Loading…
OLMo-3 reasoning redundancy · RQ1 and RQ3
Three models, one frozen 600-item campaign, and two outcomes on the same complete-case inputs. Select a model and endpoint for detail.
RQ1 · How redundancy changes across post-training stages
Across OLMo-3's native-Think post-training path, at 32B and 7B, a growing share of each reasoning trace comes after the point where the answer is already recoverable. Most of the rise comes with SFT.
OLMo-3 32B and 7B checkpoints Base → Think-SFT → Think-DPO → Think-RLVR · GSM8K: 60 problems × 3 samples (180 traces per stage); MATH-500: 150 problems × 3 samples (450 per stage) · same HMTE cross-judge rho as RQ3 · output cap 8,192 tokens.
Combined stage and adjacent-change results · complete-case rho with 95% CI
Marked: Holm-adjusted p < 0.05 within this table's family (RQ1: three adjacent changes per line).
| Stage / change | 32B Think · GSM8K | 32B Think · MATH-500 † | 7B Think · GSM8K | 7B Think · MATH-500 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base | 67.9% [63.2, 72.5]Eligible 149/180 · mean steps N 14.9 · median k* 3 | 71.8% [67.9, 75.5]Eligible 297/450 · mean steps N 28.6 · median k* 5 | 69.4% [64.3, 74.4]Eligible 145/180 · mean steps N 16.7 · median k* 3 | 74.3% [70.5, 78.0]Eligible 266/450 · mean steps N 33.4 · median k* 5 |
| Think-SFT | 78.9% [75.1, 82.3]Eligible 168/180 · mean steps N 26.4 · median k* 3 | 83.0% [80.4, 85.6]Eligible 273/450 · mean steps N 47.1 · median k* 5 | 84.4% [81.6, 87.0]Eligible 158/180 · mean steps N 33.0 · median k* 2 | 81.9% [78.8, 84.9]Eligible 258/450 · mean steps N 46.9 · median k* 4 |
| Think-DPO | 84.6% [81.4, 87.5]Eligible 168/180 · mean steps N 42.0 · median k* 3 | 84.4% [81.5, 87.0]Eligible 246/450 · mean steps N 56.7 · median k* 5 | 86.3% [83.8, 88.6]Eligible 162/180 · mean steps N 46.6 · median k* 3 | 85.1% [82.3, 87.7]Eligible 244/450 · mean steps N 56.8 · median k* 4 |
| Think-RLVR | 86.4% [83.9, 88.7]Eligible 164/180 · mean steps N 45.7 · median k* 3 | 85.3% [82.8, 87.8]Eligible 259/450 · mean steps N 61.3 · median k* 5 | 87.8% [85.6, 89.9]Eligible 161/180 · mean steps N 49.4 · median k* 3 | 86.6% [83.8, 89.1]Eligible 246/450 · mean steps N 60.7 · median k* 4 |
| Adjacent changes · paired by trace · Holm across three · Δ rho in percentage points with 95% CI | ||||
| Base → SFT | +11.1 pp [7.2, 15.0] · Holm p < 0.001 significant57,344-token rerun holds: +10.9 pp · Holm p 0.0003 significant | +10.7 pp [8.0, 13.3] · Holm p < 0.001 significant57,344-token rerun holds: +12.0 pp · Holm p 0.0003 significant | +15.1 pp [11.3, 19.0] · Holm p < 0.001 significant57,344-token rerun holds significant | +8.4 pp [5.9, 10.9] · Holm p < 0.001 significant57,344-token rerun holds significant |
| SFT → DPO | +5.3 pp [3.3, 7.5] · Holm p < 0.001 significant57,344-token rerun holds: +6.7 pp · Holm p 0.0003 significant | +2.4 pp [0.7, 3.9] · Holm p 0.004 significant57,344-token rerun holds: +3.7 pp · Holm p 0.0003 significant | +2.2 pp [−0.6, 5.5] · Holm p 0.3557,344-token rerun: +0.7 pp · Holm p 0.56 | +3.1 pp [1.4, 5.0] · Holm p 0.001 significant57,344-token rerun: +2.8 pp · Holm p < 0.001 significant |
