Datasets:

santhoshkammari

/

arxiv-llm-papers-dataset

like 0

2407.18248v1

http://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.18248v1

Self-Training with Direct Preference Optimization Improves Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

Tianduo Wang, Shichen Li, Wei Lu

2024-07-25

Abstract Effective training of language models (LMs) for mathematical reasoning tasks demands high-quality supervised fine-tuning data. Be- sides obtaining annotations from human ex- perts, a common alternative is sampling from larger and more powerful LMs. However, this knowledge distillation approach can be costly and unstable, particularly when relying on closed-source, proprietary LMs like GPT- 4 (OpenAI, 2023), whose behaviors are often unpredictable. In this work, we demonstrate that the reasoning abilities of small-scale LMs can be enhanced through self-training, a pro- cess where models learn from their own outputs. We also show that the conventional self-training can be further augmented by a preference learn- ing algorithm called Direct Preference Opti- mization (DPO) (Rafailov et al., 2023). By integrating DPO into self-training, we leverage preference data to guide LMs towards more ac- curate and diverse chain-of-thought reasoning. We evaluate our method across various math- ematical reasoning tasks using different base models. Our experiments show that this ap- proach not only improves LMs’ reasoning per- formance but also offers a more cost-effective and scalable solution compared to relying on large proprietary LMs. 1

Introduction Making language models (LMs) perform math- ematical reasoning is a valuable, yet challeng- ing research objective (Hendrycks et al., 2021; Cobbe et al., 2021). Recent efforts have focused on enhancing large-scale LMs’ reasoning abili- ties through various methods, including chain-of- thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022b; Kojima et al., 2022), continual pretraining (Azerbayev et al., 2024), and adding external verifiersq (Li et al., 2023b). However, the research question of how to enhance the reasoning capabilities of smaller- sized LMs remains relatively under-explored. 1e+18 3e+18 1e+19 3e+19 1e+20 Compute Cost (FLOPs)152025303540Accuracy (%)Flan-T5-L (Ours) Flan-T5-LFlan-T5-3BFlan-T5-11B T5-LT5-3BT5-11B T5-LT5-3BGSM8K Performance v.s. Compute cost Codex distillation (Fu et al., 2023) PaLM distillation (Magister et al., 2023) Calcformer (Kadl ík et al., 2023) Figure 1: Our approach demonstrates superior perfor- mance on the GSM8K benchmark while minimizing the required compute cost, including both training and inference. Compute cost calculations are based on the methodology outlined by Yuan et al. (2023).1 Recent studies (Fu et al., 2023; Magister et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023a) demonstrate that the rea- soning capabilities of smaller LMs can be signif- icantly enhanced through learning from the out- puts of larger and more advanced LMs, such as Codex (Chen et al., 2021), PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), and GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023). While this method is straightforward to implement, the associated costs can be substantial. The computa- tional demand, measured in floating-point opera- tions (FLOPs), increases considerably when using large LMs. Additionally, the reliance on propri- etary large LMs for data annotation not only incurs high economic costs but also raises concerns re- garding the sustainability and scalability of such practices. For instance, Ho et al. (2023) highlighted that while employing large LMs as annotators can largely enhance the performance of smaller LMs, it introduces a clear trade-off between economic costs and performance gains. 1All methods presented here are integrated with an external calculator except for the Codex distillation by Fu et al. (2023).arXiv:2407.18248v1 [cs.CL] 25 Jul 2024 Another line of research focuses on explor- ing enhancements through self-improvement meth- ods (Zelikman et al., 2022; Gulcehre et al., 2023; Singh et al., 2023). These methods diverge from using outputs from larger models, instead encour- aging LMs to learn from their own generated data. The effectiveness of these techniques is evident, yet their success largely depends upon the inher- ent capabilities of the base models. For example, Zelikman et al. (2022) initiated self-improvement by few-shot prompting GPT-J (Wang and Ko- matsuzaki, 2021), a relatively large LM which has 6 billion parameters, to generate rationales – an emergent ability typically reserved for large models (Wei et al., 2022a). However, the ex- tent to which small-scale LMs can gain from self- improvement remains uncertain. In this work, we introduce a novel enhance- ment to the conventional self-training framework by incorporating Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) (Rafailov et al., 2023). This integration specifically targets performance objectives within chain-of-thought reasoning, with a particular focus on mathematical reasoning. The clear-cut nature of mathematical solutions enables straightforward validation of a model’s outputs, facilitating the cre- ation of a preference dataset for DPO. Our em- pirical results indicate that this method notably en- hances the reasoning capabilities of LMs while also reducing computational overhead. We visualize the relationship between the GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021) performance and computational cost across various specialized models in Figure 1. It can be observed that our method not only achieves strong performance, but also reduces computational de- mands by effectively utilizing self-generated data for learning. Overall, the main contribution of this work can be summarized as follows: •We propose a novel extension to the classic self-training framework by integrating Direct Preference Optimization, demonstrating its ef- fectiveness across various math reasoning tasks. •Our method significantly enhances the reason- ing abilities of language models while requiring minimal computational resources, optimizing both performance and efficiency. •We present an efficient method for integrating LMs with external tools, which significantly boosts downstream task performance without notably compromising inference speed.Algorithm 1 Self-training for CoT reasoning tasks Input: pre-trained language model fθ Input: labeled dataset L={(xi, yi, ai)}l i=1 Input: unlabeled dataset U={(xi, ai)}u i=1 Output: fine-tuned model fθ′ 1:Fine-tune fθonLto get fθ′ 2:repeat 3: Build pseudo-labeled dataset S: S={(xi,ˆyi,ˆai)}s i=1 where xi∼ U andˆyi,ˆai∼fθ′(·|xi) 4: Select Sα⊂ S when ˆai=ai 5: Update L ← Sα∪ L 6: Train fθonLto get a new fθ′ 7:until convergence or max iteration is reached 2

