DEV Community

PSBigBig
PSBigBig

Posted on

Day 11 · When Your Chain of Thought Collapses (ProblemMap No.6)

I’m PSbigbig. After watching hundreds of Python RAG and agent pipelines fail, I stopped believing bugs were random. Many failures repeat with the same fingerprints — they are math-shaped, not noise. Today’s focus is Logic Collapse & Recovery, also called No.6 in the Problem Map.


The story developers already know

You’re running a multi-step reasoning chain:

  1. Step 1 looks fine.
  2. Step 2 repeats the question in slightly different words.
  3. Step 3 outputs “intuitively, therefore…” and fills a paragraph with elegant but hollow prose.
  4. Citations vanish. You’re left with filler and zero logical progress.

It feels like the model “kept talking” but the reasoning stalled.

You think: maybe my prompt wasn’t strong enough, maybe the model is weak at logic.
What actually happened: a collapse event — the model lost its reasoning state and invented a “fake bridge” to cover the gap.


Why it matters

  • Hidden errors: production logs look fluent, but correctness is gone.
  • Eval mismatch: offline BLEU/ROUGE may pass, but logical depth is zero.
  • User confusion: end-users see “answers” that sound confident yet skip the actual step.

How to catch collapse in 60 seconds

  1. Challenge test: ask a 3-hop reasoning task (conditional proof, small math puzzle).
  • If the middle hop drifts into filler, collapse detected.
  1. Paradox probe: add a self-referential clause.
  • If the output smooths over it with generalities, you hit a fake bridge.
  1. Rebirth operator: insert a self-repair instruction:
  • “stop. identify last valid claim. restart reasoning from there.”
  • If the model actually resets, you confirmed collapse was happening.

Minimal Fix Strategy

Goal: Detect collapse early and re-anchor the chain.

  • Rebirth operator: explicit reset to the last valid anchor (last cited span or equation).
  • ΔS progression gate: measure semantic distance between steps; if ΔS < 0.15, block output.
  • Citation guard: no step is valid without a snippet or equation id.
  • Entropy clamp: if token entropy drops sharply, trigger recovery.

Diagnose Checklist

  • sudden entropy drop in generated tokens
  • reasoning step grows in length but ΔS compared to prior step ≈ 0
  • citations vanish mid-chain
  • paraphrased queries produce diverging answers

If you see two or more, you are in No.6 Logic Collapse territory.


Code You Can Paste

A tiny toy to detect step collapse by monitoring semantic distance:

import numpy as np
from sklearn.metrics.pairwise import cosine_similarity

def delta_s(vec_a, vec_b):
    return float(cosine_similarity([vec_a], [vec_b])[0][0])

def detect_collapse(step_vecs, threshold=0.15):
    # step_vecs: list of embeddings for each reasoning step
    for i in range(len(step_vecs)-1):
        if delta_s(step_vecs[i], step_vecs[i+1]) < threshold:
            return True
    return False

# usage: pass embeddings of reasoning steps
# returns True if a collapse event is likely
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

And a conceptual rebirth operator:

def rebirth(chain, last_valid_idx):
    """Truncate to last stable step and restart reasoning."""
    return chain[:last_valid_idx+1] + ["[RESTART reasoning here]"]
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Harder Fixes

  • enforce citation-first schema: don’t allow synthesis without anchors
  • run multiple parallel chains; drop collapsed ones
  • retrain rerankers to favor progressive spans, not just semantic closeness
  • add regression tests with paradox queries to flush out brittle logic

Acceptance Gates Before You Ship

  • ΔS progression ≥ 0.15 at every step
  • each step carries a citation or anchor
  • rebirth triggers visible resets, not silent filler
  • answers converge across three paraphrases

TL;DR

Logic collapse isn’t random. It’s a repeatable bug where reasoning halts and the model invents filler. Detect it by measuring semantic progression, suppress low-ΔS steps, and enforce rebirth operators. Once you do, chains can handle paradoxes and multi-hop logic without drifting into platitudes.


👉 Full map of 16 reproducible failure modes (MIT, reproducible):
ProblemMap · Article Index

Top comments (0)