| DPO → RLVR | +2.2 pp [0.8, 3.7] · Holm p 0.002 significant57,344-token rerun not significant: +1.1 pp · Holm p 0.074 | +1.3 pp [−0.1, 2.8] · Holm p 0.07057,344-token rerun: +0.1 pp · Holm p 0.86 | +0.9 pp [−0.7, 2.3] · Holm p 0.3557,344-token rerun: +2.7 pp · Holm p 0.002 significant | +0.7 pp [−1.5, 2.4] · Holm p 0.6157,344-token rerun: +0.4 pp · Holm p 0.58 |
32B higher-cap rerun compares a common frame of 147 traces across 55 problems. 7B higher-cap Base → SFT holds on both benchmarks; later-step results are shown above. † 32B MATH-500: the frozen fail-closed estimate is null for Base, SFT, and DPO because 2 judge requests per stage had unknown delivery. Values shown exclude only those 6 traces (no zero-filling). At the 8,192-token cap, 111, 148, and 137 of 450 SFT, DPO, and RLVR completions hit the cap; a 57,344-token rerun gives nearly the same stage rho on a common frame (70.7, 82.7, 86.3, 86.4).
Cross-family replication · Instella-MoE-16B-A3B (AMD)
Checkpoints: amd/Instella-MoE-16B-A3B-Base → -SFT → -DPO → -Think · same HMTE cross-judge rho · GSM8K 60 problems × 3 (180 per stage); MATH-500 150 × 3 (450 per stage).
Output caps vary by stage: Base 57,344; SFT, DPO, and Think 24,576 (32,768 context).
Per-stage results · complete-case rho with 95% CI
| Stage | GSM8K · rho [95% CI] | Eligible / 180 | Mean steps N | Median k* | MATH-500 · rho [95% CI] | Eligible / 450 | Mean steps N | Median k* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base | INVALID · 86.6% [82.8, 90.1] | 132/180 | 620.7 | 4 | INVALID · 81.7% [78.7, 84.6] | 298/450 | 389.2 | 8 |
| SFT | 63.3% [56.6, 69.7] | 144/180 | 31.2 | 3 | 63.5% [59.6, 67.4] | 415/450 | 48.7 | 4 |
| DPO | 67.7% [61.8, 73.2] | 137/180 | 47.7 | 3 | 64.6% [60.1, 69.1] | 406/450 | 53.0 | 3 |
| Think | 68.8% [62.8, 74.4] | 141/180 | 36.7 | 2 | 64.7% [60.4, 69.1] | 408/450 | 50.7 | 3 |
Adjacent changes · common frame · Holm across three
Marked: Holm-adjusted p < 0.05 within this benchmark's three-change family. Base comparisons are diagnostic only because Base is invalid.
| Change | GSM8K | MATH-500 |
|---|---|---|
| Base → SFT | −24.7 pp · Holm p 0.0003 diagnostic only (Base invalid) | −16.9 pp [−20.5, −13.3] · Holm p 0.0003 diagnostic only (Base invalid) |
| SFT → DPO | +8.3 pp · Holm p 0.0004 significant | +0.1 pp [−2.3, 2.4] · Holm p 1.00 |
| DPO → Think | −1.4 pp · Holm p 0.53 | +0.4 pp [−1.9, 2.7] · Holm p 1.00 |
Common frame: GSM8K 90 traces across 43 problems; MATH-500 269 traces across 117 problems. GSM8K contrast CIs were not reported.
Takeaway: Instella does not show the OLMo pattern: the SFT effect cannot be assessed because Base never terminates, and SFT → DPO rises on GSM8K (+8.3 pp) but not on MATH-500 (+0.1 pp).
Generation used a repaired vLLM path, not AMD's reference Transformers implementation (2 of 10 fixed probes match exactly); stage and cap vary together.
Excluded from RQ1 · OLMo-3 7B Instruct (prompted CoT)
Checkpoints: allenai/Olmo-3-1025-7B → allenai/Olmo-3-7B-Instruct-SFT → allenai/Olmo-3-7B-Instruct-DPO → allenai/Olmo-3-7B-Instruct.
