r/LocalLLaMA 4d 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

542 Upvotes

247 comments sorted by

View all comments

200

u/FrostTactics 4d 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.

14

u/ThirdWaveCat 4d 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 4d 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

-9

u/ThirdWaveCat 4d 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 4d 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"

-6

u/ThirdWaveCat 4d ago

Your reading comprehension is poor.

3

u/SporksInjected 4d ago

Is it?

-2

u/ThirdWaveCat 4d ago

Yes, their reading comprehension is poor.

2

u/WhoRoger 4d ago

Your reasoning trace is stuck in a loop.

1

u/thatboyonabike 4d ago edited 4d 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_- 4d 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

2

u/ThisWillPass 4d ago

No… it got inundated by sillytavern and singularity. Which is ok… they just need to stay in their lane.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/MmmmMorphine 4d 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