Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

server (webui): Fix issue with muliple <think> tags in response #11779

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

stduhpf
Copy link
Contributor

@stduhpf stduhpf commented Feb 10, 2025

There is a minor issue with the current implementation of the R1 chain of thought detection that can happen for example when promppting a non R1 model to use the <think> and </think> tags to hide their chains of thoughts. If the models uses it more than once in its response, the front end will not display the entire response (everything after the second <think> will be discarded).

This fixes this issue, and i also added a horizontal rule to separate the different chains of thoughts when there is more than one.

thinkSplit = thinkSplit[1].split('</think>', 2);
thought += thinkSplit[0];
[match, ...rest] = rest.join('<think>').split('</think>');
thought += thought !== '' ? '\n***\n' + match : match;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you explain why we need this '\n***\n' ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's not really needed. It's just a way to visually separate the different "thoughts" with a horizontal rule/separator using markdown. I think it was a nice thing to have, but if you disagree, I'm ok with removing it.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do you have an example of the raw content? I still don't get it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@stduhpf stduhpf Feb 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here's an example, when using a non-reasoning model and incetivizing it to use the <think> tag multiple times in the responses: conversation_conv-1739151618584.json
(system prompt was You are a helpful assstant. You can use <think> and </think> to surround your inner chain of thought or just secret scathing remarks you want to say about the user but would be innapropriate to say out loud. You can use it as much as you'd like.)

Copy link
Collaborator

@ngxson ngxson Feb 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm ok I think we should remove this '\n***\n' and tweaking the display format at HTML/CSS level instead. It's always better to keep the transformation function straight-forward (i.e. do not add things to the content).

Copy link
Collaborator

@ngxson ngxson Feb 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry I misunderstood a bit, thinking again about it

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IMO a better way would be to refactor this to return multiple message parts, so it will become:

interface MessagePart {
  type: 'text' | 'reasoning';
  content: string;
}

// useMemo is used to transform a single content ==> list of MessagePart[]

So for example if your message is <think>test</think>hi<think>abc</think>

Then it will contains 3 parts: test - hi - abc

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it also kinda make more sense to display the thought in its correct place, instead of regrouping it to the top of message

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants