Exploring ThinkingCap fine-tunes for Qwen 3.8: Is it still necessary with native reasoning_effort?

#12
by icognito - opened

Hi everyone,

With the recent release of Qwen 3.8 27B, I’ve been reflecting on the impact of models like Bottle Cap AI’s ThinkingCap-Qwen3.6-27B. That fine-tune did a fantastic job of reducing unnecessary Chain-of-Thought (CoT) overthinking by ~50% without dropping reasoning quality.

Now that Qwen 3.8 introduces native reasoning_effort control (low, medium, xhigh, none) directly out of the box, I wanted to open a discussion with the community:

  1. Native Controls vs. Fine-tunes: Does Qwen 3.8’s built-in low or medium reasoning setting solve the overthinking issue effectively, or is there still a strong case for community-driven "ThinkingCap" style fine-tunes?
  2. Efficiency & Speed: How does Qwen 3.8’s native CoT token consumption compare to 3.6 fine-tunes in local setups (vLLM / Ollama / Unsloth)?
  3. Use-case Trade-offs: Are you noticing any drop in complex multi-step coding/math performance when dialing down the reasoning effort on 3.8?

Would love to hear thoughts, benchmark results, or early testing experiences from anyone experimenting with Qwen 3.8 27B!

For me with Qwenn 3.8 27B i have really hard overthinking and looping issues compared to other models, but i have to experiment more with it. So I actually guess a thinking cap model would be really nice.

The point of Bottlecap Ais fine tune, was too reach the same answer with less tokens. So In my mind the logic would apply like this:
They make a finetune, that's set to xhigh, but it uses 50 % less tokens, equavalent to the default medium, but with the xhigh result. I don't think in the default model that's the case

Sign up or log in to comment