Prompted-CoT protocol control · complete-case rho with 95% CI
| Stage | GSM8K · rho [95% CI] | Eligible / 180 | Mean steps N | MATH-500 · rho [95% CI] | Eligible / 450 | Mean steps N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base | 59.1% [52.8, 64.9] | 99/180 | 28.2 | 61.4% [56.3, 66.3] | 228/450 | 44.6 |
| SFT | 48.2% [42.5, 53.7] | 142/180 | 4.4 | 49.5% [44.5, 54.4] | 318/450 | 6.2 |
| DPO | 55.4% [49.2, 61.5] | 149/180 | 5.9 | 54.4% [49.5, 59.0] | 363/450 | 12.4 |
| RLVR | 52.5% [45.9, 58.7] | 154/180 | 6.3 | 50.1% [45.0, 55.0] | 368/450 | 12.1 |
Adjacent changes · common frame · Holm across three
Marked: Holm-adjusted p < 0.05 within this benchmark's three-change family.
| Change | GSM8K | MATH-500 |
|---|---|---|
| Base → SFT | −7.4 pp [−14.4, −0.3] · Holm p 0.10 | −10.8 pp [−15.1, −6.6] · Holm p 0.0003 significant |
| SFT → DPO | +5.8 pp [1.2, 10.3] · Holm p 0.059 | +6.5 pp [3.5, 9.8] · Holm p 0.0003 significant |
| DPO → RLVR | −2.3 pp [−5.7, 0.9] · Holm p 0.19 | −4.4 pp [−6.7, −2.1] · Holm p 0.0006 significant |
Common frame: GSM8K 70 traces across 41 problems; MATH-500 169 traces across 92 problems.
Takeaways
- Both native-Think lines rise most at SFT: +11.1 pp (32B, GSM8K), +10.7 pp (32B, MATH-500), +15.1 pp (7B, GSM8K), +8.4 pp (7B, MATH-500).
- Later steps are small (+0.7 to +5.3 pp). Which of them is significant depends on model, benchmark, and output cap, so we do not claim a stable DPO or RLVR effect.
- Traces grow about 3× from Base to RLVR (32B GSM8K 14.9 → 45.7 steps; 7B GSM8K 16.7 → 49.4) while the median critical prefix stays at 2-5 steps: the added length falls mostly after the first judge-sufficient prefix.
- Protocol control — OLMo-3 7B Instruct with prompted step-by-step CoT (no think block): rho 59.1% → 48.2% → 55.4% → 52.5%; no adjacent change survives Holm on GSM8K. The same-size 7B Think line rises like 32B, so the contrast is not explained by model size alone; the Instruct control still differs in family and protocol.
Caveats
- Observational checkpoint sequence: adjacent differences are not causal effects of SFT, DPO, or RLVR.
- DPO is preference optimization, not reinforcement learning.
- Cross-judge values are not comparable to the HMTE paper's published numbers; judge calibration differs.
- The 7B Instruct control differs from the 7B Think line in post-training family and prompting protocol at once; it shows a different pattern, not that protocol alone is the cause.
- Eligible cohorts differ by stage (149–168 of 180).
Metric: HMTE rho, Zhai et al., "How Much Thinking is Enough?", reproduced here. Checkpoints: allenai/Olmo-3-1125-32B, allenai/Olmo-3-32B-Think-SFT, allenai/Olmo-3-32B-Think-DPO, allenai/Olmo-3-32B-Think; allenai/Olmo-3-1025-7B, allenai/Olmo-3-7B-Think-SFT, allenai/Olmo-3-7B-Think-DPO, allenai/Olmo-3-7B-Think.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Confirmation · new problems
Both studies were pre-registered: predictors, model, and decision rule were frozen before any new problem was generated or judged.
Both test whether problem-mean rho is predictable from input properties of the problem (A-hat, op, distractor or irrelevant-node count, mean NLL).
Problem-mean rho is the mean of complete-case HMTE rho = 1 − k*/N over up to … natural traces per problem.
Loading…
Loading…