Background Math word problem solving The math word problem solving task (Cobbe et al., 2021) can be formulated as a sequence-to-sequence task where the input xis a question asking for an unknown value and the output yis a rationale that leads to the answer a. Normally, the answers can be extracted from the rationales via some rule-based methods, such as regular expressions. A generated rationale ˆyis regarded as correct if the extracted answer ˆa matches the gold answer a. Formally, the labeled dataset for a math word problem solving task with linstances can be represented as: L={(xi, yi, ai)}l i=1. (1) A common way for specializing a LM fθtowards math reasoning with the labeled dataset Lissuper- vised fine-tuning (SFT). It optimizes fθby mini- mizing the negative log likelihood loss LSFT(θ): E (x,y)∼L−hTX t=1logfθ(yt|x, y 1:t−1)i , (2) where Tis the length of the rationale yand we use ytto represent the t-th token in y. Self-training Self-training is one of the earliest approaches in semi-supervised learning (Scudder, 1965; Fralick, 1967) that has risen in popularity recently (He et al., 2020; Amini et al., 2022). This method first regards a base model trained with a labeled dataset Las teacher, and uses it to build a pseudo-labeled dataset Sby annotating an unla- beled dataset U. Then, a student model is trained on a combination of LandSthat are expected to outperform the teacher model. Such a framework has been shown effective across a wide range of natural language processing tasks, including natu- ral language understanding (Vu et al., 2021) and generation (He et al., 2020). A formal description of a self-training algorithm for chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning tasks is provided in Algorithm 1. Previous studies have demonstrated that the qual- ity of the pseudo-labels largely impacts the over- all performance of the self-training algorithm (He et al., 2020; Amini et al., 2022). For example, Gul- cehre et al. (2023) proposed to select high-quality pseudo-labels with a learned reward function. Ze- likman et al. (2022) filtered the generated ratio- nales to include only the ones that lead to correct answers. Although many methods are proposed to select pseudo-labels, few works discuss how to improve the fine-tuned model fθ′so that more high-quality pseudo-labels can be generated. In this paper, we present a method to enhance fθ′in each iteration so that higher-quality pseudo-labeled data can be generated. Direct Preference Optimization The Rein- forcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) methods align LMs with human prefer- ence (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022). The standard pipeline of RLHF requires to first train a reward model from human preference data. Then, the reward model is used to fine-tune language models via reinforcement learning objective, e.g., Proximal Policy Optimization (Schulman et al., 2017). A recent study propose Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) (Rafailov et al., 2023) to avoid explicitly training a reward model so that language models can be directly tuned with human prefer- ence data. The DPO pipeline can be described as follows. First, given some prompt x, we sample several com- pletions from the reference model πref(normally it is the model after supervised fine-tuning): y1, y2∼πref(· |x). (3) Next, construct the DPO dataset Dfrom the com- pletions based on the human preference: D={(xi, yi w, yi l)}N i=1, (4) where yi wandyi lrepresent the winning and los- ing completions respectively. Then, we optimize the language model πθto minimize LDPO(πθ;πref)Algorithm 2 DPO-augmented self-training Input: pre-trained language model fθ Input: labeled dataset L={(xi, yi, ai)}l i=1 Input: unlabeled dataset U={(xi, ai)}u i=1 Output: fine-tuned model fθ′ # Warm-up stage 1:Fine-tune fθonLto get fθ′ 2:repeat # DPO step 3: Generate DPO dataset D: D={(xi, yi w, yi l)}N i=1 where xi∼ U andyi w, yi l∼fθ′(·|xi) 4: Tune fθ′withLDPOonDto get fθd # SFT step 5: Build pseudo-labeled dataset S: S={(xi,ˆyi,ˆai)}s i=1 where xi∼ U andˆyi,ˆai∼fθd(·|xi) 6: Select Sα⊂ S when ˆai=ai 7: Update L ← Sα∪ L 8: Train fθonLto get a new fθ′ 9:until convergence or max iteration is reached which can be defined as follows: E (x,yw,yl)∼D −logσ r(yw|x)−r(yl|x) , (5) where r(·|x) =βlogπθ(·|x) πref(·|x)andβis a coefficient that controls πθ’s deviation from πref. 3 Method In this section, we first describe the proposed ap- proach. Then, we demonstrate how we integrate an external calculator into the model’s decoding process which significantly improves LMs’ perfor- mance on the downstream tasks. 3.1 DPO-augmented Self-Training Our approach starts with a warm-up stage , and then followed by an iterative process, where each iteration is composed of two sub-steps: DPO step andSFT step . The iterative process ends when the model performance converges or reaches the maximum iteration. A formal description of the proposed method is illustrated in Algorithm 2. An illustration of our method is presented in Figure 2. Warm-up stage Like classic self-training, we start by fine-tuning the base model fθto optimize LSFT(θ)on the labeled data L, resulting in an up- dated model fθ′. After this stage, we assume that Pre-trained model SFT model DPO modelSupervised fine-tuningDPO trainingSampling&filteringPseudo-labeled dataSFT dataDeduplication SamplingPreference data Human-labeled SFT data Iteration nFigure 2: An illustration of the DPO-augmented Self-Training framework. Traditional self-training method uses the SFT model to generate the pseudo-labels for subsequent iterations. In contrast, our method enhances the SFT model with Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), using the optimized DPO model to produce the pseudo-labels. fθ′is capable of solving certain math problems. Specifically, given a math question x,fθ′will gen- erate a rationale ˆywith answer ˆa. Iterative step 1: DPO step In this step, we first sample rationales ˆyfrom the fine-tuned model fθ′ given some questions xfromU. For each ques- tionx, we generate multiple rationales to build the DPO training dataset D. As mentioned, for math problem solving tasks, it is easy to know whether a generated rationale ˆycan be considered as correct. We label rationales with correct answers as win- ning completions, while consider rationales with incorrect answers as losing completions. Then, we trainfθ′onDto optimize the objective function LDPOand get a DPO model fθdin the end. Iterative step 2: SFT step After obtaining fθd, we use it to generate a new pseudo-labeled dataset Sfor the next-round supervised fine-tuning: S={(x,ˆy)|x∼ U,ˆy∼fθd(·|x)} (6) After generation, we clean Sby eliminating ra- tionales with incorrect answers and removing du- plicates. Therefore, the pseudo-labeled dataset we obtained in the end is a subset of the original one, i.e.,Sα⊂ S. The final training dataset is the com- bination of the original labeled dataset Land the newly-generated pseudo-labeled dataset Sα. No- tice that during this process, once we collect a new dataset, we train from the original base model fθ instead of continually fine-tuning fθ′to avoid over- fitting, following previous practice (Zelikman et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2023).Q: James writes a 3-page letter to 2 different friends twice a week. How many pages does he write a year? A: He writes each friend 3*2=<<3*2=6>>6 pages a week. So he writes 6*2=<<6*2=12>>12 pages every week. That means he writes 12*52=<<12*52=624>>624 pages a year. #### 624 Figure 3: An example from the GSM8K dataset. The calculation annotations are highlighted in blue. All calculation steps are wrapped within special tokens <<...>> . During decoding, the calculator will be trig- gered when such patterns exist and the model’s output tokens will be overridden by the calculator results. Fol- lowing Cobbe et al. (2021), the calculation is performed with the in-built python function eval() . 3.2 Batch Decoding with Calculator Empirical observations indicate that while large LMs, such as those described in Brown et al. (2020), demonstrate superior proficiency in basic arithmetic calculations, smaller LMs like Flan-T5- Large tend to struggle with similar arithmetic tasks. This limitation significantly affects their perfor- mance in math reasoning tasks. To address this, various studies (Parisi et al., 2022; Schick et al., 2023; Kadl ˇcík et al., 2023) have explored augment- ing small-scale models with an external calculator to boost their arithmetic capabilities. However, many of these existing methods are limited to a batch size of one during decoding. This constraint substantially reduces the inference speed and limits their practical application. 1 8 16 32 Batch Size05101520Speedup 1.0x5.8x9.5x13.9x 6.9x12.3x19.9xCalcformer Ours w/ calculator Ours w/o calculatorFigure 4: Inference speed comparison between our methods (w/ and w/o calculator) and Cal- cformer (Kadl ˇcík et al., 2023) with varying batch sizes. The results are measured on a single NVIDIA A40 GPU. To address this challenge, we propose a sim- ple yet efficient method that allows for using larger batch sizes during inference with an external calculator. Our approach leverages the calcula- tor annotations provided in the original GSM8K dataset (Cobbe et al., 2021). Figure 3 demonstrates an example of this annotation and describes how such annotations can be used during decoding. For optimal utilization of these annotations, we build our models with the Transformers library (Wolf et al., 2020). During inference, we employ a customized LogitsProcessor2–available in the Transformers documentation– to adjust the model’s generation process. This LogitsProcessor acts as an interface, allowing modifications to the outputs of the model during generation and thereby en- abling efficient management of larger batch sizes. To demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed solution, we compare the inference speed of our methods (w/ and w/o calculator) based on Flan-T5- Large against an open-source tool-using method, Calcformer (Kadl ˇcík et al., 2023) based on T5- Large, in Figure 4. We find that when the batch size equals 1, all three methods have a similar inference speed of around 40 tokens per second. However, as the inference batch size increases, the speedup of our methods increases significantly. 4 Experiments In this section, we first outline our experiment setup and implementation details, then present our mod- els’ performance on various math reasoning tasks against competitive baselines. Finally, we analyze the effectiveness of our method empirically. 2https://huggingface.co/docs/transformers/ internal/generation_utils#logitsprocessorDataset Split # Data GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021) Train 6,705 Validation 0,768 Test 1,319 MultiArith (Roy and Roth, 2015) Test 0,600 ASDiv (Miao et al., 2020) Test 2,096 SV AMP (Patel et al., 2021) Test 1,000 Table 1: Statistics of the datasets used in our experi- ments. The original GSM8K dataset only contains train and test split. We randomly select 768 training examples to construct the validation dataset in our experiments. 4.1 Setup Base models We employ Flan-T5 models (Chung et al., 2024) as our primary base models. Specifi- cally, we consider two variants from the Flan-T5 family: Flan-T5-Base and Flan-T5-Large. We se- lect Flan-T5 over the original T5 models (Raffel et al., 2019) as our backbone models based on the evidence from previous research (Chung et al., 2024; Fu et al., 2023), which demonstrates that instruction-tuned models like Flan-T5 outperform their pre-trained counterparts in mathematical rea- soning tasks. To broaden our analysis, we also in- clude Llama models (Touvron et al., 2023a,b; Meta, 2024) as additional base models for comparison. Datasets The labeled dataset Lused in our exper- iments comes from the training split of the GSM8K dataset. Our unlabeled dataset Uis also built upon GSM8K’s training data by removing its annotated rationales. For evaluation, we consider three ad- ditional commonly used math reasoning tasks be- sides GSM8K: MultiArith, ASDiv, and SV AMP. Table 1 provides the statistics information of each dataset. Following previous practice (Fu et al., 2023), we fine-tune our base models exclusively on the GSM8K training data while utilizing the rest three datasets to evaluate our models’ out-of- domain performance as they do not have an official in-domain training split. 4.2 Implementation Details In the warm-up stage, we fine-tune the base models on the training set of GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021) with the original human-labeled annotations and obtain the initial SFT model. For subsequent DPO steps, we first sample rationales from SFT mod- els to build the preference dataset. We sample 5 rationales per question with a temperature of 0.7. Generated rationales ˆycontaining the correct an- Method Base Model GSM8K MultiArith ASDiv SVAMP Supervised Fine-Tuning Flan-T5-Base 18.1 54.2 26.2 19.5 Self-Training Flan-T5-Base 25.9 73.8 28.2 24.2 DPO-aug Self-Training ( Ours ) Flan-T5-Base 27.2 74.3 29.2 22.6 Supervised Fine-Tuning Flan-T5-Large 30.8 77.2 38.1 33.6 Self-Training Flan-T5-Large 35.6 86.2 42.5 34.8 DPO-aug Self-Training ( Ours ) Flan-T5-Large 37.4 89.0 42.8 36.8 Table 2: Overall accuracies (%) over four math word problem solving tasks. Inspired by the previous practice (Fu et al., 2023), all the models in this table are only trained with the GSM8K training set (Cobbe et al., 2021). Hence, we report the in-distribution performance for GSM8K, while reporting the out-of-distribution performance for the other three datasets, i.e., MultiArith, ASDiv, and SV AMP. swer are classified as winning ones yw, while the rest are considered losing ones yl. We set β= 0.1 in the DPO learning objective LDPO. For the sub- sequent SFT steps, we generate 3 rationales per question from the DPO-tuned model fθd, also with a temperature of 0.7. Only the correct generated rationales ˆywill be selected to build the pseudo- labeled dataset. For both DPO and SFT steps, we perform simple deduplication based on the Jaccard similarity scores with a threshold of 0.7. Addi- tional implementation details can be found in Ap- pendix A. Baselines We mainly consider two baseline meth- ods to compare with our method: Supervised Fine- Tuning (SFT) and Self-Training (ST). The SFT baseline corresponds to the model after the warm- up stage. The Self-Training baseline adheres to the procedure outlined in Algorithm 1. To ensure a fair comparison between our proposed method and the ST baseline, we use the same set of hyperparame- ters for both methods at each iteration. 4.3 Main Results Comparison with baselines Table 2 shows the performance of our method compared with the baselines using two base models, Flan-T5-Base and Flan-T5-Large, across four datasets. The re- sults clearly show that both the ST baseline and our proposed DPO-augmented Self-Training method outperform the SFT baseline by a large margin, in- dicating the effectiveness of the self-training frame- work in general. Although the ST baselines make significant improvements over the SFT baselines, our DPO-augmented Self-Training models demon- strate enhanced performance on both in-domain (GSM8K) and out-of-domain (MultiArith, ASDiv, and SV AMP) tasks. iter 0 iter 1 iter 2 iter 315.017.520.022.525.027.530.0Accuracy (%)18.124.226.0 25.9 18.124.626.627.2Flan-T5-Base ST Ours iter 0 iter 1 iter 2 iter 33032343638Accuracy (%) 30.832.935.135.6 30.834.135.637.4Flan-T5-Large ST OursFigure 5: The performance of the proposed method on GSM8K over three iterations. For “iter 0”, we report the performance of the SFT baselines, which are obtained after the warm-up stage. Effect of iterative training Figure 5 demon- strates the impact of iterative training on Flan-T5- Base and Flan-T5-Large models, comparing our method to the ST baseline. Initially, both meth- ods start with a warm-up stage and have similar accuracies at iteration 0. As training progresses, our method consistently outperforms ST across it- erations for both models. For Flan-T5-Base, the accuracy improvement plateaus by iteration 3, sug- gesting convergence. In contrast, Flan-T5-Large shows a clear and steady improvement, with our method achieving significantly higher accuracy by iteration 3. This underscores the effectiveness of our iterative training process, particularly in en- hancing performance of larger models. Method Base Model # Annotations Annotator Tools Acc. Supervised fine-tuning CoT (Shridhar et al., 2023) GPT-2-Large 007K Human % 14.1 Self-consistency (Khalifa et al., 2023) Flan-T5-Large 007K Human ! 33.3 GRACE (Khalifa et al., 2023) Flan-T5-Large 007K Human ! 36.3 Calcformer (Kadl ˇcík et al., 2023) T5-Large 030K Human ! 34.2 Knowledge Distillation Socratic CoT (Shridhar et al., 2023) GPT-2-Large 007K GPT-3 175B % 21.1 CoT from CodeX (Fu et al., 2023) Flan-T5-Large 100K CodeX % 20.2 CoT from PaLM (Magister et al., 2023) T5-Large 006K PaLM 540B ! 22.2 Ours DPO-aug Self-Training ( K=3) Flan-T5-Large 007K Human ! 37.4 DPO-aug Self-Training ( K=5) Flan-T5-Large 007K Human ! 39.1 DPO-aug Self-Training ( K=10) Flan-T5-Large 007K Human ! 40.0 Table 3: Detailed comparison among existing methods with comparable model sizes on the GSM8K test set. The “Annotator” column indicates how the rationales of the training data are generated. In this column, “Human” refers to the labels from the original GSM8K dataset (Cobbe et al., 2021) that are written by human annotators. The “Tools” column indicates whether external calculators are applied during inference. 4.4 Comparison with Existing Methods In this section, we compare our methods with ex- isting approaches. To enhance our method, we increase the number of sampled pseudo-labels per question to build a more diverse and robust pseudo- label dataset. We denote this hyperparameter as K following Yuan et al. (2023). Table 3 presents a detailed comparison be- tween our method and exisiting methods using a simialr base model size. The base models we considered include GPT-2-Large (Radford et al., 2019), T5-Large (Raffel et al., 2019), and Flan- T5-Large (Chung et al., 2024), each with approx- imately 770 million parameters. As shown in Ta- ble 3, our approach not only outperforms other methods on the GSM8K benchmark, but also demonstrates remarkable label efficiency by ex- clusively using the annotations from the original GSM8K dataset. In Table 4, we further evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed method with the Llama model fam- ily (Touvron et al., 2023a,b; Meta, 2024), compar- ing it with several state-of-the-art closed-source models as well as similarly sized open-source mod- els. We observe a substantial performance gap be- tween proprietary and open-source models. Among the open-source models, those utilizing knowledge distillation generally outperform their counterparts without such enhancement. Notably, our models using Llama-1-7b and Llama-2-7b base models surpass other open-source alternatives that do not employ knowledge distillation, achieving accura-cies of 44.7% and 54.7% respectively. Furthermore, our model employing the latest Llama-3-8b (Meta, 2024) matches or exceeds the performance of ear- lier models with knowledge distillation, demon- strating a significant accuracy of 68.8%. Method Base Model Acc. Closed-source models Claude-3-Opus (Anthropic, 2024) - 95.0 Claude-2 (Anthropic, 2023) - 88.0 GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) - 92.0 Flan-PaLM-2 (Anil et al., 2023) - 84.7 Open-source models w/ knowledge distillation MAmooTH (Yue et al., 2023)♡Llama-2-7b 53.6 LEMA (An et al., 2023) Llama-2-7b 54.1 WizardMath (Luo et al., 2023) Llama-2-7b 54.9 MetaMath (Yu et al., 2024) Llama-2-7b 66.5 MuggleMath (Li et al., 2023a) Llama-2-7b 68.4 ToRA (Gou et al., 2024)♡Llama-2-7b 68.8 Open-source models w/o knowledge distillation SFT (Yuan et al., 2023) Llama-1-7b 35.9 SFT w/ Calculator♡Llama-1-7b 40.0 RFT ( K=100) (Yuan et al., 2023) Llama-1-7b 41.7 SFT (Yuan et al., 2023) Llama-2-7b 41.6 SFT w/ Calculator♡Llama-2-7b 45.1 RFT ( K=100) (Yuan et al., 2023) Llama-2-7b 47.5 SFT w/ Calculator♡Llama-3-8b 61.0 Ours DPO-ST ( K=10)♡Llama-1-7b 44.7 DPO-ST ( K=10)♡Llama-2-7b 54.7 DPO-ST ( K=10)♡Llama-3-8b 68.8 Table 4: Comparison with the state-of-the-art pro- prietary models and Llama-based open-source mod- els (Touvron et al., 2023a,b; Meta, 2024).♡: models augmented with external tools. 30333639Dev accuracy (%)36.136.5Pass@1 60626466Dev accuracy (%)62.964.8Pass@10 240027003000 24952940# generated CoT pseudo-labels Before DPO step After DPO stepFigure 6: Effects of the DPO step. Left: we report the greedy decoding results for Pass@1. Middle: For Pass@10, the solutions are sampled with temperature 0.7.Right: We count the number of generated pseudo- labels after deduplication. 4.5 Effects of the DPO Step As mentioned earlier, the main difference between the proposed method and the classic self-training is the DPO step in every iterative process. We now analyze how the DPO steps improve self-training. Figure 6 compares the performance of models be- fore and after the DPO step in the first iteration on the Pass@K metrics. Pass@K measures the proba- bility that at least one of the Kgenerated solutions for a problem is correct, which serves as a gauge for both the quality and the variety of the model- generated solutions. The models we investigate here are fine-tuned from the Flan-T5-Large. As shown in Figure 6, the DPO step yields only marginal improvements over the SFT model in the Pass@1 performance on the development set. How- ever, the performance significantly improves when multiple rationales, i.e., 10 solutions per question, are sampled with temperature 0.7 (measured with the Pass@10 metric). This indicates that the DPO training objective makes language models inclined to generate rationales of both high quality and di- versity. We also compare the number of generated rationales on the training set Lfor models with and without the DPO step. Figure 6 (right) clearly shows that the model after the DPO step can pro- duce more SFT data for the next iteration. 4.6 Effects of External Calculator Driven by the observation that small-scale LMs frequently make basic calculation errors, we de- velop a simple yet efficient method that integrates an external calculator into the models’ decoding process. To evaluate the impact of this integration, iter 0 iter 1 iter 2 iter 31020304050Dev accuracy (%)36.740.543.944.8 16.317.117.8 18.0w/ calculator w/o calculatorFigure 7: GSM8K development set accuracy of Flan- T5-Large with and without the use of an external calcu- lator during inference. we conduct an ablation study by omitting the cal- culator and present the findings in Figure 7. Our results indicate that decoding without the calcula- tor markedly reduces accuracy across all iterations. We believe that this is because models will generate large amount of false positive pseudo-labels with- out calculator, that is, the generated pseudo-labels may have correct final answers but make errors in the intermediate reasoning steps. 5

