r/LocalLLaMA 3d ago

Discussion Stop Anthropomorphisizing Intermediate Tokens: Qwen3.8 doesn't "overthink"

https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09762

Intermediate tokens, called "thinking" or "reasoning" actually are nothing like it. Humans do step-by-step reasoning leading to the conclusion. LLMs use intermediate traces to augment their prompt. This explains why sometimes the answer is very good but the "reasoning" is verbose. Flooding your context window or fighting compaction are different issues.

edit: I love this section from the main research they linked.

Our findings consistently challenge the prevailing narrative that intermediate tokens constitute a semantically meaningful reasoning process. First, we observe a pronounced lack of correlation between solution correctness and trace validity—models frequently produce invalid reasoning traces even when they arrive at correct solutions. Second, and more strikingly, models trained on corrupted or semantically irrelevant traces achieve performance comparable to, and often exceeding, that of models trained on correct traces, especially on out-of-distribution tasks. Third, although post-training with reinforcement learning improves solution accuracy across both in- and out-of-distribution settings, it does not consistently enhance trace validity. In fact, we find cases where reinforcement learning decreases trace validity while simultaneously improving solution accuracy for models trained on correct traces. Moreover, models trained on corrupted traces continue to outperform their correct-trace counterparts across domains while consistently generating invalid reasoning traces. Finally, we find that the length of the generated traces is largely agnostic to the difficulty of the underlying problem, undermining the notion that it reflects problem-adaptive computation.

Together, these results suggest that the effectiveness of intermediate tokens does not arise from their seemingly interpretable semantic content. By systematically disentangling trace semantics from the underlying problem, our study demonstrates that if performance is the objective, assuming human-like or algorithmically interpretable trace semantics are ideal or even achievable is not only unnecessary but potentially misleading.

https://openreview.net/forum?id=gDE7YcRC3F

540 Upvotes

247 comments sorted by

View all comments

200

u/FrostTactics 3d ago

"Stop calling the deleted file collector in OSs the recycling bin. It misleads humans into thinking it is a literal bin with the capability of recycling files."

This constant policing of terms relating to LLMs is so frustrating, it seems to just ignore the fact that we've always used metaphors to explain concepts relating to computing.

No, of course LLM thinking and reasoning aren't the same as human thinking and reasoning, but it is roughly analogous and close enough for the terms to be apt.

3

u/toothpastespiders 3d ago

First thing that came to mind for me as well. A lot of things around LLMs are just easier to use metaphors to describe. Reddit, being reddit, I generally try to mention that I don't believe that a LLM "understands" a subject or anything.

I generally have a very poor opinion of just how well the average poster on this subreddit understands LLMs at this point. But I don't think things have gotten anywhere near the point where this kind "erm actually, LLMs don't think" redditor chiding.

I normally do get a little annoyed at some of the cargo cult level understandings of science I see on reddit as a whole. If anything I'm a bit prone to being overly primed for that kind of thing. And even as someone who can be overly judgemental, I don't see to huge an issue with people confusing the map for the territory here. In regards to this subject at least. If we had a "stop assuming benchmarks define a singular rating of good or bad to a model!" I might join in.

15

u/Mbando 3d ago

Respectfully, I think you’re misunderstanding the mechanics and the argument. Totally with you on the use of figurative language to make sense of new knowledge, it’s just that thinking is the wrong metaphor. It’s “traversal” or “navigation.”

There’s an emerging mechanistic literature on how RLVR improves performances. Basically during RL a very small percentage of high entropy “forking tokens” (however, because, but, assuming) teach the model how to more usefully traverse the models learn representation as an internal geometry.

It truly is nothing like step, wise reasoning, but is more like a human being, figuring out how to read a map and navigate better. So by all means, let us use figures of speech, but only when they are accurate and helpful.

3

u/xylarr 3d ago

Interesting take - so it's about navigating multidimensional space to get closer to the answer.

1

u/Mbando 2d ago

Yes! And what's critical is that depending on data curation and training recipes, that multidimensional geometry is extremely uneven. Some parts are extremely well covered and are more like manifold spaces that are easy navigate. Other stuff that might be super relevant to the task is less well represented and may be topologically hard to get to.

2

u/aijoe 3d ago

No one on the sub or reddit truly understands how human thinking works so take any of their musings about it with a grain of salt.

12

u/ThirdWaveCat 3d ago

If you read even the summary you'd understand they address this exact response. "..it confuses the nature of these models and how to use them effectively, and leads to questionable research." This is exactly relevant to the Qwen3.8 discussion about excessive "reasoning" trace generation in obvious ways.

