What Qwen is thinking when it gets stuck saying "Wait"
Comments on “What Qwen is thinking when it gets stuck saying "Wait"”
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
A write-up by Alice Corp's researcher (alisorcorp.github.io) examines an edit made by GPT-6 Astra to Qwen3.5-0.8B that cuts its looping on math problems. The edit, a rank-one change to 64 neurons in two layers, flips a "doubt" direction, lifting MATH-500 accuracy from 7.9% to 48.1%.
Why it ranked
No. 97 of 137 with a score of 0.61. The panel rated it highest on technical depth (0.93) and substantiated (0.83), lowest on significance (0.51). Placed No. 97, No. 69 by score alone: the 40th AI & machine learning story of the day (−0.080), and close to “The Qwen weight edits are fixing the repetition and works on non math as well”, No. 76 today (−0.022). The placement terms move stories; they are not part of the score.
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- Detailed, technically deep interpretability and model-editing write-up on LLM looping with reproducible artifacts; strong for AI builders, though niche and the edit claims rest on small samples.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- Detailed, reproducible experiments analyze and modify Qwen’s looping behavior, with released diffs, scripts, measurements, controls, and explicit limitations. It is technically valuable AI research, though scope is limited to one small model and modest samples.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.61total under rubric v2.3
- Significance0.51
- Reader interest0.77
- Audience breadth0.52
- Practical relevance0.57
- Substantiated0.83
- Technical depth0.93
- New information0.81
- Counts against: Promotional0.05
- Counts against: Overclaim0.27
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SignificanceHow much does this change what people in tech know or can do? | 0.51 | 0.40 | 0.61 | 0.51 | 0.21 | +0.24 | +0.121 |
| Reader interestWould a well-informed senior engineer or tech founder want to read this today, and likely pass it on? | 0.60 | 0.80 | 0.90 | 0.77 | 0.30 | +0.26 | +0.199 |
| Audience breadthHow many people who build technology does it concern? | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.55 | 0.52 | 0.05 | +0.13 | +0.068 |
| Practical relevanceHow useful is it to someone who builds software or tech products? | 0.48 | 0.55 | 0.68 | 0.57 | 0.20 | +0.22 | +0.126 |
| SubstantiatedHow well is it backed? Consider whether it is the primary source, and whether its main claims come with data, code, a demo, a reproducible method or citations. | 0.91 | 0.70 | 0.88 | 0.83 | 0.21 | +0.05 | +0.042 |
| Technical depthHow technically substantive is it? | 0.98 | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.08 | +0.05 | +0.047 |
| New informationDoes it contain information absent from the stories covered in the last 7 days (list provided)? | 0.88 | 0.60 | 0.96 | 0.81 | 0.36 | +0.05 | +0.041 |
| PromotionalIs it mainly marketing with little substance (a press release, ad or sponsored post with no real information)? A launch post that carries real news is not promotional. | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.03 | −0.19 | −0.009 |
| OverclaimDo the headline or conclusions claim more than the body supports? | 0.27 | 0.35 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.17 | −0.11 | −0.029 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.605 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.605 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-11-04/97/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-11-04/97.svg" alt="Ranked #97 on Rubric, 4 Nov 2026" width="238" height="28"></a>Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 1 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 4 Nov 2026, 05:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.