Related Work Learning from pseudo-labels Supervised fine- tuning (SFT) is prevalent technique employed to enhance the performance of pre-trained language models on specific downstream tasks (Ouyang et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2024). However, this method heavily depends on the availability of high- quality labeled data, which can be both expensive and labor-intensive to procure (Brown et al., 2020). To address this limitation, various strategies have been developed to generate high-quality pseudo- labels using either unlabeled or synthetic data for a wide range of applications, including text clas- sification (Xie et al., 2020), sentence representa- tion learning (Wang and Lu, 2022), instruction tuning (Honovich et al., 2022), and math reason- ing (Wang and Lu, 2023). Recent advancements in this area primarily focus on two directions: self- training and knowledge distillation. The key dif- ference between these

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

objectives within chain-of-thought reasoning, with a particular focus on mathematical reasoning. The clear-cut nature of mathematical solutions enables straightforward validation of a model’s outputs, facilitating the cre- ation of a preference dataset for DPO. Our em- pirical results indicate that this method notably en- hances the reasoning capabilities of LMs while also reducing computational overhead. We visualize the relationship between the GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021) performance and computational cost across various specialized models in Figure 1. It can be observed that our method not only achieves strong performance, but also reduces computational de- mands by effectively utilizing self-generated data for learning. Overall, the main contribution of this work can be summarized as follows: •We propose a novel extension to the classic self-training framework by integrating Direct Preference Optimization, demonstrating its ef- fectiveness across various math reasoning tasks. •Our method significantly enhances the reason- ing abilities of language models while requiring minimal computational resources, optimizing both performance and efficiency. •We present an efficient method for integrating LMs with external tools, which significantly boosts downstream task performance without notably compromising inference speed.Algorithm 1 Self-training for CoT reasoning tasks Input: pre-trained language model fθ Input: labeled dataset L={(xi, yi, ai)}l i=1 Input: unlabeled dataset U={(xi, ai)}u i=1 Output: fine-tuned model fθ′ 1:Fine-tune fθonLto get fθ′ 2:repeat 3: Build pseudo-labeled dataset S: S={(xi,ˆyi,ˆai)}s i=1 where xi∼ U andˆyi,ˆai∼fθ′(·|xi) 4: Select Sα⊂ S when ˆai=ai 5: Update L ← Sα∪ L 6: Train fθonLto get a new fθ′ 7:until convergence or max iteration is reached 2 Background Math word problem solving The math word problem solving task (Cobbe et al., 2021) can be formulated as a sequence-to-sequence task where the input xis a question asking for an unknown value and the output yis a rationale that leads to the answer a. Normally, the answers can be extracted from the rationales via some rule-based

Section not found

Section not found

methodology outlined by Yuan et al. (2023).1 Recent studies (Fu et al., 2023; Magister et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023a) demonstrate that the rea- soning capabilities of smaller LMs can be signif- icantly enhanced through learning from the out- puts of larger and more advanced LMs, such as Codex (Chen et al., 2021), PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), and GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023). While this method is straightforward to implement, the associated costs can be substantial. The computa- tional demand, measured in floating-point opera- tions (FLOPs), increases considerably when using large LMs. Additionally, the reliance on propri- etary large LMs for data annotation not only incurs high economic costs but also raises concerns re- garding the sustainability and scalability of such practices. For instance, Ho et al. (2023) highlighted that while employing large LMs as annotators can largely enhance the performance of smaller LMs, it introduces a clear trade-off between economic costs and performance gains. 1All