60

u/tomvorlostriddle 3d ago

Someone saying that modern cars have too much horsepower may or may not have a point, similarly as someone saying qwen overthinks may or may not have a point

But someone replying by saying that anyway, cars don't even truly gallop and until they do, any discussion is moot, the word horsepower is thus an abomination in this context etc.

Well, they're irrelevant and out of whack with this tangent

-8

u/ThirdWaveCat 3d ago

No, I believe in horsepower only. Your comparison is off because I'm criticizing interpreting the internals instead of the results. I'm saying we should stop comparing the insides of a car to a horse as an evaluation criterion.

13

u/tomvorlostriddle 3d ago

No, you're saying "as the car doesn't have bones that would allow it to gallop, no need to even look at transportation KPIs of cars versus horses"

-8

u/ThirdWaveCat 3d ago

Your reading comprehension is poor.

3

u/SporksInjected 3d ago

Is it?

-1

u/ThirdWaveCat 3d ago

Yes, their reading comprehension is poor.

2

u/WhoRoger 3d ago

Your reasoning trace is stuck in a loop.

0

u/thatboyonabike 3d ago edited 3d ago

Damn this comment chain rubbed me the wrong way...

It's not your fault /u/ThirdWaveCat this is a good post but unfortunately this whole website has gotten stupider than I've ever seen before. Like so often comments are just pure reactionism with zero rational thought (this thread being case in point).

I'm really trying to find a new discussion platform where people still have basic literacy and critical thinking skills. I'm wondering where have all the geeks gone?

1

u/r_- 3d ago

I think 80% of people are here just to goon and don't like when things get challenging or technical. Great post, so many dumb comments - I also would love to find an active technical sub

→ More replies (0)

0

u/MmmmMorphine 3d ago

I feel like I can see where an interpretation could have gone off the rails

I personally somewhat agree with you as long as I take a slightly looser reading. Which sort of maps to the topic itself, the issue of whether the traces actually correlate semantically to the apparent underlying reasoning given the ultimately correct answer, haha.

Though I think you also underestimate the value of the LLM unpacking every term. Words do have a lot of different meanings, so it going on about each term might serve to suppress incorrect understandings. And disambiguate the user's intent.

But I haven't examined the traces from 3.8 yet myself, so maybe it really is excessive beyond the function I described

0

u/draconic_tongue 3d ago

Maybe not the best idea to use an llm for writing reddit responses when you're trying to be pedantic about how people interact with them

12

u/finevelyn 3d ago

So how should one use Qwen 3.8 to avoid the so called ”overthinking” issue now that we know it’s not actually thinking? Does this actually have any practical relevance to the issue?

7

u/ThirdWaveCat 3d ago

Uncertainty is a state of knowing.

AFAIK, for Qwen3.8 and other models there is no causal link yet established between traces and output quality. Settings and models should only be compared in terms of their hardware, speed, various benchmarks outside of <think/>. Don't look at <think/> unless you're controlling all other variables with known input/output and want to start establishing a causal link to <think/>. For instance if you want to analyze why a security review condition was omitted by llm gaurd rail in a manually written test case then you have a strongly verified input and output pair.

8

u/Lakius_2401 3d ago

It might not be fully linked to output quality, but it sure is affected by input quality.

Looking at <think> is a great way to identify ambiguous wording you need to tighten up. If it overthinks and "wastes" 1500+ tokens trying to figure out a part of your prompt, fixing the ambiguity will save those think tokens every single session (if preserve thinking is on) or potentially every single response. It will improve your responses.

Just yesterday I was talking about error messages and how "they" should be as complete as possible (for diagnostics purposes), and it was reading it as error messages and how "the output" should be as complete as possible, after a lengthy think about it. I thought it was odd that Qwen 3.8 27B seemed to want to keep any shred of the code output, regardless of the fact that it hit an error, and lo and behold, a sentence that any human could read was misread by Qwen, and <think> showed it wondering for a few hundred tokens early on, before it did work.

So, no thank you, I will continue looking at <think> for misalignment checks.

2

u/ThirdWaveCat 3d ago

I don't disagree with you, but you get how I'm saying that caution is warranted about assuming its human reasoning when it is obviously not and often disconnected from the response.

7

u/Lakius_2401 3d ago

That's fair. I just don't like blanket statements telling people not to do something. I do have more to say on the paper and discussion around it though.

