much a model will improve after fine-tuning, without running the full training process first. The authors define a set of intrinsic measures and apply them to multiple versions of a Polish reasoning dataset before fine-tuning 8B and 11B models on each version. The measures show strong correlations with final task performance. The key finding is that the most useful measures change with model size: smaller models gain from data that is tightly aligned and precise, while larger models gain from data that contains more redundancy and longer traces.

Core claim

A suite of intrinsic quantitative measures applied to reasoning supervision data can predict the downstream quality of models fine-tuned on that data, with the predictive metrics being different for smaller versus larger models: alignment-focused metrics matter more for smaller models while redundancy and verbosity matter more for larger ones.

What carries the argument

Suite of intrinsic metrics that quantify alignment, redundancy, and verbosity of reasoning traces in the training data.

Load-bearing premise

The scale-dependent patterns observed on semantically distinct variants of one Polish reasoning dataset will generalize to other languages, domains, and model families.

What would settle it

Applying the same intrinsic metrics to an English reasoning dataset, fine-tuning both small and large models, and finding that the reported correlations disappear or that the scale dependence reverses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13290 by Dzmitry Pihulski, Jan Eliasz, Jan Koco\'n, Maciej Piasecki, Micha{\l} Rajkowski, Miko{\l}aj Langner, Przemys{\l}aw Kazienko, Teddy Ferdinan.

read the original abstract

Validating training data for reasoning models typically requires expensive trial-and-error fine-tuning cycles. In this work, we investigate whether the utility of a reasoning dataset can be reliably predicted prior to training using intrinsic data metrics. We propose a suite of quantitative measures and evaluate their predictive power by fine-tuning 8B and 11B models on semantically distinct variants of a Polish reasoning dataset. Our analysis reveals that these intrinsic metrics demonstrate strong and significant correlations with downstream model performance. Crucially, we find that the predictors of utility are scale-dependent: smaller models rely on alignment-focused metrics to ensure precision, whereas larger models benefit from high redundancy, utilizing verbose traces to solve complex tasks. These findings establish a scale-aware framework for validating reasoning data, enabling practitioners to select effective training sets without the need for exhaustive empirical testing.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper finds that intrinsic metrics on reasoning data correlate with fine-tuning results in a scale-dependent way, but the evidence comes from only two close model sizes on variants of one Polish dataset.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this work links pre-computed dataset properties like alignment and redundancy to actual downstream performance on reasoning tasks, and claims the best predictors change with model scale. Smaller models seem to need tight alignment for precision while larger ones make use of redundant verbose traces. They support this by generating semantically distinct variants of a single Polish reasoning dataset and running fine-tunes on 8B and 11B models, then measuring correlations between the intrinsic scores and the trained model quality. That direct empirical link is the useful part, since it moves beyond pure theory and gives data curators something concrete to measure before committing to training runs. The experiments are straightforward and the abstract reports strong correlations, which is better than many papers that stop at proposed metrics without testing them. The soft spots are the narrow scope and missing details. Two adjacent model sizes do not give a clear picture of a general scaling transition, and everything rests on one language and domain, so the specific alignment-versus-redundancy split may not travel to other setups. The abstract also skips exact metric definitions, statistical tests, error bars, and controls for confounders, which leaves the strength of the claims hard to judge without the full methods section. If the paper supplies those and some robustness checks, the correlations would look more solid. This is aimed at researchers who curate or select reasoning training data and want to reduce trial-and-error fine-tuning. A reader in that niche could extract the metric ideas and try them on their own collections, but anyone expecting a ready-to-use general framework would need broader tests first. I would send it for peer review. The empirical approach is worth referee time to tighten the methods and push for more varied experiments.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes intrinsic quantitative metrics to predict the utility of reasoning datasets prior to fine-tuning, avoiding expensive trial-and-error. It evaluates these by fine-tuning 8B and 11B models on semantically distinct variants of a single Polish reasoning dataset, reporting strong significant correlations with downstream performance and claiming that predictors are scale-dependent: alignment-focused metrics aid smaller models while redundancy benefits larger ones.

Significance. If the reported correlations prove robust, the work could establish a practical scale-aware framework for selecting reasoning training data, reducing the need for exhaustive empirical validation and highlighting how supervision properties interact with model size.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and Experiments] Abstract and Experiments: The scale-dependent claim (alignment metrics for 8B vs. redundancy for 11B) rests on fine-tuning only two adjacent model sizes on variants of one Polish dataset; this narrow range provides insufficient evidence to support general predictors of utility across scales, languages, domains, or model families.
[Methods] Methods: The description provides no details on exact definitions or formulas for the intrinsic metrics, the statistical tests used to establish 'strong and significant correlations', the number of dataset variants, error bars or variance measures, or controls for confounders such as dataset length or difficulty.

minor comments (1)

[Methods] Add explicit equations or pseudocode for each proposed metric to enable direct reproduction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and Experiments] Abstract and Experiments: The scale-dependent claim (alignment metrics for 8B vs. redundancy for 11B) rests on fine-tuning only two adjacent model sizes on variants of one Polish dataset; this narrow range provides insufficient evidence to support general predictors of utility across scales, languages, domains, or model families.