methods, including chain-of- thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022b; Kojima et al., 2022), continual pretraining (Azerbayev et al., 2024), and adding external verifiersq (Li et al., 2023b). However, the research question of how to enhance the reasoning capabilities of smaller- sized LMs remains relatively under-explored. 1e+18 3e+18 1e+19 3e+19 1e+20 Compute Cost (FLOPs)152025303540Accuracy (%)Flan-T5-L (Ours) Flan-T5-LFlan-T5-3BFlan-T5-11B T5-LT5-3BT5-11B T5-LT5-3BGSM8K Performance v.s. Compute cost Codex distillation (Fu et al., 2023) PaLM distillation (Magister et al., 2023) Calcformer (Kadl ík et al., 2023) Figure 1: Our approach demonstrates superior perfor- mance on the GSM8K benchmark while minimizing the required compute cost, including both training and inference. Compute cost calculations are based on the methodology outlined by Yuan et al. (2023).1 Recent studies (Fu et al., 2023; Magister et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023a) demonstrate that the rea- soning capabilities of smaller LMs can be signif- icantly enhanced through learning from the out- puts of larger and more advanced LMs, such as Codex (Chen et al., 2021), PaLM (Chowdhery et al., 2022), and GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023). While this method is straightforward to implement, the associated costs can be substantial. The computa- tional demand, measured in floating-point opera- tions (FLOPs), increases considerably when using large LMs. Additionally, the reliance on propri- etary large LMs for data annotation not only incurs high economic costs but also raises concerns re- garding the sustainability and scalability of such practices. For instance, Ho et al. (2023) highlighted that while employing large LMs as annotators can largely enhance the performance of smaller LMs, it introduces a clear trade-off between economic costs and performance gains. 1All methods presented here are integrated with an external calculator except for the Codex distillation by Fu et al. (2023).arXiv:2407.18248v1 [cs.CL] 25 Jul 2024 Another line of research focuses on explor- ing enhancements through self-improvement meth- ods (Zelikman et al., 2022; Gulcehre et al., 2023; Singh et al., 2023). These methods diverge from using outputs from larger models, instead encour- aging LMs to learn from their own generated data. The effectiveness of these techniques is evident, yet their success largely depends upon the inher- ent capabilities of the base models. For example, Zelikman et al. (2022) initiated self-improvement by few-shot prompting GPT-J (Wang and Ko- matsuzaki, 2021), a relatively large LM which has 6 billion parameters, to generate rationales – an emergent ability typically reserved for large models (Wei et al., 2022a). However, the ex- tent to which small-scale LMs can gain from self- improvement remains uncertain. In this work, we introduce a novel enhance- ment to the conventional self-training framework by incorporating Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) (Rafailov et al., 2023). This integration specifically targets performance objectives within chain-of-thought reasoning, with a particular focus on mathematical reasoning. The clear-cut nature of mathematical solutions enables straightforward validation of a model’s outputs, facilitating the cre- ation of a preference dataset for DPO. Our em- pirical

