aiqbench analysis
This study challenges the industry assumption that pre-training metrics can reliably predict which specific problems an RL post-training run will improve. By demonstrating that existing checkpoints from other model families are superior predictors of per-problem gains compared to standard a priori signals, the research suggests a new paradigm for data selection and curriculum design. The findings imply that shared improvement potential is largely intrinsic to the base model rather than inherent to the problem itself, necessitating a shift in how we evaluate post-training recipes.
What Will Post-Training Fix? Per-Problem Gains Are Shared Across Independent RL Runs, and Existing Checkpoints Predict Them Better Than A Priori Signals
arXiv:2610.04978v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Data selection, curricula and the evaluation of post-training recipes all assume that we can tell, before training, which problems a model will improve on. We test this assumption directly. For two base models, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B and Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B, we evaluate eighteen post-training runs on up to 1532 competition math problems with many samples per problem, and compare signals available before training against a noise ceiling derived from the agreement between disjoint subsets of runs. Three findings hold on both base models. What post-training fixes is shared: independent runs agree on which rarely solved problems improve, with a noise ceiling of about 0.9, yet the two base models agree with each other only at rho=0.25 - the shared component belongs to the base model, not to the problem. A priori signals capture a minority of it: base pass rate, the likelihood of a correct solution, a larger model's pass rate and their combinations explain only 0.30 and 0.24 of the explainable variance in gains. Existing checkpoints are the better predictor: the per-problem gains of a single checkpoint from another family predict a new run better than every a priori signal, alone or combined (0.52 vs. 0.33 and 0.34 vs. 0.17 against the combined signals). The conclusions hold on problems from 2025-2026 competitions and when the baselines on the two sides of every comparison are estimated independently. We propose the noise ceiling as a standard companion to per-problem signals.
Title:What Will Post-Training Fix? Per-Problem Gains Are Shared Across Independent RL Runs, and Existing Checkpoints Predict Them Better Than A Priori Signals
Abstract:Data selection, curricula and the evaluation of post-training recipes all assume that we can tell, before training, which problems a model will improve on. We test this assumption directly. For two base models, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B and Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B, we evaluate eighteen post-training runs on up to 1532 competition math problems with many samples per problem, and compare signals available before training against a noise ceiling derived from the agreement between disjoint subsets of runs. Three findings hold on both base models. What post-training fixes is shared: independent runs agree on which rarely solved problems improve, with a noise ceiling of about 0.9, yet the two base models agree with each other only at rho=0.25 - the shared component belongs to the base model, not to the problem. A priori signals capture a minority of it: base pass rate, the likelihood of a correct solution, a larger model's pass rate and their combinations explain only 0.30 and 0.24 of the explainable variance in gains. Existing checkpoints are the better predictor: the per-problem gains of a single checkpoint from another family predict a new run better than every a priori signal, alone or combined (0.52 vs. 0.33 and 0.34 vs. 0.17 against the combined signals). The conclusions hold on problems from 2025-2026 competitions and when the baselines on the two sides of every comparison are estimated independently. We propose the noise ceiling as a standard companion to per-problem signals.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.04978 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.04978v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.04978 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 351 words
Related coverage

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Oct 3, 2026

Expenditure Horizon: Measuring Optimization Ability, with an Application to NanoGPT
METR · Jul 21, 2026

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 10, 2026