Anubhav Shrestha

Safal Shrestha, Anubhav Shrestha, Aadim Nepal et al.

Recent works have shown that layer pruning can compress large language models (LLMs) while retaining strong performance on classification benchmarks with little or no finetuning. However, existing pruning techniques often suffer severe degradation on generative reasoning tasks. Through a systematic study across multiple model families, we find that tasks requiring multi-step reasoning are particularly sensitive to depth reduction. Beyond surface-level text degeneration, we observe degradation of critical algorithmic capabilities, including arithmetic computation for mathematical reasoning and balanced parenthesis generation for code synthesis. Under realistic post-training constraints, without access to pretraining-scale data or compute, we evaluate a simple mitigation strategy based on supervised finetuning with Self-Generated Responses. This approach achieves strong recovery on classification tasks, retaining up to 90\% of baseline performance, and yields substantial gains of up to 20--30 percentage points on generative benchmarks compared to prior post-pruning techniques. Crucially, despite these gains, recovery for generative reasoning remains fundamentally limited relative to classification tasks and is viable primarily at lower pruning ratios. Overall, we characterize the practical limits of layer pruning for generative reasoning and provide guidance on when depth reduction can be applied effectively under constrained post-training regimes.

Minwu Kim, Anubhav Shrestha, Safal Shrestha et al.

Recent studies have shown that reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) enhances overall accuracy (pass@1) but often fails to improve capability (pass@k) of LLMs in reasoning tasks, while distillation can improve both. In this paper, we investigate the mechanisms behind these phenomena. First, we demonstrate that RLVR struggles to improve capability as it focuses on improving the accuracy of the easier questions to the detriment of the accuracy of the most difficult questions. Second, we show that RLVR does not merely increase the success probability for the easier questions, but in our small model settings, produces quality responses that were absent in its original output distribution. In addition, we show these responses are neither noticeably longer nor feature more reflection-related keywords, underscoring the need for more reliable indicators of response quality. Third, from the experiment distilling teacher responses to in-distribution problems, we find that capability does not always improve with distillation. We conjecture that capability improves only when new knowledge is introduced, whereas distilling reasoning patterns only improves accuracy but not capability, sacrificing performance on the most difficult questions, similar to RLVR. Together, these findings offer a clearer understanding of how RLVR and distillation shape reasoning behavior in LLMs

Aadim Nepal, Safal Shrestha, Anubhav Shrestha et al.

Large language models improve at math after instruction tuning, reinforcement learning, or knowledge distillation. We ask whether these gains come from major changes in the transformer layers or from smaller adjustments that keep the original structure. Using layer-wise ablation on base and trained variants, we find that math reasoning depends on a few critical layers, which stay important across all post-training methods. Removing these layers reduces math accuracy by as much as 80%, whereas factual recall tasks only show relatively smaller drops. This suggests that specialized layers for mathematical tasks form during pre-training and remain stable afterward. As measured by Normalized Mutual Information (NMI), we find that near these critical layers, tokens drift from their original syntactic clusters toward representations aligned with tokens less syntactically related but potentially more useful for downstream task.

Safal Shrestha, Minwu Kim, Aadim Nepal et al.

Designing effective reasoning-capable LLMs typically requires training using Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) or distillation with carefully curated Long Chain of Thoughts (CoT), both of which depend heavily on extensive training data. This creates a major challenge when the amount of quality training data is scarce. We propose a sample-efficient, two-stage training strategy to develop reasoning LLMs under limited supervision. In the first stage, we "warm up" the model by distilling Long CoTs from a toy domain, namely, Knights \& Knaves (K\&K) logic puzzles to acquire general reasoning skills. In the second stage, we apply RLVR to the warmed-up model using a limited set of target-domain examples. Our experiments demonstrate that this two-phase approach offers several benefits: $(i)$ the warmup phase alone facilitates generalized reasoning, leading to performance improvements across a range of tasks, including MATH, HumanEval$^{+}$, and MMLU-Pro; $(ii)$ When both the base model and the warmed-up model are RLVR trained on the same small dataset ($\leq100$ examples), the warmed-up model consistently outperforms the base model; $(iii)$ Warming up before RLVR training allows a model to maintain cross-domain generalizability even after training on a specific domain; $(iv)$ Introducing warmup in the pipeline improves not only accuracy but also overall sample efficiency during RLVR training. The results in this paper highlight the promise of warmup for building robust reasoning LLMs in data-scarce environments.