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

results indicate that this method notably en- hances the reasoning capabilities of LMs while also reducing computational overhead. We visualize the relationship between the GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021) performance and computational cost across various specialized models in Figure 1. It can be observed that our method not only achieves strong performance, but also reduces computational de- mands by effectively utilizing self-generated data for learning. Overall, the main contribution of this work can be summarized as follows: •We propose a novel extension to the classic self-training framework by integrating Direct Preference Optimization, demonstrating its ef- fectiveness across various math reasoning tasks. •Our method significantly enhances the reason- ing abilities of language models while requiring minimal computational resources, optimizing both performance and efficiency. •We present an efficient method for integrating LMs with external tools, which significantly boosts downstream task performance without notably compromising inference speed.Algorithm 1 Self-training for CoT reasoning tasks Input: pre-trained language model fθ Input: labeled dataset L={(xi, yi, ai)}l i=1 Input: unlabeled dataset U={(xi, ai)}u i=1 Output: fine-tuned model fθ′ 1:Fine-tune fθonLto get fθ′ 2:repeat 3: Build pseudo-labeled dataset S: S={(xi,ˆyi,ˆai)}s i=1 where xi∼ U andˆyi,ˆai∼fθ′(·|xi) 4: Select Sα⊂ S when ˆai=ai 5: Update L ← Sα∪ L 6: Train fθonLto get a new fθ′ 7:until convergence or max iteration is reached 2 Background Math word problem solving The math word problem solving task (Cobbe et al., 2021) can be formulated as a sequence-to-sequence task where the input xis a question asking for an unknown value and the output yis a rationale that leads to the answer a. Normally, the answers can be extracted from the rationales via some rule-based methods, such as regular expressions. A generated rationale ˆyis regarded as correct if the extracted answer ˆa matches the gold answer a. Formally, the labeled dataset for a math word problem solving task with linstances can be represented as: L={(xi, yi, ai)}l i=1. (1) A common way for specializing a LM fθtowards math reasoning with the labeled dataset Lissuper- vised fine-tuning (SFT). It optimizes fθby mini- mizing the negative log likelihood loss LSFT(θ): E (x,y)∼L−hTX t=1logfθ(yt|x, y 1:t−1)i , (2) where Tis the length of the rationale yand we use ytto represent the t-th token in y. Self-training Self-training is one of the earliest approaches in semi-supervised learning (Scudder, 1965; Fralick, 1967) that has risen in popularity recently (He et al., 2020; Amini et al., 2022). This method first regards a base model trained with a labeled dataset Las teacher, and uses it to build a pseudo-labeled dataset Sby annotating an unla- beled dataset U. Then, a student model is trained on a combination of LandSthat are expected to outperform the teacher model. Such a framework has been shown effective across a wide range of natural language processing tasks, including natu- ral language understanding (Vu et al., 2021) and generation (He et al., 2020). A formal description of a self-training algorithm for chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning tasks is provided in Algorithm 1. Previous studies have demonstrated that the qual- ity of the pseudo-labels largely impacts the over- all performance of the self-training algorithm (He et al., 2020; Amini et al., 2022). For example, Gul- cehre et al. (2023) proposed to select high-quality pseudo-labels with a learned reward function. Ze- likman et al. (2022) filtered the generated ratio- nales to include only the ones that lead to correct answers. Although many methods are proposed to select pseudo-labels, few works discuss how to improve the fine-tuned model fθ′so that more high-quality pseudo-labels can be generated. In this paper, we present a method to enhance fθ′in each iteration so that higher-quality pseudo-labeled data can be generated. Direct Preference Optimization The Rein- forcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) methods align LMs with human prefer- ence (Ouyang et al., 2022; Bai et al., 2022). The standard pipeline of RLHF requires to first train a reward model from human preference data. Then, the reward model is used to fine-tune language models via reinforcement learning objective, e.g., Proximal Policy Optimization (Schulman et al., 2017). A recent study propose Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) (Rafailov et al., 2023) to avoid explicitly training a reward model so that language models can be directly tuned with human prefer- ence data. The DPO pipeline can be described as follows. First, given some prompt x, we sample several com- pletions from the reference model πref(normally it is the model after supervised fine-tuning): y1, y2∼πref(· |x). (3) Next, construct the DPO dataset Dfrom the com- pletions based on the human preference: D={(xi, yi w, yi l)}N i=1, (4) where yi wandyi lrepresent the winning and los- ing completions respectively. Then, we optimize the language model πθto minimize LDPO(πθ;πref)Algorithm 2 DPO-augmented self-training Input: pre-trained language model fθ Input: labeled dataset L={(xi, yi, ai)}l i=1 Input: unlabeled dataset U={(xi, ai)}u i=1 Output: fine-tuned model fθ′ # Warm-up stage 1:Fine-tune fθonLto get fθ′ 2:repeat # DPO step 3: Generate DPO dataset D: D={(xi, yi w, yi l)}N i=1 where xi∼ U andyi w, yi l∼fθ′(·|xi) 4: Tune fθ′withLDPOonDto get fθd # SFT step 5: Build pseudo-labeled dataset S: S={(xi,ˆyi,ˆai)}s i=1 where xi∼ U andˆyi,ˆai∼fθd(·|xi) 6: Select Sα⊂ S when ˆai=ai 7: Update L ← Sα∪ L 8: Train fθonLto get a new fθ′ 9:until convergence or max iteration is reached which can be defined as follows: E (x,yw,yl)∼D −logσ r(yw|x)−r(yl|x) , (5) where r(·|x) =βlogπθ(·|x) πref(·|x)andβis a coefficient that controls πθ’s deviation from πref. 3 Method In this section, we first describe the proposed ap- proach. Then, we demonstrate how we integrate an external calculator into the model’s decoding process which significantly improves LMs’ perfor- mance on the downstream tasks. 3.1 DPO-augmented Self-Training Our approach starts with a warm-up stage , and then followed by an iterative process, where each iteration is composed of two sub-steps: DPO step andSFT step . The iterative process ends when the model performance converges or reaches the maximum iteration. A formal description of the proposed method is illustrated in Algorithm 2. An illustration of our method is presented in Figure 2. Warm-up stage Like classic self-training, we start by fine-tuning the base model fθto optimize LSFT(θ)on the labeled data L, resulting in an up- dated model fθ′. After this stage, we assume that Pre-trained model SFT model DPO modelSupervised fine-tuningDPO trainingSampling&filteringPseudo-labeled dataSFT dataDeduplication SamplingPreference data Human-labeled SFT data Iteration nFigure 2: An illustration of the DPO-augmented Self-Training framework. Traditional self-training method uses the SFT model to generate the pseudo-labels for subsequent iterations. In contrast, our method enhances the SFT model with Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), using the optimized DPO model to produce the pseudo-labels. fθ′is capable of solving certain math problems. Specifically, given a math question x,fθ′will gen- erate a rationale ˆywith answer ˆa. Iterative step 1: DPO step In this step, we first sample rationales ˆyfrom the fine-tuned model fθ′ given some questions xfromU. For each ques- tionx, we generate multiple rationales to build the DPO training dataset D. As mentioned, for math problem solving tasks, it is easy to know whether a generated rationale ˆycan be considered as correct. We label rationales with correct answers as win- ning completions, while consider rationales with incorrect answers as losing completions. Then, we trainfθ′onDto optimize the objective function LDPOand get a DPO model fθdin the end. Iterative step 2: SFT step After obtaining fθd, we use it to generate a new pseudo-labeled dataset Sfor the next-round supervised fine-tuning: S={(x,ˆy)|x∼ U,ˆy∼fθd(·|x)} (6) After generation, we clean Sby eliminating ra- tionales with incorrect answers and removing du- plicates. Therefore, the pseudo-labeled dataset we obtained in the end is a subset of the original one, i.e.,Sα⊂ S. The final training dataset is the com- bination of the original labeled dataset Land the newly-generated pseudo-labeled dataset Sα. No- tice that during this process, once we collect a new dataset, we train from the original base model fθ instead of continually fine-tuning fθ′to avoid over- fitting, following previous practice (Zelikman et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2023).Q: James writes a 3-page letter to 2 different friends twice a week. How many pages does he write a year? A: He writes each friend 3*2=<<3*2=6>>6 pages a week. So he writes 6*2=<<6*2=12>>12 pages every week. That means he writes 12*52=<<12*52=624>>624 pages a year. #### 624 Figure 3: An example from the GSM8K dataset. The calculation annotations are highlighted in blue. All calculation steps are wrapped within special tokens <<...>> . During decoding, the calculator will be trig- gered when such patterns exist and the model’s output tokens will be overridden by the calculator results. Fol- lowing Cobbe et al. (2021), the calculation is performed with the in-built python function eval() . 3.2 Batch Decoding with Calculator Empirical observations indicate that while large LMs, such as those described in Brown et al. (2020), demonstrate superior proficiency in basic arithmetic calculations, smaller LMs like Flan-T5- Large tend to struggle with similar arithmetic tasks. This limitation significantly affects their perfor- mance in math reasoning tasks. To address this, various studies (Parisi et al., 2022; Schick et al., 2023; Kadl ˇcík et al., 2023) have explored augment- ing small-scale models with an external calculator to boost their arithmetic capabilities. However, many of these existing methods are limited to a batch size of one during decoding. This constraint substantially reduces the inference speed and limits their practical application. 1 8 16 32 Batch Size05101520Speedup 1.0x5.8x9.5x13.9x 6.9x12.3x19.9xCalcformer Ours w/ calculator Ours w/o calculatorFigure 4: Inference speed comparison between our methods (w/ and w/o calculator) and Cal- cformer (Kadl ˇcík et al., 2023) with varying batch sizes. The results are measured on a single NVIDIA A40 GPU. To address this challenge, we propose a sim- ple yet efficient method that allows for using larger batch sizes during inference with an external calculator. Our approach leverages the calcula- tor annotations provided in the original GSM8K dataset (Cobbe et al., 2021). Figure 3 demonstrates an example of this annotation and describes how such annotations can be used during decoding. For optimal utilization of these annotations, we build our models with the Transformers library (Wolf et al., 2020). During inference, we employ a customized LogitsProcessor2–available in the Transformers documentation– to adjust the model’s generation process. This LogitsProcessor acts as an interface, allowing modifications to the outputs of the model during generation and thereby en- abling efficient management of larger batch sizes. To demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed solution, we compare the inference speed of our methods (w/ and w/o calculator) based on Flan-T5- Large against an open-source tool-using method, Calcformer (Kadl ˇcík et al., 2023) based on T5- Large, in Figure 4. We find that when the batch size equals 1, all three methods have a similar inference speed of around 40 tokens per second. However, as the inference batch size increases, the speedup of our methods increases significantly. 4 Experiments In this section, we first outline our experiment setup and implementation details, then present our mod- els’ performance on various math reasoning tasks against competitive baselines. Finally, we analyze the effectiveness of our method empirically. 2https://huggingface.co/docs/transformers/ internal/generation_utils#logitsprocessorDataset Split # Data GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021) Train 6,705 Validation 0,768 Test 1,319 MultiArith (Roy and Roth, 2015) Test 0,600 ASDiv (Miao et al., 2020) Test 2,096 SV AMP (Patel et al., 2021) Test 1,000 Table 1: Statistics of the datasets used in our experi- ments. The original GSM8K dataset only contains train and test split. We randomly select 768 training examples to construct the validation dataset in our experiments. 4.1 Setup Base models We employ Flan-T5 models (Chung et al., 2024) as our primary base models. Specifi- cally, we consider two variants from the Flan-T5 family: Flan-T5-Base and Flan-T5-Large. We se- lect Flan-T5 over the original T5 models (Raffel et al., 2019) as our backbone models based on the evidence from previous research (Chung et al., 2024; Fu et al., 2023), which demonstrates that instruction-tuned models like Flan-T5 outperform their pre-trained counterparts in mathematical rea- soning tasks. To broaden our analysis, we also in- clude Llama models (Touvron et al., 2023a,b; Meta, 2024) as additional base models for comparison. Datasets The labeled dataset Lused in our exper- iments comes from the training split of the GSM8K dataset. Our unlabeled dataset Uis also built upon GSM8K’s training data by removing its annotated rationales. For evaluation, we consider three ad- ditional commonly used math reasoning tasks be- sides GSM8K: MultiArith, ASDiv, and SV AMP. Table 1 provides the statistics information of each dataset. Following previous practice (Fu et al., 2023), we fine-tune our base models exclusively on the GSM8K training data while utilizing the rest three datasets to evaluate our models’ out-of- domain performance as they do not have an official in-domain training split. 4.2 Implementation Details In the warm-up stage, we fine-tune the base models on the training set of GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021) with the original human-labeled annotations and obtain the initial SFT model. For subsequent DPO steps, we first sample rationales from SFT mod- els to build the preference dataset. We sample 5 rationales per question with a temperature of 0.7. Generated rationales ˆycontaining the correct an- Method Base Model GSM8K MultiArith ASDiv SVAMP Supervised Fine-Tuning Flan-T5-Base 18.1 54.2 26.2 19.5 Self-Training Flan-T5-Base 25.9 73.8 28.2 24.2 DPO-aug Self-Training ( Ours ) Flan-T5-Base 27.2 74.3 29.2 22.6 Supervised Fine-Tuning Flan-T5-Large 30.8 77.2 38.1 33.6 Self-Training Flan-T5-Large 35.6 86.2 42.5 34.8 DPO-aug Self-Training ( Ours ) Flan-T5-Large 37.4 89.0 42.8 36.8 Table 2: Overall accuracies (%) over four math word problem solving tasks. Inspired by the previous practice (Fu et al., 2023), all the models in this table are only trained with the GSM8K training set (Cobbe et al., 2021). Hence, we report the in-distribution performance for GSM8K, while reporting the out-of-distribution performance for the other three datasets, i.e., MultiArith, ASDiv, and SV AMP. swer are classified as winning ones yw, while the rest are considered losing ones yl. We set β= 0.1 in the DPO learning objective LDPO. For the sub- sequent SFT steps, we generate 3 rationales per question from the DPO-tuned model fθd, also with a temperature of 0.7. Only the correct generated rationales ˆywill be selected to build the pseudo- labeled dataset. For both DPO and SFT steps, we perform simple deduplication based on the Jaccard similarity scores with a threshold of 0.7. Addi- tional implementation details can be found in Ap- pendix A. Baselines We mainly consider two baseline meth- ods to compare with our method: Supervised Fine- Tuning (SFT) and Self-Training (ST). The SFT baseline corresponds to the model after the warm- up stage. The Self-Training baseline adheres to the procedure outlined in Algorithm 1. To ensure a fair comparison between our proposed method and the ST baseline, we use the same set of hyperparame- ters for both methods at each iteration. 4.3 Main Results Comparison with baselines Table 2 shows the performance of our method compared with the baselines using two base models, Flan-T5-Base and Flan-T5-Large, across four datasets. The re- sults clearly show that both the ST baseline and our proposed DPO-augmented Self-Training method outperform the SFT baseline by a large margin, in- dicating the effectiveness of the self-training frame- work in general. Although the ST baselines make significant improvements over the SFT baselines, our DPO-augmented Self-Training models demon- strate enhanced performance on both in-domain (GSM8K) and out-of-domain (MultiArith, ASDiv, and SV AMP) tasks. iter 0 iter 1 iter 2 iter 315.017.520.022.525.027.530.0Accuracy (%)18.124.226.0 25.9 18.124.626.627.2Flan-T5-Base ST Ours iter 0 iter 1 iter 2 iter 33032343638Accuracy (%) 30.832.935.135.6 30.834.135.637.4Flan-T5-Large ST OursFigure 5: The performance of the proposed method on GSM8K over three iterations. For “iter 0”, we report the performance of the SFT baselines, which are obtained after the warm-up stage. Effect of iterative training Figure 5 demon- strates the impact of iterative training on Flan-T5- Base and Flan-T5-Large models, comparing our method to the ST baseline. Initially, both meth- ods start with a warm-up stage and have similar accuracies at iteration 0. As training progresses, our method consistently outperforms ST across it- erations for both models. For Flan-T5-Base, the accuracy improvement plateaus by iteration 3, sug- gesting convergence. In contrast, Flan-T5-Large shows a clear and steady improvement, with our method achieving significantly higher accuracy by iteration 3. This underscores the effectiveness of our iterative training process, particularly in en- hancing performance of larger models. Method Base Model # Annotations Annotator Tools Acc. Supervised fine-tuning CoT (Shridhar et al., 2023) GPT-2-Large 007K Human % 14.1 Self-consistency (Khalifa et al., 2023) Flan-T5-Large 007K Human ! 33.3 GRACE (Khalifa et al., 2023) Flan-T5-Large 007K Human ! 36.3 Calcformer (Kadl ˇcík et al., 2023) T5-Large 030K Human ! 34.2 Knowledge Distillation Socratic CoT (Shridhar et al., 2023) GPT-2-Large 007K GPT-3 175B % 21.1 CoT from CodeX (Fu et al., 2023) Flan-T5-Large 100K CodeX % 20.2 CoT from PaLM (Magister et al., 2023) T5-Large 006K PaLM 540B ! 22.2 Ours DPO-aug Self-Training ( K=3) Flan-T5-Large 007K Human ! 37.4 DPO-aug Self-Training ( K=5) Flan-T5-Large 007K Human ! 39.1 DPO-aug Self-Training ( K=10) Flan-T5-Large 007K Human ! 40.0 Table 3: Detailed comparison among existing methods with comparable model sizes on the GSM8K test set. The “Annotator” column indicates how the rationales of the training data are generated. In this column, “Human” refers to the labels from the original GSM8K dataset (Cobbe et al., 2021) that are written by human annotators. The “Tools” column indicates whether external calculators are applied during inference. 4.4 Comparison with Existing Methods In this section, we compare our methods with ex- isting approaches. To enhance our method, we increase the number of sampled pseudo-labels per question to build a more diverse and robust pseudo- label dataset. We denote this hyperparameter as K following Yuan et al. (2023). Table 3 presents a detailed comparison be- tween our method and exisiting methods using a simialr base model size. The base models we considered include GPT-2-Large (Radford et al., 2019), T5-Large (Raffel et al., 2019), and Flan- T5-Large (Chung et al., 2024), each with approx- imately 770 million parameters. As shown in Ta- ble 3, our approach not only outperforms other methods on the GSM8K benchmark, but also demonstrates remarkable label efficiency by ex- clusively using the annotations from the original GSM8K dataset. In Table 4, we further evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed method with the Llama model fam- ily (Touvron et al., 2023a,b; Meta, 2024), compar- ing it with several state-of-the-art closed-source models as well as similarly sized open-source mod- els. We observe a substantial performance gap be- tween proprietary and open-source models. Among the open-source models, those utilizing knowledge distillation generally outperform their counterparts without such enhancement. Notably, our models using Llama-1-7b and Llama-2-7b base models surpass other open-source alternatives that do not employ knowledge distillation, achieving accura-cies of 44.7% and 54.7% respectively. Furthermore, our model employing the latest Llama-3-8b (Meta, 2024) matches or exceeds the performance of ear- lier models with knowledge distillation, demon- strating a significant accuracy of 68.8%. Method Base Model Acc. Closed-source models Claude-3-Opus (Anthropic, 2024) - 95.0 Claude-2 (Anthropic, 2023) - 88.0 GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) - 92.0 Flan-PaLM-2 (Anil et al., 2023) - 84.7 Open-source models w/ knowledge distillation MAmooTH (Yue et al., 2023)♡Llama-2-7b 53.6 LEMA (An et al., 2023) Llama-2-7b 54.1 WizardMath (Luo et al., 2023) Llama-2-7b 54.9 MetaMath (Yu et al., 2024) Llama-2-7b 66.5 MuggleMath (Li et al., 2023a) Llama-2-7b 68.4 ToRA (Gou et al., 2024)♡Llama-2-7b 68.8 Open-source models w/o knowledge distillation SFT (Yuan et al., 2023) Llama-1-7b 35.9 SFT w/ Calculator♡Llama-1-7b 40.0 RFT ( K=100) (Yuan et al., 2023) Llama-1-7b 41.7 SFT (Yuan et al., 2023) Llama-2-7b 41.6 SFT w/ Calculator♡Llama-2-7b 45.1 RFT ( K=100) (Yuan et al., 2023) Llama-2-7b 47.5 SFT w/ Calculator♡Llama-3-8b 61.0 Ours DPO-ST ( K=10)♡Llama-1-7b 44.7 DPO-ST ( K=10)♡Llama-2-7b 54.7 DPO-ST ( K=10)♡Llama-3-8b 68.8 Table 4: Comparison with the state-of-the-art pro- prietary models and Llama-based open-source mod- els (Touvron et al., 2023a,b; Meta, 2024).♡: models augmented with external tools. 30333639Dev accuracy (%)36.136.5Pass@1 60626466Dev accuracy (%)62.964.8Pass@10 240027003000 24952940# generated CoT pseudo-labels Before DPO step After DPO stepFigure 6: Effects of the DPO step. Left: we report the greedy decoding results for Pass@1. Middle: For Pass@10, the solutions are sampled with temperature 0.7.Right: We count the number of generated pseudo- labels after deduplication. 4.5 Effects of the DPO Step As mentioned earlier, the main difference between the proposed method and the classic self-training is the DPO step in every iterative process. We now analyze how the DPO steps improve self-training. Figure 6 compares the performance of models be- fore and after the DPO step in the first iteration on the Pass@K metrics. Pass@K measures the proba- bility that at least one of the Kgenerated solutions for a problem is correct, which serves as a gauge for both the quality and the variety of the model- generated solutions. The models we investigate here are fine-tuned from the Flan-T5-Large. As shown in Figure 6, the DPO step yields only marginal improvements over the SFT model in the Pass@1 performance on the development set. How- ever, the performance significantly improves when multiple rationales, i.e., 10 solutions per question, are sampled with temperature 0.7 (measured with the Pass@10 metric). This indicates that the DPO training objective makes language models inclined to generate rationales of both high quality and di- versity. We also compare the number of generated rationales on the training set Lfor models with and without the DPO step. Figure 6 (right) clearly shows that the model after the DPO step can pro- duce more SFT data for the next iteration. 4.6 Effects of External Calculator Driven by the observation that small-scale LMs frequently make basic calculation errors, we de- velop a simple yet efficient method that integrates an external calculator into the models’ decoding process. To evaluate the impact of this integration, iter 0 iter 1 iter 2 iter 31020304050Dev accuracy (%)36.740.543.944.8 16.317.117.8 18.0w/ calculator w/o calculatorFigure 7: GSM8K development set accuracy of Flan- T5-Large with and without the use of an external calcu- lator during inference. we conduct an ablation study by omitting the cal- culator and present the

