Thanks again to the many collaborators and contributors, especially @arkil_patel @sivareddyg and @mcgill_nlp 💜

🚨Thoughtology is now accepted to #TMLR! We've added some new analyses, most notably:
🌟 We quantify rumination; repetitive thoughts are associated with incorrect responses
🌟 We add 2 LRMs: gpt-oss and Qwen3. Both show a reasoning 'sweet spot'
See 📃 : openreview.net/forum?id=BZw...

Our new paper in #PNAS (bit.ly/4fcWfma) presents a surprising finding—when words change meaning, older speakers rapidly adopt the new usage; inter-generational differences are often minor.

w/ Michelle Yang, ‪@sivareddyg.bsky.social‬ , @msonderegger.bsky.social‬ and @dallascard.bsky.social‬👇(1/12)

And thoughtology is now on Arxiv! Read more about R1 reasoning 🐋💭 across visual, cultural and psycholinguistic tasks at the link below:

🔗 arxiv.org/abs/2504.07128

This paper was a large group effort from @mcgill-nlp.bsky.social @mila-quebec.bsky.social
We encourage you to read the full paper for a more detailed discussion of our findings and hope that our insights encourage future work studying the reasoning behaviour of LLMs.

Our paper also contains additional analyses on faithfulness to user input, language-specific reasoning behaviour, similarity to human language processing, and iterative world modeling via ASCII generation.

DeepSeek-R1 also exhibits higher safety vulnerabilities compared to its non-reasoning counter-part DeepSeek-V3 and the model's reasoning capabilities can be used to generate jailbreak attacks that successfully elicit harmful responses from other safety-aligned LLMs.

Notably, we show DeepSeek-R1 has a ‘sweet spot’ of reasoning, where extra inference time can impair model performance and continuously scaling length of thoughts does not necessarily increase performance.

DeepSeek-R1’s thoughts follow a consistent structure. After determining the problem goal, it decomposes the problem towards an interim solution. It will then either re-explore or re-verify the solution multiple times before completion, though these re-verifications can lack in diversity.

The availability of R1’s reasoning chains allows us to systematically study its reasoning process, an endeavor we term Thoughtology💭. Starting from a taxonomy of R1s reasoning chains, we study the complex reasoning behavior of LRMs and provide some of our main findings below👇.

Models like DeepSeek-R1 🐋 mark a fundamental shift in how LLMs approach complex problems. In our preprint on R1 Thoughtology, we study R1’s reasoning chains across a variety of tasks; investigating its capabilities, limitations, and behaviour.
🔗: mcgill-nlp.github.io/thoughtology/

📚 How good are language models at utilising contexts in RAG scenarios?
We release 🧙🏽‍♀️DRUID to facilitate studies of context usage in real-world scenarios.
arxiv.org/abs/2412.17031

w/ @saravera.bsky.social, H.Yu, @rnv.bsky.social, C.Lioma, M.Maistro, @apepa.bsky.social and @iaugenstein.bsky.social ⭐️