Authors: We agree that the current experiments are limited to two adjacent model sizes and a single dataset/language, which constrains the generality of the scale-dependent claims. However, selecting closely spaced sizes (8B and 11B) was intentional to isolate scale effects while holding architecture and training setup constant. The strong correlations we report are statistically significant within this controlled setting and provide an initial demonstration of the phenomenon. In revision we will temper the abstract and add an explicit limitations paragraph discussing the narrow scope, while outlining plans for future multi-scale, multi-domain validation. revision: partial
Referee: [Methods] Methods: The description provides no details on exact definitions or formulas for the intrinsic metrics, the statistical tests used to establish 'strong and significant correlations', the number of dataset variants, error bars or variance measures, or controls for confounders such as dataset length or difficulty.

Authors: We acknowledge the methods section is insufficiently detailed. In the revised manuscript we will add: (1) precise mathematical definitions and formulas for every intrinsic metric, (2) the exact statistical tests performed (Pearson/Spearman correlations with reported coefficients, p-values, and sample sizes), (3) the total number of semantically distinct dataset variants generated, (4) error bars or standard deviations from repeated fine-tuning runs where available, and (5) explicit controls and normalizations applied for sequence length and task difficulty to rule out obvious confounders. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical correlations between intrinsic metrics and downstream performance are non-circular

full rationale

The paper computes a suite of intrinsic metrics directly on semantically distinct variants of one Polish reasoning dataset, then measures downstream performance via separate fine-tuning runs on 8B and 11B models, and finally reports Pearson/Spearman correlations between the two. These correlations are observational quantities derived from independent measurements; the metrics are not fitted to the performance numbers, nor are the performance numbers defined in terms of the metrics. No equations, self-citations, or uniqueness theorems are invoked to force the scale-dependent pattern; the pattern is simply observed in the two-scale experiment. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained and does not reduce any claimed prediction to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the work rests on standard empirical assumptions about dataset variants and model fine-tuning.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5471 in / 1163 out tokens · 57336 ms · 2026-05-14T19:32:58.449379+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

predictors of utility are scale-dependent: smaller models rely on alignment-focused metrics to ensure precision, whereas larger models benefit from high redundancy, utilizing verbose traces
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/ArithmeticFromLogic.lean embed_injective unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Redundancy Ratio: Information density calculated as (1 - len_compressed / len_original)

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

Bandarkar, L., et al.: The belebele benchmark: a parallel reading comprehension dataset in 122 language variants. In: ACL. pp. 749–775 (2024) 14 M. Langner et al

work page 2024
[2]

Bercovich, A., et al.: Llama-nemotron: Efficient reasoning models (2025)

work page 2025
[3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.24081 (2025)

Chang, T.A., et al.: Global piqa: Evaluating physical commonsense reasoning across 100+ languages and cultures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.24081 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[4]

In: Proceedings of SIGMOD

Chen, D., et al.: Data-juicer: A one-stop data processing system for large language models. In: Proceedings of SIGMOD. pp. 120–134 (2024)

work page 2024
[5]

Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think

Chen, Y., et al.: Reasoning models don’t always say what they think. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05410 (2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[6]

Chodak, G., et al.: Typology of image crises using large language models: A novel approach to crisis classification. J. of Contingencies and Crisis Management (2025)

work page 2025
[7]

Chua, J., Evans, O.: Are deepseek r1 and other reasoning models more faithful? In: ICLR Workshop on Foundation Models in the Wild (2025)

work page 2025
[8]

In: Proceedings of LREC-COLING

Dadas, S., et al.: PIRB: A comprehensive benchmark of Polish dense and hybrid text retrieval methods. In: Proceedings of LREC-COLING. pp. 12761–12774 (2024)

work page 2024
[9]

DeepSeek-AI: Deepseek-v3 technical report (2024)

work page 2024
[10]

IEEE Intelligent Systems (2025)

Ferdinan, T., et al.: Architectural concepts for integrating fundamental drives and emotions into artificial intelligence. IEEE Intelligent Systems (2025)

work page 2025
[11]

Grattafiori, A., et al.: The llama 3 herd of models (2024)

work page 2024
[12]

DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

Guo, D., et al.: Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforce- ment learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 (2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[13]

HuggingFace: Open r1: A fully open reproduction of deepseek-r1 (2025), https: //github.com/huggingface/open-r1

work page 2025
[14]

