What Happened in LLMs Layers when Trained for Fast vs. Slow Thinking: A Gradient Perspective
Ming Li, Yanhong Li, Tianyi Zhou
Abstract
What makes a difference in the post-training of LLMs? We investigate the training patterns of different layers in large language models (LLMs) through the lens of the gradient. We are specifically interested in how fast vs. slow thinking affects the layer-wise gradients, given the recent popularity of training LLMs on reasoning paths such as chain-of-thoughts (CoT) and process rewards. In our study, fast thinking without CoT leads to larger gradients and larger differences of gradients across layers than slow thinking (Detailed CoT), indicating the learning stability brought by the latter. Additionally, we study whether the gradient patterns can reflect the correctness of responses when training different LLMs using slow vs. fast thinking paths. The results show that the gradients of slow thinking can distinguish correct and irrelevant reasoning paths. As a comparison, we conduct similar gradient analyses on non-reasoning knowledge learning tasks, on which, however, trivially increasing the response length does not lead to similar behaviors of slow thinking. Our study strengthens fundamental understandings of LLM training and sheds novel insights on its efficiency and stability, which pave the way towards building a generalizable System-2 agent. Our code, data, and gradient statistics can be found in: https://github.com/MingLiiii/ Layer_Gradient . At the layer level, the mean, maximum, and minimum values, the Frobenius norm, and Nuclear norm, and the maximum and minimum singular values of each gradient matrix are included. We hope these gradient statistics can contribute to the community's understanding of the gradient behaviors for different settings.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 108fa607-3430-4fbc-aa89-e9f3db671808Cited by top-tier papers11
- When More is Less: Understanding Chain-of-Thought Length in LLMsYuyang Wu, Yifei Wang, Ziyu Ye, Tianqi Du et al.ICLR 2026 · 225 citations
- How Instruction and Reasoning Data shape Post-Training: Data Quality through the Lens of Layer-wise GradientsMing Li, Yanhong Li, Ziyue Li, Tianyi ZhouACL 2026 · 9 citations
- On the Predictive Power of Representation Dispersion in Language ModelsYanhong Li, Ming Li, Karen Livescu, Jiawei ZhouICLR 2026 · 7 citations
- Compositional Generalization from Learned Skills via CoT Training: A Theoretical and Structural Analysis for ReasoningXinhao Yao, Ruifeng Ren, Yun Liao, Lizhong Ding et al.ICLR 2026 · 6 citations
- IGU-LoRA: Adaptive Rank Allocation via Integrated Gradients and Uncertainty-Aware ScoringXuan Cui, Huiyue Li, Run Zeng, Yunfei Zhao et al.ICLR 2026 · 5 citations
Related papers
- Revealing Procedural Reasoning Structures in Chain-of-Thought Training via Span-Level Gradient OrganizationJia Liu, Jiaxin Luo, Weiwen Xu, Jonathan M. Garibaldi et al.ACL 2026
- Rectifying LLM Thought from Lens of OptimizationJunnan Liu, Hongwei Liu, Songyang Zhang, Kai ChenICLR 2026 · 3 citations
- On the Bias of Next-Token Predictors Toward Systematically Inefficient Reasoning: A Shortest-Path Case StudyRiccardo Alberghi, Elizaveta Demyanenko, Luca Biggio, Luca SagliettiNeurIPS 2025 · 2 citations
- Mapping the Minds of LLMs: A Graph-Based Analysis of Reasoning LLMsZhen Xiong, Yujun Cai, Zhecheng Li, Yiwei WangEMNLP 2025
- Revisiting Chain-of-Thought in Code Generation: Do Language Models Need to Learn Reasoning before Coding?Renbiao Liu, Anqi Li, Chaoding Yang, Hui Sun et al.ICML 2025