findings in Figure 7. Our results indicate that decoding without the calcula- tor markedly reduces accuracy across all iterations. We believe that this is because models will generate large amount of false positive pseudo-labels with- out calculator, that is, the generated pseudo-labels may have correct final answers but make errors in the intermediate reasoning steps. 5 Related Work Learning from pseudo-labels Supervised fine- tuning (SFT) is prevalent technique employed to enhance the performance of pre-trained language models on specific downstream tasks (Ouyang et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2024). However, this method heavily depends on the availability of high- quality labeled data, which can be both expensive and labor-intensive to procure (Brown et al., 2020). To address this limitation, various strategies have been developed to generate high-quality pseudo- labels using either unlabeled or synthetic data for a wide range of applications, including text clas- sification (Xie et al., 2020), sentence representa- tion learning (Wang and Lu, 2022), instruction tuning (Honovich et al., 2022), and math reason- ing (Wang and Lu, 2023). Recent advancements in this area primarily focus on two directions: self- training and knowledge distillation. The key dif- ference between these methods lies in the source of the pseudo-labels: self-training uses the model’s own predictions on unlabeled data, while knowl- edge distillation utilizes the insights from larger, more powerful models. Self-training in language model Recently, we have witnessed a large number of works focus- ing on self-training algorithms for language mod- els (He et al., 2020; Zelikman et al., 2022; Yuan et al., 2023). Most of such methods are built upon the classic self-training framework (Scud- der, 1965). He et al. (2020) empirically studied the effectiveness of self-training in natural lan- guage generation tasks, e.g., summarization and translation. Zelikman et al. (2022) proposed self- taught reasoner (STaR), which demonstrated that language models can be iteratively improved from its own generation, even there are no gold ratio- nales provided. Yuan et al. (2023) proposed re- jection sampling fine-tuning to improve language models’ math reasoning abilities. This method can be interpreted as only executing one iteration of the self-training algorithm. Singh et al. (2023) pro- posed ReSTEM, a self-improving algorithm based on expectation-maximization framework. This method demonstrates significant improvements in problem-solving tasks, e.g., math reasoning and code generation. Knowledge distillation from LLMs Many of the recent research efforts demonstrated large lan- guage models (LLMs) are capable of performing math reasoning (Wei et al., 2022b; Gao et al., 2022; OpenAI, 2023; Anil et al., 2023). As a result, there is growing interest in enhancing the reasoning abil- ities of smaller language models by distilling chain- of-thought pseudo-labels from LLMs. (Ho et al., 2023; Magister et al., 2023; Fu et al., 2023). For example, Luo et al. (2023) proposed Reinforce- ment Learning from Evol-Instruct Feedback built upon the Evol-Instruct framework (Xu et al., 2023), which requires ChatGPT to provide the training sig- nals. An et al. (2023) demonstrated that language models can effectively learn from the mistakes that can be corrected by LLMs during supervised fine- tuning. Although these methods are shown to have promising experimental results, they are costly to implement as large models cost more FLOPs dur- ing inference. Our work demonstrates that small- scale language models can effectively learn from their own generations, offering a more resource- efficient alternative to knowledge distillation. Since our method is conceptually orthogonal to knowl- edge distillation techniques, an interesting avenue for future research would be to explore integrating knowledge distillation into our iterative training process to further enhance model performance.6 Conclusion We present an effective and resource-efficient method called DPO-augmented Self-Training (DPO-ST), which augments the original Self- Training algorithm with Direct Preference Opti- mization (Rafailov et al., 2023). Unlike previous studies that improve small-scale language models’ reasoning abilities by distilling a larger and more powerful model, we argue that small models that are trained merely on the limited human-labeled data can improve themselves significantly. We also empirically find that models trained with DPO loss can generate pseudo-labeled data with higher qual- ity and diversity. Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed method not only outperforms exist- ing methods with comparable model sizes on the GSM8K benchmark, but also achieves remarkable resource efficiency in terms of both computational cost and the requirements of human-labeled data.

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Limitations Use of unlabeled data Our method is built upon the classic self-training algorithm, which provides an effective semi-supervised learning framework capable of utilizing unlabeled data efficiently. How- ever, this work doesn’t explore the use of unla- beled data explicitly. Future research efforts can be made to explore how to collect high-quality unla- beled data for math word problem solving. In other words, we need to find an efficient method for col- lecting unlabeled data U={(xi, ai)}u i=1that for each math question xi, there is a corresponding ground-truth answer ai, ensuring the data’s rele- vance and utility for enhancing model training. Generalization to other tasks One of the lim- itations of this work is the narrow scope of our experiments, which were exclusively conducted on math reasoning tasks. The primary reason for this limitation is the lack of appropriate training data for other reasoning tasks. As our method requires a set of training data with chain-of-thought labels, many existing reasoning tasks lack such annota- tions, making it challenging to extend our experi- ments beyond the current scope. Future research may focus on identifying and developing suitable datasets for a wider range of reasoning tasks to fully evaluate the applicability and effectiveness of our method across different reasoning tasks. Acknowledgements This work was done when Shichen Li was a vis- iting student at the StatNLP Research Group of SUTD. We would like to thank the anonymous re- viewers, our meta-reviewer, and senior area chairs for their constructive comments and support on this work. This research/project is supported by Ministry of Education, Singapore, under its Aca- demic Research Fund (AcRF) Tier 2 Programme (MOE AcRF Tier 2 Award No: MOET2EP20122- 0011), the National Research Foundation Singa- pore and DSO National Laboratories under the AI Singapore Program (AISG Award No: AISG2- RP-2020-016), and Ministry of Education, Singa- pore, under its Tier 3 Programme (The Award No.: MOET320200004). Any opinions, findings and

Section not found

Conclusion We present an effective and resource-efficient method called DPO-augmented Self-Training (DPO-ST), which augments the original Self- Training algorithm with Direct Preference Opti- mization (Rafailov et al., 2023). Unlike previous studies that improve small-scale language models’ reasoning abilities by distilling a larger and more powerful model, we argue that small models that are trained merely on the limited human-labeled data can improve themselves significantly. We also empirically find that models trained with DPO loss can generate pseudo-labeled data with higher qual- ity and diversity. Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed method not only outperforms exist- ing methods with comparable model sizes on the GSM8K benchmark, but also achieves remarkable resource efficiency in terms of both computational cost and the requirements of human-labeled data. Limitations Use of unlabeled data Our method is built upon the classic self-training algorithm, which provides an effective semi-supervised learning framework capable of utilizing unlabeled data efficiently. How- ever, this work doesn’t explore the use of unla- beled data explicitly. Future research efforts can be made to explore how to collect high-quality unla- beled data for math word problem solving. In other words, we need to find an efficient method for col- lecting unlabeled data U={(xi, ai)}u i=1that for each math question xi, there is a corresponding ground-truth answer ai, ensuring the data’s rele- vance and utility for enhancing model training. Generalization to other tasks One of the lim- itations of this work is the narrow scope of our experiments, which were exclusively conducted on math reasoning tasks. The primary reason for this limitation is the lack of appropriate training data for other reasoning tasks. As our method requires a set of training data with chain-of-thought labels, many existing reasoning tasks lack such annota- tions, making it challenging to extend our experi- ments beyond the current scope. Future research may focus on identifying and developing suitable datasets for a wider range of reasoning tasks to fully evaluate the applicability and effectiveness of our method across different reasoning tasks. Acknowledgements This work was done when Shichen Li was a vis- iting student at the StatNLP Research Group of SUTD. We would like to thank the anonymous re- viewers, our meta-reviewer, and senior area chairs for their constructive comments and support on this work. This research/project is supported by Ministry of Education, Singapore, under its Aca- demic Research Fund (AcRF) Tier 2 Programme (MOE AcRF Tier 2 Award No: MOET2EP20122- 0011), the National Research Foundation Singa- pore and DSO National Laboratories under the AI Singapore Program (AISG Award No: AISG2- RP-2020-016), and Ministry of Education, Singa- pore, under its Tier 3 Programme (The Award No.: MOET320200004). Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the funding agencies.

