better outcomes when both approaches are applied concurrently. One primary factor of this comparable performance may be that RFT does not sample extensively, yet the critical steps in the reasoning paths remain largely unchanged from the ground truth. The primary distinctions of sampled new paths lie in relatively minor semantic variances, without significantly increasing the new observed connections among local variables (Prystawski et al., 2023). It allows us to attain comparable effects by employing masked reasoning paths, where we sample new skip-connection by dropping the intermediate steps. On the other hand, if we compare from the perspective of addressing exposure bias, RL's self-sampling provides careful supervision for the error-prone inference distribution, whereas MFT aims to directly prevent the model from learning the bias present in the ground truth. We provide additional introduction about RL and RFT in Appendix B.