Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces Reasoning Core, a comprehensive collection of 50 procedural generators designed for completion-supervised fine-tuning, covering diverse domains such as mathematics, logic, and causality. The authors demonstrate that Reasoning Core outperforms existing procedural datasets like Procedural Warmup and Reasoning Gym in training models, achieving superior scores on benchmarks such as DROP and LogiQA. Notably, the study reveals that factors like compact targets and calibrated difficulty are crucial for effective training, rather than relying solely on semantic validity.
Reasoning Core achieves unprecedented performance in completion-supervised reasoning tasks, outpacing existing procedural datasets and revealing critical design insights for effective training.
Procedural generators produce useful verifiable reasoning problems at scale, but have received less attention as data for completion-supervised fine-tuning. We introduce Reasoning Core, a collection of 50 generators spanning mathematics, logic, planning, state tracking, formal languages, structured data, games, causality, and code, with semantic scorers, difficulty controls, and task evaluators. Under a matched completion-supervised protocol, we compare Reasoning Core with Procedural Warmup, Reasoning Gym, and SynLogic across four base-model settings and multiple training durations. In the primary 3B comparison, Reasoning Core achieves the highest mean scores on DROP, LogiQA, and ARC-Challenge, exceeding both the baseline without procedural data and all three alternative procedural collections. Task-level analyses show that semantic validity alone does not ensure training utility, highlighting compact targets and calibrated difficulty as important design factors. We ran audits combining model-assisted review, human adjudication, and regression testing. Applied throughout Reasoning Core development and to the other collections, they reveal subtle mismatches among generation, rendering, targets, and scoring, a reminder that procedural generation alone does not guarantee correctness. The library, generated datasets, and audit material are publicly available.