Section not found

Section not found

References Massih-Reza Amini, Vasilii Feofanov, Loïc Pauletto, Emilie Devijver, and Yury Maximov. 2022. Self-training: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12040 . Shengnan An, Zexiong Ma, Zeqi Lin, Nanning Zheng, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2023. Learn- ing from mistakes makes llm better reasoner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20689 . Rohan Anil, Andrew M Dai, Orhan Firat, Melvin John- son, Dmitry Lepikhin, Alexandre Passos, Siamak Shakeri, Emanuel Taropa, Paige Bailey, Zhifeng Chen, et al. 2023. Palm 2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403 . Anthropic. 2023. Claude 2. https://www.anthropic. com/news/claude-2 . Accessed: 2024-05-06. Anthropic. 2024. The claude 3 model family: Opus, sonnet, haiku. Accessed: 2024-05-06. Zhangir Azerbayev, Hailey Schoelkopf, Keiran Paster, Marco Dos Santos, Stephen McAleer, Albert Q Jiang, Jia Deng, Stella Biderman, and Sean Welleck. 2024. Llemma: An open language model for mathematics. InProceedings of ICLR . Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, et al. 2022. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862 . Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, ArvindNeelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-V oss, Gretchen Krueger, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Proceedings of NeurIPS . Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Ka- plan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 . Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebas- tian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. Journal of Machine Learn- ing Research . Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2024. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 25(70):1–53. Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168 . Stanley C. Fralick. 1967. Learning to recognize patterns without a teacher. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory . Yao Fu, Hao Peng, Litu Ou, Ashish Sabharwal, and Tushar Khot. 2023. Specializing smaller language models towards multi-step reasoning. In Proceedings of ICML . Luyu Gao, Aman Madaan, Shuyan Zhou, Uri Alon, Pengfei Liu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Gra- ham Neubig. 2022. Pal: Program-aided language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.10435 . Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yujiu Yang, Minlie Huang, Nan Duan, Weizhu Chen, et al. 2024. Tora: A tool-integrated reasoning agent for mathe- matical problem solving. In Proceedings of ACL . Caglar Gulcehre, Tom Le Paine, Srivatsan Srini- vasan, Ksenia Konyushkova, Lotte Weerts, Abhishek Sharma, Aditya Siddhant, Alex Ahern, Miaosen Wang, Chenjie Gu, et al. 2023. Reinforced self- training (rest) for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08998 . Junxian He, Jiatao Gu, Jiajun Shen, and Marc’Aurelio Ranzato. 2020. Revisiting self-training for neural sequence generation. In Proceedings of ICLR . Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. In Proceed- ings of NeurIPS . Namgyu Ho, Laura Schmid, and Se-Young Yun. 2023. Large language models are reasoning teachers. In Proceedings of ACL . Or Honovich, Thomas Scialom, Omer Levy, and Timo Schick. 2022. Unnatural instructions: Tuning lan- guage models with (almost) no human labor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09689 . Marek Kadl ˇcík, Michal Štefánik, Ond ˇrej Sotolá ˇr, and Vlastimil Martinek. 2023. Calc-x and calcformers: Empowering arithmetical chain-of-thought through interaction with symbolic systems. In Proceedings of EMNLP . Muhammad Khalifa, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Moon- tae Lee, Honglak Lee, and Lu Wang. 2023. Grace: Discriminator-guided chain-of-thought reasoning. In Findings of EMNLP . Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yu- taka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large lan- guage models are zero-shot reasoners. In Proceed- ings of NeurIPS . Chengpeng Li, Zheng Yuan, Guanting Dong, Keming Lu, Jiancan Wu, Chuanqi Tan, Xiang Wang, and Chang Zhou. 2023a. Query and response augmenta- tion cannot help out-of-domain math reasoning gen- eralization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05506 . Yifei Li, Zeqi Lin, Shizhuo Zhang, Qiang Fu, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2023b. Making language models better reasoners with step-aware verifier. In Proceedings of ACL . Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In Proceedings of ICLR . Haipeng Luo, Qingfeng Sun, Can Xu, Pu Zhao, Jian- guang Lou, Chongyang Tao, Xiubo Geng, Qingwei Lin, Shifeng Chen, and Dongmei Zhang. 2023. Wiz- ardmath: Empowering mathematical reasoning for large language models via reinforced evol-instruct. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09583 . Lucie Charlotte Magister, Jonathan Mallinson, Jakub Adamek, Eric Malmi, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2023. Teaching small language models to reason. In Pro- ceedings of ACL . Meta. 2024. Llama 3. https://llama.meta.com/ llama3/ . Accessed: 2024-06-01. Shen-yun Miao, Chao-Chun Liang, and Keh-Yih Su. 2020. A diverse corpus for evaluating and developing english math word problem solvers. In Proceedings of ACL . OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 . Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Car- roll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke E.Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welin- der, Paul Francis Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan J. Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Proceedings of NeurIPS . Aaron Parisi, Yao Zhao, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Talm: Tool augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12255 . Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattamishra, and Navin Goyal. 2021. Are NLP models really able to solve simple math word problems? In Proceedings of NAACL . Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog. Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Stefano Ermon, Christopher D Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. In Proceedings of NeurIPS . Colin Raffel, Noam M. Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Kather- ine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research . Subhro Roy and Dan Roth. 2015. Solving general arith- metic word problems. In Proceedings of EMNLP . Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. InProceedings of NeurIPS . John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proxi- mal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 . H. J. Scudder. 1965. Probability of error of some adap- tive pattern-recognition machines. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory . Kumar Shridhar, Alessandro Stolfo, and Mrinmaya Sachan. 2023. Distilling reasoning capabilities into smaller language models. In Findings of ACL . Avi Singh, John D Co-Reyes, Rishabh Agarwal, Ankesh Anand, Piyush Patil, Peter J Liu, James Harri- son, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, Aaron Parisi, et al. 2023. Beyond human data: Scaling self-training for problem-solving with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06585 . Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023a. Llama: Open and effi- cient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 . Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Al- bert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. 2023b. Llama 2: Open founda- tion and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288 . Tu Vu, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc Le, Grady Simon, and Mohit Iyyer. 2021. STraTA: Self-training with task augmentation for better few-shot learning. In Proceedings of EMNLP . Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J- 6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Lan- guage Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/ mesh-transformer-jax . Tianduo Wang and Wei Lu. 2022. Differentiable data augmentation for contrastive sentence representation learning. In Proceedings of EMNLP . Tianduo Wang and Wei Lu. 2023. Learning multi-step reasoning by solving arithmetic tasks. In Proceed- ings of ACL . Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research . Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Proceedings of NeurIPS . Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pier- ric Cistac, Tim Rault, et al. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Pro- ceedings of EMNLP . Qizhe Xie, Zihang Dai, Eduard Hovy, Thang Luong, and Quoc Le. 2020. Unsupervised data augmentation for consistency training. In Proceedings of NeurIPS . Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Kai Zheng, Xiubo Geng, Pu Zhao, Jiazhan Feng, Chongyang Tao, and Daxin Jiang. 2023. Wizardlm: Empowering large lan- guage models to follow complex instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12244 . Longhui Yu, Weisen Jiang, Han Shi, Jincheng Yu, Zhengying Liu, Yu Zhang, James T Kwok, Zhenguo Li, Adrian Weller, and Weiyang Liu. 2024. Meta- math: Bootstrap your own mathematical questions for large language models. In Proceedings of ICLR . Zheng Yuan, Hongyi Yuan, Chengpeng Li, Guanting Dong, Chuanqi Tan, and Chang Zhou. 2023. Scal- ing relationship on learning mathematical reason- ing with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01825 .Xiang Yue, Xingwei Qu, Ge Zhang, Yao Fu, Wen- hao Huang, Huan Sun, Yu Su, and Wenhu Chen. 2023. Mammoth: Building math generalist models through hybrid instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05653 . Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah Good- man. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with rea- soning. In Proceedings of NeurIPS . A Additional

