The Thinking Leakage in Reinforcement Learning for LLMs
AuthorsWenxuan Zhu, Shuming Liu, Bang An, Aznaur Aliev, Bing Li, Yibo Yang, Bernard Ghanem
AffiliationsKing Abdullah University of Science and Technology · Shanghai Jiao Tong University
The paper argues that RL may make no-think LLMs look better at reasoning mainly by reactivating reasoning abilities they already had.
Key results
Accuracy after GRPO training, up from 0.17 before training.
The original model judged trained Qwen3-8B responses more think-like than its own no-think responses in pairwise comparisons.
Qwen3-8B shift along the think direction, relative to the original think/no-think activation difference.
Replacing the 8-dimensional think-related subspace with the original model’s activations.
Exchanging the think-related subspace transferred this share of the gain to the original model.
Scaled RL updates approached, but did not exceed, this accuracy.
What the paper found
The paper argues that reinforcement learning can make a hybrid model’s existing reasoning easier to express, rather than teaching it entirely new reasoning behavior. The researchers trained Qwen3-1.7B, Qwen3-4B, and Qwen3-8B in no-think mode using GRPO on DAPO-Math-17k, then evaluated them on AIME. For Qwen3-8B, no-think accuracy rose from 0.17 to 0.43, while its responses became longer and more think-like: the original model preferred them over its own no-think responses in 94% of comparisons, and its internal activations shifted 0.56 of the distance between the original think and no-think states. Causal tests support this “thinking leakage” explanation. Replacing an 8-dimensional think-related activation subspace removed 75% of the RL accuracy gain; transferring that subspace to the original model transferred 50% of the gain. Scaling the learned update brought accuracy close to, but not above, the original think-mode score of 0.74. The study also traces a possible source to GRPO: within groups of answers to the same question, the update tends to favor more think-like correct responses. The findings suggest that higher no-think accuracy may reflect easier access to reasoning already present in Qwen3, not necessarily newly learned problem-solving strategies.
Original abstract
Hybrid reasoning models such as the Qwen3 series switch between a THINK mode and a NO-THINK mode through a few chat-template tokens. A popular recipe trains such models with reinforcement learning in NO-THINK mode and reports improved reasoning performance. We provide evidence that much of this gain can be explained by thinking leakage: the gain comes largely from partially reactivating the reasoning abilities of the original model's THINK mode instead of learning enhanced reasoning behavior. We train Qwen3-1.7B, 4B, and 8B with GRPO in NO-THINK mode. As accuracy improves, responses become longer and more reflective, are increasingly judged by the original model to resemble its own thinking, and the model's internal activations shift toward its THINK mode. We then investigate at the level of weights, activations, and attention heads: scaling the RL update further elicits THINK-mode behavior and approaches THINK-mode accuracy but does not exceed it; in Qwen3-8B, replacing a low-dimensional THINK-related activation subspace of the RL-trained model with its original-model value removes most of the RL gain, and the reverse exchange transfers a considerable fraction of the gain to the original model; and the RL-induced shift passes through the attention heads that read the empty think block. We further identify a possible mechanism in the GRPO training signal: responses favored by the advantage-weighted update are more THINK-like, and a gradient step computed from this signal moves the model toward its THINK state. Thus, gains in NO-THINK mode can largely reflect reactivation of reasoning abilities already present in the original model.
Read the original paperMore in AI Reasoning
Browse all 45 papers →Inducing Process Supervision from Outcome-Only Reinforcement Learning
Shengda Fan, Xin Cong, Zhong Zhang, Haotian Chen, Yankai Lin
TIPS trains models to judge their own reasoning steps using only outcome feedback, avoiding the need for costly step-by-step annotations.
LeanPRM: Lean-Grounded Process Supervision for Natural Language Proof Verification
Rodney Lafuente-Mercado, Salman Rahman, Jingyan Shen, James Shiffer, Saadia Gabriel, Pavel Izmailov
LeanPRM uses Lean-checked formal proofs to generate scalable training labels that help AI models verify each step of mathematical proofs.
LEV: Thinking Fast and Deep with Looped Decision Models
Dingjie Song, Zhiling Yan, Yuxuan Zhang, Lichao Sun
LEV lets a model think longer by looping its layers, improving answers to hard questions while adapting compute to the task.