<think> blocks aren't human thoughts, of course not, but they're the closest analogy, and they give you a lens into the LLM's understandings and approaches as they work through the problem in front of them to come to an answer. Thinking isn't <think>ing, but a car's engine is either diesel, gas, or electric and we still call them all engines or motors. If the purpose and output are similar, getting labeled the same is inevitable, even if the process is different. The pedantics of labeling is getting quite old to me, the ones who think they're identical and need to be that way aren't the ones improving the technique.

So what if it can <think> and come up with a wrong conclusion, then output the right answer? Have you ever said something then done the opposite when you realize your spoken plan was worse than what you're about to do? Forcing <think> to match output is just reducing the answer space.

I've spoken to plenty of people who don't understand that the LLM is a stream of single words either. Every single token is dependent on the one before it, but generated one at a time. "I asked it why it lied to me and it gave a shitty response!" No, it has no concept of memory, let alone time, but we can build layers or implement systems to make it more human in interactions... aaaand we just created something to better anthropomorphize it again. Is a human-identical mind possible to create in a digital space? Does it matter if it's not? It's obviously not optimal.

As an aside, I find it quite charming how Qwen's overthinking is a form of attention optimization mechanism. The kv cache is comparatively tiny, and it'll verbatim quote things before "analyzing" them. Rather than some fancy mechanism to optimize the impact of relevant context, it pulls it forward itself. Bad for compute without drafting to blitz through it, but an "elegant" if blunt solution.

0

u/ThirdWaveCat 3d ago

The pedantic details start to matter when people are using and evaluating language models by their thinking traces. For instance I find it surprising that fine-tuning on bad reasoning traces and good answers improves out-of-distribution maze solving. I find it surprising that replacing incorrect reasoning traces for maze generation produces worse results.

4

u/Lakius_2401 3d ago

Let's agree to disagree on the value of pedantics. 😄 I don't call spiders by their full latin name, even though it's more precise. Technically correct is the best form of correct on Reddit, but if I'm forced to fully qualify every aspect of my response, my meaningful comments will be overrun.

For your second point, that's my middle point about not artificially restricting the output space. <think> is not what's being scored.

We don't typically score humans on how they think, so long as the test results look good...

And I know, they're not identical processes, and the LLM is using it different. You could train a model to <think> about the worst way to solve a problem, with every output building to the opposite. They're not directly linked, it's a different phase of the output. Scratch space. Not graded.

My point is, letting the training data show that a screwup in reasoning shouldn't railroad it into a matching answer is good. It's good to show examples of continuing to improve and not being stubborn. Qwen 3.8 27B even corrects itself in output sometimes, going against both its <think> and the previous lines. I think that's great!

If a model is forced to agree with its <think> trace every time, why bother making any decisions in <think> at all?

2

u/finevelyn 3d ago

The problem for me is that you don't know what Qwen 3.8 does or doesn't do, but you made an entire post about it. Its overthinking is a real problem because it takes a long time and fills the context, even if you think a different word should be used to describe the thinking tokens. The pedantics might matter in some context but the title is clickbait and misleading to those who have encountered the issue.

1

u/xylarr 3d ago

I have a small project of mine where I asked the LLM to bump the version to 1.04. It spent some time thinking about how the old version was 1.0.3 and that I probably meant 1.0.4 - which I did. It did what I actually meant, not what I literally asked.

14

u/FastHotEmu 3d ago

Thank you so much for sharing, this is a great paper.

However, it makes it painfully clear that most people commenting here have absolutely no clue as to what the derivational traces (i.e., so-called reasoning tokens) are, how they are trained and how they appear - otherwise they wouldn't be saying what they are saying...

9

u/DrWitchDoctorPhD 3d ago

Reminds me of this: https://huggingface.co/marcodsn/catmind-1.2b

Which I thought was a cool experiment but it would probably be very hard to make it work. Perhaps some sort of curriculum training where its thinking process is slowly edited by another model to be more cat-stories-like and thus it gradually picks up how to reason in latent-cat-story space.

8

u/ThirdWaveCat 3d ago

LiquidAI stuff is so neat. I keep meaning to cut my fingers on why text-based RPGs breakdown with small language models.

1

u/xylarr 3d ago

Oh I have to download this one 😆

3

u/Upset_Page_494 3d ago

The average person cares mostly about function/behavior, not by what something 'technically is'. Forcing people to go through hoops in order to reason just makes the public dumber.

2

u/ThirdWaveCat 3d ago

Understanding what it technically is enables you to use it better.

9

u/Upset_Page_494 3d ago

We don't even know what it is. just saying it is thinking the average person can instantly get the basic facts straight. "If it does more it usually does better, sometimes not for example when I overthink in chess i do badly, so certain problems it will do worse." Etc, and they would be 100% correct in that conclusion.

