Reasoning-Trace Collapse: Evaluating the Loss of Explicit Reasoning During Fine-Tuning

Explicit reasoning models are trained to produce intermediate reasoning traces before final answers, but downstream fine-tuning is often performed on ordinary instruction–response data that contains no such traces. We show that this mismatch can induce *reasoning-trace collapse*: a fine-tuned model continues to produce plausible final answers while losing the structurally valid explicit reasoning traces that made it a reasoning model in the first place. We introduce a structural evaluation framework that separates answer correctness from reasoning-trace validity, measuring valid, empty, missing, and truncated reasoning alongside reasoning-conditioned task performance. Using this framework, we study open-weight reasoning models and find that standard supervised fine-tuning can rapidly suppress valid reasoning traces, and that answer-only metrics can substantially obscure this failure: in several settings, performance conditional on valid reasoning remains high while the rate of valid reasoning falls sharply. We further show that simple loss-masking strategies substantially mitigate collapse without requiring teacher-generated reasoning traces. These results suggest that evaluations of fine-tuned reasoning models should report structural reasoning reliability in addition to final-answer performance, especially when adaptation data does not contain explicit reasoning traces.