“Wait” in reasoning models comes from training data, and RL almost never invents it

Reinforcement learning gets the credit for teaching reasoning models to write wait before they recheck a step. Traced through open models' training histories, the word almost always arrives earlier, with the training data.

Slide text

“Wait” in reasoning models comes from training data, and RL almost never invents it

Zhizhuo Kou, Sizai Hou, Long Chen and colleagues · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Peking University, Huawei Noah’s Ark Lab

Kou et al. · Inherited, Not Invented: Tracing the Provenance of Wait in Reasoning Models · arXiv 2610.30882v1 · submitted 22 Oct 2026

Start with RL on base models that never write wait. Across 18 runs on Qwen, Mistral and Qwen3 bases, math accuracy rose by a median of about 43 points, and wait stayed almost absent in 17. One 32B run reached 91 percent and wrote wait four times.

OLMo-3 releases every training stage, so the word can be dated. Through pretraining it almost never appears. After mid-training, it shows up about four times per thousand tokens. Fine-tuning on reasoning traces installs it too, in 13 of 14 models.

When the base already writes wait, RL can amplify it. OLMo-3's released RL-Zero run more than tripled it at its peak, and MiMo's recipe raised it too. GRPO without a KL penalty, from the same base, ended slightly lower.

The form changes too. On one problem, the base model writes wait ten times, mostly to question a result. The last checkpoint writes it 36 times, often before restating a correct value, and drops the comma.

The word can also be planted. A small Qwen math model was fine-tuned on 512 solutions whose sentences open with wait, then trained with GRPO. After 400 steps, wait was gone. Accuracy still rose, from 41 to about 78 percent.

That matters if you read wait as a sign of doubt. After RL-Zero, OLMo-3 writes it after three in four planted errors, up from under half. It also fires after a quarter of correct steps, so measure it on the checkpoint you run.

Papers often count reflection with an LLM judge. On 60 blind sentences, experts saw revisions rise during RL-Zero. A Qwen judge saw them halve, because it over-counted them in the base model. A gpt-oss judge tracked the experts.

The evidence is observational, from models up to 32B trained on English math. It tracks the word, and a model can recheck a step without writing it. One zero-RL run, General-Reasoner on Qwen3 4B, did start writing wait.

The provenance map of 120 models, the result files and the expert labels are in the wait-provenance repository on GitHub. Does anything in your stack count wait as a sign the model is unsure?