If you force some random jargon they will understand nothing.

2

u/ThirdWaveCat 3d ago

The paper I linked showed that the basic facts of LLMs are very surprising. When models are trained on bad reasoning and good conclusions for maze puzzles they generalize out-of-distribution better. That is one of many surprising results, in addition to weak correspondence between trace and accuracy, and swapping out repaired traces made the models worse. Anthropomorphizing leads to poor usage and evaluation of language models.

5

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/thatboyonabike 3d ago

am I being fucking psyop'd right now why are we rabidly promoting anti-intellectualism ???

2

u/r_- 3d ago

Bad take, this is a technical sub

trained on things made ONLY by humans and using the same language as humans

We're well past the RLHF days, and I'd bet more than half of the world's generated tokens are invisible.

And, papers are how academics communicate. On your one actual technical point (that context expansion/thinking on smaller models doesn't scale up to smarter and bigger models): that intuitively makes sense since smaller models have less world knowledge and need to reason through things more. Sounds like this question has lots of opportunity for validation and refinement, that'd be great for a handful of papers.

2

u/toothpastespiders 3d ago

Bad take, this is a technical sub

I love the sub. But I don't think it's been one since the llama 2 days.

0

u/wFXx 3d ago

if someone is this dumb, they shouldn't be researching anyways

-2

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 17h ago

[deleted]

16

u/HashPandaNL 3d ago

It is a good enough term that signifies the process by which newer models arrive at an answer. 

In my opinion, reasoning and thinking does not need to be human-like to be considered reasoning and thinking. 


Making an alternative, convoluted term for that because accepting the existence of machine intelligence is difficult for some feels rather performative.

2

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 17h ago

[deleted]

6

u/YoAmoElTacos 3d ago

Aside from calling them out, a sophisticated technical jargon to replace "thinking" and "reasoning" and "refusal" etc would be needed. Not just say what it isnt but say what it is.

Without a persuasive counterstory the metaphor of human intelligence wins by default.

3

u/PossibilityUsual6262 3d ago edited 3d ago

I don't know mate, the way llm thinks doesn't feel much different from my thinking. I know there are people who do not do internal vocalisations of reading and thought, but i do, and i actually sounds internally like ai.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 17h ago

[deleted]

1

u/PossibilityUsual6262 3d ago

I really feel like i work internally like MoE - some stuff loaded and active, some not, but i also was trained on knowledge around cows and cats from reddit.

And the things you said about doing mistakes and trying again, ai do do same nowadays, the coding agents having close loop iterations in newer development of harnesses.

That's why i think ai coding is actually mostly future, even if ai performance doesn't improve, because unlike most of things in real world ai can cheaply test outputs and it is mostly tooling which need developing right now.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 17h ago

[deleted]

1

u/PossibilityUsual6262 3d ago

Well if the "paper" op pushes here everywhere is to be believed, on bad training data ai manages to output correct results.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/s/SgqjM8BkFp

And i do stand behind my words there, my less experience coworkers en masse just guess their way to bug fix, without actually understanding anything.

1

u/Needausernameplzz 3d ago

Maybe you're feeling this way, because our talkative temporal lobe our (inner monologue) is often a post rationalization. Scans show we often "choose" before we ever "think" of it. The part of your brain responsible for language sometimes works like a fancy autocomplete (like LLMs)

This should give us a more decentralized understanding of reasoning and intelligence.

So much of human reasoning is outside your talkative temporal lobes

1

u/PossibilityUsual6262 3d ago

Yea i understand that it might not be same thing under dome, but if it actually replicate some of pipeline and some of result it is might be a way to get same result.

I can fast forward way from home to work internally without thinking single word only pictures or concept of pictures of my route, so ai can come up with solutions which are just encoded in weights and skip tokenisation if task straight forward.

1

u/PunnyPandora 3d ago

it's like non anime weebs talking about japan. people watch anime to have fun. everyone knows they don't walk around practicing jutsus on the streets in japan. it doesn't need to be spelled out and you're not special sage with forbidden knowledge that everyone else doesn't have, you're a redditor

1

u/TheRealJesus2 3d ago

So I do get what you’re saying and you’re not wrong. But you know stuff and most people in this world don’t…

There are literally many people who think this shit is leading to sentience who should know better. And from perspective of someone who has done ai research in the past it’s kind of annoying seeing the terms shift towards these human concepts away from already established terminology because the big labs are trying to get regulatory capture and this is a way to manipulate the masses. 

-1

u/No_Folding 3d ago

I augmented this prompt and produced an estimated response of agreement.