mirror of
https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui.git
synced 2026-05-06 19:08:59 -05:00
[GH-ISSUE #9151] Chat Title Generation Issue with Deepseek-R1 Model #30931
No Assignees
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: github-starred/open-webui#30931
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @Guerdal on GitHub (Jan 31, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui/issues/9151
Version open-webui : 0.5.7
Version Ollama : 0.5.7-0-ga420a45-dirty
Model Version : deepseek-r1:14b
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
When using the Deepseek-R1 model for chat discussions, the generated chat titles are pulled from the "CoT" (Chain-of-Thought) section of the model's output rather than the actual response provided by the model. This results in titles that do not accurately reflect the content or intent of the discussion, making it less useful for tracking and referencing specific chats.
Describe the solution you'd like
The desired behavior is to have chat titles generated based on the model's response section (the main output) instead of the CoT section. This would ensure that the titles are more representative of the actual content discussed and provide a clearer reference point for users.
Describe alternatives you've considered
An alternative approach is to manually set chat titles, but this would require additional steps and may not be as seamless as automatically generating them from the model's output. Another option is to create an additional setting where users can choose between using the CoT or response sections for title generation.
Additional context
This issue specifically impacts users who rely on Deepseek-R1 for their chat discussions, particularly in scenarios where accurate and meaningful titles are crucial for tracking and organizing conversations. The current behavior can lead to confusion and reduced efficiency when trying to review past interactions.
@tjbck commented on GitHub (Jan 31, 2025):
Please first check for duplicate issues/discussions.
@huornlmj commented on GitHub (Jan 31, 2025):
@tjbck Was this a duplicate? If so could you share the original? I have the same issue and I checked for duplicates, found none and only saw this issue logged.
@Guerdal commented on GitHub (Jan 31, 2025):
Effectivly I found #9004 in Discussions, but it's not easy as found it in issue. ;-)