# Thinking Sparks!: Emergent Attention Heads in Reasoning Models During Post Training

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.25758 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25758/

## Key facts

- Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 55 of its 74 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 55)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01652/) (2021)
- [TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.03551/) (2017)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10925/) (2025)
- [Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 small](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.00593/) (2022)
- [Qwen2.5-Math Technical Report: Toward Mathematical Expert Model via Self-Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12122/) (2024)
- [Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.13837/) (2025)
- [Toy Models of Superposition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.10652/) (2022)
- [Analyzing Multi-Head Self-Attention: Specialized Heads Do the Heavy Lifting, the Rest Can Be Pruned](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.09418/) (2019)
- [Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.05217/) (2023)
- [Are Sixteen Heads Really Better than One?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.10650/) (2019)
- [Towards Automated Circuit Discovery for Mechanistic Interpretability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.14997/) (2023)
- [SFT Memorizes, RL Generalizes: A Comparative Study of Foundation Model Post-training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.17161/) (2025)
- [Do NOT Think That Much for 2+3=? On the Overthinking of o1-Like LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.21187/) (2024)
- [Stop Overthinking: A Survey on Efficient Reasoning for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16419/) (2025)
- [Sparse Feature Circuits: Discovering and Editing Interpretable Causal Graphs in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.19647/) (2024)
- [Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety -- A Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.14082/) (2024)
- [Finding Neurons in a Haystack: Case Studies with Sparse Probing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01610/) (2023)
- [Inference Scaling Laws: An Empirical Analysis of Compute-Optimal Inference for Problem-Solving with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.00724/) (2024)
- [ReFT: Reasoning with Reinforced Fine-Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.08967/) (2024)
- [A Survey on Test-Time Scaling in Large Language Models: What, How, Where, and How Well?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.24235/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Towards a Mechanistic Understanding of Large Reasoning Models: A Survey of Training, Inference, and Failures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.19928/) (2026)
- [Improving Chain-of-Thought for Logical Reasoning via Attention-Aware Intervention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.09805/) (2026)
- [Rethinking RL for LLM Reasoning: It's Sparse Policy Selection, Not Capability Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.06241/) (2026)
- [</think> Doesn't Stop Reasoning: Analysis of Spurious CoT Termination](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.03633/) (2026)
- [Beyond Shallow Alignment: How Post-Training Methods Determine Refusal Circuits And Steering Robustness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.03887/) (2026)
- [OBC-Prune: Outcome-Based Calibration for Large Reasoning Model Pruning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.17890/) (2026)
- [Towards Efficient Reasoning in LLM-Based Recommender Systems via Model Merging](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.10447/) (2026)
- [The Emergence of Relevance Through Axiomatic Attention Patterns During LoRA Fine-Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.23338/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The remarkable capabilities of modern large reasoning models are largely unlocked through post-training techniques such as supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL). However, the architectural mechanisms behind such improvements remain largely opaque. In this work, we use circuit analysis to demonstrate that post-training for complex reasoning sparks the emergence of novel, functionally specialized attention heads. These heads collectively support structured reasoning and computation. Our comparative analysis across various model families reveals that these emergent heads evolve differently under different training regimes. Distillation and SFT foster a cumulative addition of stable reasoning heads. In contrast, group relative policy optimization (GRPO) operates in a dynamic search mode: relatively few attention heads are iteratively activated, evaluated, and pruned, with their survival closely tracking fluctuations in the task reward signal. Furthermore, we find that controllable "think on/off" models do not possess dedicated "thinking" heads. Instead, turning off explicit reasoning triggers a broader-but less efficient-set of compensatory heads. Through ablation and qualitative analyses, we connect these circuit-level dynamics to a crucial performance trade-off: strengthened heads enable sophisticated problem-solving strategies for difficult problems but can also introduce "over-thinking" failure modes, such as calculation errors or logical loops on simpler tasks. These findings connect circuit-level dynamics to macro-level performance, identifying an inherent tension where complex reasoning comes at the cost of elementary computations. More broadly, our work points to future directions for training policy design, emphasizing the need to balance the development of effective reasoning strategies with the assurance of reliable, flawless execution.