In: Findings of EMNLP

Hwang, H., et al.: Assessing LLM reasoning steps via principal knowledge grounding. In: Findings of EMNLP. pp. 19925–19948 (2025)

work page 2025
[15]

Jiang, A.Q., et al.: Mistral 7b (2023)

work page 2023
[16]

In: Findings of ACL

Jin, M., et al.: The impact of reasoning step length on large language models. In: Findings of ACL. pp. 1830–1842 (2024)

work page 2024
[17]

Kambhampati, S., et al.: Stop anthropomorphizing intermediate tokens as reason- ing/thinking traces! arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09762 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[18]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.03823 (2025)

Kocoń, J., et al.: PLLuM: A Family of Polish Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.03823 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[19]

In: 2025 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW) (2025)

Langner, M., et al.: Divide, cache, conquer: Dichotomic prompting for efficient multi-label llm-based classification. In: 2025 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW) (2025)

work page 2025
[20]

Lawsen, A.: Comment on the illusion of thinking: Understanding the strengths and limitations of reasoning models via the lens of problem complexity (2025)

work page 2025
[21]

In: Findings of EMNLP

Lee, J., Hockenmaier, J.: Evaluating step-by-step reasoning traces: A survey. In: Findings of EMNLP. pp. 1789–1814 (2025)

work page 2025
[22]

In: ICLR (2024)

Lightman, H., et al.: Let’s verify step by step. In: ICLR (2024)

work page 2024
[23]

https://huggingface.co/datasets/open-r1/ OpenR1-Math-220k (2025)

Lozhkov, A., et al.: Openr1-math-220k. https://huggingface.co/datasets/open-r1/ OpenR1-Math-220k (2025)

work page 2025
[24]

In: ICCS’2025

Matys, P., et al.: AggTruth: Contextual Hallucination Detection using Aggregated Attention Scores in LLMs. In: ICCS’2025. pp. 227–243. Springer (2025)

work page 2025
[25]

Ociepa, K., et al.: Bielik 11b v2 technical report (2025)

work page 2025
[26]

https://openai.com/index/ introducing-o3-and-o4-mini (2025)

OpenAI: Introducing OpenAI o3 and o4-mini. https://openai.com/index/ introducing-o3-and-o4-mini (2025)

work page 2025
[27]

https://huggingface.co/datasets/open-r1/ codeforces-cots (2025)

Penedo, G., et al.: Codeforces cots. https://huggingface.co/datasets/open-r1/ codeforces-cots (2025)

work page 2025
[28]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.17161 (2025)

Pęzik, P., et al.: The PLLuM Instruction Corpus. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.17161 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[29]

In: Findings of EACL

Pihulski, D., et al.: Breaking the illusion of reasoning in Polish LLMs: Quality over quantity of thought. In: Findings of EACL. pp. 1796–1811. ACL (2026) Reasoning Supervision Properties and Model Quality 15

work page 2026
[30]

Qwen Team: Qwen3 technical report (2025)

work page 2025
[31]

Scaling Language Models: Methods, Analysis & Insights from Training Gopher

Rae, J.W., et al.: Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11446 (2021)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[32]

Shojaee, P., et al.: The illusion of thinking: Understanding the strengths and limitations of reasoning models via the lens of problem complexity (2025)

work page 2025
[33]

In: Proceedings of ACL (2024)

Singh, S., et al.: Aya dataset: An open-access collection for multilingual instruction tuning. In: Proceedings of ACL (2024)

work page 2024
[34]

In: ICCS’2025

Szczęsny, A., et al.: Leveraging positional bias of llm in-context learning with class-few-shot and maj-min alternating ordering. In: ICCS’2025. pp. 54–62 (2025)

work page 2025
[35]

Teng, F., et al.: Atom of thoughts for markov llm test-time scaling (2025)

work page 2025
[36]

NeurIPS35, 24824–24837 (2022)

Wei, J., et al.: Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. NeurIPS35, 24824–24837 (2022)

work page 2022
[37]

Wen, L., et al.: Light-r1: Curriculum sft, dpo and rl for long cot from scratch and beyond (2025)

work page 2025
[38]

In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW) (2024)

Woźniak, S., et al.: Personalized large language models. In: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW) (2024)

work page 2024
[39]

When more is less: Understanding chain-of-thought length in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07266, 2025

Wu, Y., et al.: When more is less: Understanding chain-of-thought length in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07266 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[40]

Zanotto, S.E., Aroyehun, S.: Linguistic and embedding-based profiling of texts generated by humans and large language models. In: Proceedings of EMNLP (2025) 8 Appendix Experiments were conducted on the WCSS LEM cluster2 using nodes equipped with4 × NVIDIA H100-94GB GPUs and Intel Xeon Platinum 8462Y+ CPUs. We utilized the trl library with DeepSpeed ZeRO ...

work page 2025