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

funding agencies. References Massih-Reza Amini, Vasilii Feofanov, Loïc Pauletto, Emilie Devijver, and Yury Maximov. 2022. Self-training: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12040 . Shengnan An, Zexiong Ma, Zeqi Lin, Nanning Zheng, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2023. Learn- ing from mistakes makes llm better reasoner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20689 . Rohan Anil, Andrew M Dai, Orhan Firat, Melvin John- son, Dmitry Lepikhin, Alexandre Passos, Siamak Shakeri, Emanuel Taropa, Paige Bailey, Zhifeng Chen, et al. 2023. Palm 2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403 . Anthropic. 2023. Claude 2. https://www.anthropic. com/news/claude-2 . Accessed: 2024-05-06. Anthropic. 2024. The claude 3 model family: Opus, sonnet, haiku. Accessed: 2024-05-06. Zhangir Azerbayev, Hailey Schoelkopf, Keiran Paster, Marco Dos Santos, Stephen McAleer, Albert Q Jiang, Jia Deng, Stella Biderman, and Sean Welleck. 2024. Llemma: An open language model for mathematics. InProceedings of ICLR . Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, et al. 2022. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862 . Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, ArvindNeelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-V oss, Gretchen Krueger, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Proceedings of NeurIPS . Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Ka- plan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 . Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebas- tian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. Journal of Machine Learn- ing Research . Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2024. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 25(70):1–53. Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168 . Stanley C. Fralick. 1967. Learning to recognize patterns without a teacher. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory . Yao Fu, Hao Peng, Litu Ou, Ashish Sabharwal, and Tushar Khot. 2023. Specializing smaller language models towards multi-step reasoning. In Proceedings of ICML . Luyu Gao, Aman Madaan, Shuyan Zhou, Uri Alon, Pengfei Liu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Gra- ham Neubig. 2022. Pal: Program-aided language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.10435 . Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yujiu Yang, Minlie Huang, Nan Duan, Weizhu Chen, et al. 2024. Tora: A tool-integrated reasoning agent for mathe- matical problem solving. In Proceedings of ACL . Caglar Gulcehre, Tom Le Paine, Srivatsan Srini- vasan, Ksenia Konyushkova, Lotte Weerts, Abhishek Sharma, Aditya Siddhant, Alex Ahern, Miaosen Wang, Chenjie Gu, et al. 2023. Reinforced self- training (rest) for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08998 . Junxian He, Jiatao Gu, Jiajun Shen, and Marc’Aurelio Ranzato. 2020. Revisiting self-training for neural sequence generation. In Proceedings of ICLR . Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. In Proceed- ings of NeurIPS . Namgyu Ho, Laura Schmid, and Se-Young Yun. 2023. Large language models are reasoning teachers. In Proceedings of ACL . Or Honovich, Thomas Scialom, Omer Levy, and Timo Schick. 2022. Unnatural instructions: Tuning lan- guage models with (almost) no human labor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09689 . Marek Kadl ˇcík, Michal Štefánik, Ond ˇrej Sotolá ˇr, and Vlastimil Martinek. 2023. Calc-x and calcformers: Empowering arithmetical chain-of-thought through interaction with symbolic systems. In Proceedings of EMNLP . Muhammad Khalifa, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Moon- tae Lee, Honglak Lee, and Lu Wang. 2023. Grace: Discriminator-guided chain-of-thought reasoning. In Findings of EMNLP . Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yu- taka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large lan- guage models are zero-shot reasoners. In Proceed- ings of NeurIPS . Chengpeng Li, Zheng Yuan, Guanting Dong, Keming Lu, Jiancan Wu, Chuanqi Tan, Xiang Wang, and Chang Zhou. 2023a. Query and response augmenta- tion cannot help out-of-domain math reasoning gen- eralization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05506 . Yifei Li, Zeqi Lin, Shizhuo Zhang, Qiang Fu, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2023b. Making language models better reasoners with step-aware verifier. In Proceedings of ACL . Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In Proceedings of ICLR . Haipeng Luo, Qingfeng Sun, Can Xu, Pu Zhao, Jian- guang Lou, Chongyang Tao, Xiubo Geng, Qingwei Lin, Shifeng Chen, and Dongmei Zhang. 2023. Wiz- ardmath: Empowering mathematical reasoning for large language models via reinforced evol-instruct. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09583 . Lucie Charlotte Magister, Jonathan Mallinson, Jakub Adamek, Eric Malmi, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2023. Teaching small language models to reason. In Pro- ceedings of ACL . Meta. 2024. Llama 3. https://llama.meta.com/ llama3/ . Accessed: 2024-06-01. Shen-yun Miao, Chao-Chun Liang, and Keh-Yih Su. 2020. A diverse corpus for evaluating and developing english math word problem solvers. In Proceedings of ACL . OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 . Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Car- roll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke E.Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welin- der, Paul Francis Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan J. Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Proceedings of NeurIPS . Aaron Parisi, Yao Zhao, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Talm: Tool augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12255 . Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattamishra, and Navin Goyal. 2021. Are NLP models really able to solve simple math word problems? In Proceedings of NAACL . Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog. Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Stefano Ermon, Christopher D Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. In Proceedings of NeurIPS . Colin Raffel, Noam M. Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Kather- ine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research . Subhro Roy and Dan Roth. 2015. Solving general arith- metic word problems. In Proceedings of EMNLP . Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. InProceedings of NeurIPS . John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proxi- mal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 . H. J. Scudder. 1965. Probability of error of some adap- tive pattern-recognition machines. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory . Kumar Shridhar, Alessandro Stolfo, and Mrinmaya Sachan. 2023. Distilling reasoning capabilities into smaller language models. In Findings of ACL . Avi Singh, John D Co-Reyes, Rishabh Agarwal, Ankesh Anand, Piyush Patil, Peter J Liu, James Harri- son, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, Aaron Parisi, et al. 2023. Beyond human data: Scaling self-training for problem-solving with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06585 . Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023a. Llama: Open and effi- cient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 . Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Al- bert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. 2023b. Llama 2: Open founda- tion and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288 . Tu Vu, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc Le, Grady Simon, and Mohit Iyyer. 2021. STraTA: Self-training with task augmentation for better few-shot learning. In Proceedings of EMNLP . Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J- 6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Lan- guage Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/ mesh-transformer-jax . Tianduo Wang and Wei Lu. 2022. Differentiable data augmentation for contrastive sentence representation learning. In Proceedings of EMNLP . Tianduo Wang and Wei Lu. 2023. Learning multi-step reasoning by solving arithmetic tasks. In Proceed- ings of ACL . Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research . Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Proceedings of NeurIPS . Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pier- ric Cistac, Tim Rault, et al. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Pro- ceedings of EMNLP . Qizhe Xie, Zihang Dai, Eduard Hovy, Thang Luong, and Quoc Le. 2020. Unsupervised data augmentation for consistency training. In Proceedings of NeurIPS . Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Kai Zheng, Xiubo Geng, Pu Zhao, Jiazhan Feng, Chongyang Tao, and Daxin Jiang. 2023. Wizardlm: Empowering large lan- guage models to follow complex instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12244 . Longhui Yu, Weisen Jiang, Han Shi, Jincheng Yu, Zhengying Liu, Yu Zhang, James T Kwok, Zhenguo Li, Adrian Weller, and Weiyang Liu. 2024. Meta- math: Bootstrap your own mathematical questions for large language models. In Proceedings of ICLR . Zheng Yuan, Hongyi Yuan, Chengpeng Li, Guanting Dong, Chuanqi Tan, and Chang Zhou. 2023. Scal- ing relationship on learning mathematical reason- ing with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01825 .Xiang Yue, Xingwei Qu, Ge Zhang, Yao Fu, Wen- hao Huang, Huan Sun, Yu Su, and Wenhu Chen. 2023. Mammoth: Building math generalist models through hybrid instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05653 . Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah Good- man. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with rea- soning. In Proceedings of NeurIPS . A Additional

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

implementation details, then present our mod- els’ performance on various math reasoning tasks against competitive baselines. Finally, we analyze the effectiveness of our method empirically. 2https://huggingface.co/docs/transformers/ internal/generation_utils#logitsprocessorDataset Split # Data GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021) Train 6,705 Validation 0,768 Test 1,319 MultiArith (Roy and Roth, 2015) Test 0,600 ASDiv (Miao et al., 2020) Test 2,096 SV AMP (Patel et al., 2021) Test 1,000 Table 1: Statistics of the datasets used in our experi- ments. The original GSM8K dataset only contains train and test split. We randomly select 768 training examples to construct the validation dataset in our experiments. 4.1 Setup Base models We employ Flan-T5 models (Chung et al., 2024) as our primary base models. Specifi- cally, we consider two variants from the Flan-T5 family: Flan-T5-Base and Flan-T5-Large. We se- lect Flan-T5 over the original T5 models (Raffel et al., 2019) as our backbone models based on the evidence from previous research (Chung et al., 2024; Fu et al., 2023), which demonstrates that instruction-tuned models like Flan-T5 outperform their pre-trained counterparts in mathematical rea- soning tasks. To broaden our analysis, we also in- clude Llama models (Touvron et al., 2023a,b; Meta, 2024) as additional base models for comparison. Datasets The labeled dataset Lused in our exper- iments comes from the training split of the GSM8K dataset. Our unlabeled dataset Uis also built upon GSM8K’s training data by removing its annotated rationales. For evaluation, we consider three ad- ditional commonly used math reasoning tasks be- sides GSM8K: MultiArith, ASDiv, and SV AMP. Table 1 provides the statistics information of each dataset. Following previous practice (Fu et al., 2023), we fine-tune our base models exclusively on the GSM8K training data while utilizing the rest three datasets to evaluate our models’ out-of- domain performance as they do not have an official in-domain training split. 4.2 Implementation Details In the warm-up stage, we fine-tune the base models on the training set of GSM8K (Cobbe et al., 2021) with the original human-labeled annotations and obtain the initial SFT model. For subsequent DPO steps, we first sample rationales from SFT mod- els to build the preference dataset. We sample 5 rationales per question with a temperature of 0.7. Generated rationales ˆycontaining the correct an- Method Base Model GSM8K MultiArith ASDiv SVAMP Supervised Fine-Tuning Flan-T5-Base 18.1 54.2 26.2 19.5 Self-Training Flan-T5-Base 25.9 73.8 28.2 24.2 DPO-aug Self-Training ( Ours ) Flan-T5-Base 27.2 74.3 29.2 22.6 Supervised Fine-Tuning Flan-T5-Large 30.8 77.2 38.1 33.6 Self-Training Flan-T5-Large 35.6 86.2 42.5 34.8 DPO-aug Self-Training ( Ours ) Flan-T5-Large 37.4 89.0 42.8 36.8 Table 2: Overall accuracies (%) over four math word problem solving tasks. Inspired by the previous practice (Fu et al., 2023), all the models in this table are only trained with the GSM8K training set (Cobbe et al., 2021). Hence, we report the in-distribution performance for GSM8K, while reporting the out-of-distribution performance for the other three datasets, i.e., MultiArith, ASDiv, and SV AMP. swer are classified as winning ones yw, while the rest are considered losing ones yl. We set β= 0.1 in the DPO learning objective LDPO. For the sub- sequent SFT steps, we generate 3 rationales per question from the DPO-tuned model fθd, also with a temperature of 0.7. Only the correct generated rationales ˆywill be selected to build the pseudo- labeled dataset. For both DPO and SFT steps, we perform simple deduplication based on the Jaccard similarity scores with a threshold of 0.7. Addi- tional implementation details can be found in Ap- pendix A. Baselines We mainly consider two baseline meth- ods to compare with our method: Supervised Fine- Tuning (SFT) and Self-Training (ST). The SFT baseline corresponds to the model after the warm- up stage. The Self-Training baseline adheres to the procedure outlined in Algorithm 1. To ensure a fair comparison between our proposed method and the ST baseline, we use the same set of hyperparame- ters for both methods at each iteration. 4.3 Main Results Comparison with baselines Table 2 shows the performance of our method compared with the baselines using two base models, Flan-T5-Base and Flan-T5-Large, across four datasets. The re- sults clearly show that both the ST baseline and our proposed DPO-augmented Self-Training method outperform the SFT baseline by a large margin, in- dicating the effectiveness of the self-training frame- work in general. Although the ST baselines make significant improvements over the SFT baselines, our DPO-augmented Self-Training models demon- strate enhanced performance on both in-domain (GSM8K) and out-of-domain (MultiArith, ASDiv, and SV AMP) tasks. iter 0 iter 1 iter 2 iter 315.017.520.022.525.027.530.0Accuracy (%)18.124.226.0 25.9 18.124.626.627.2Flan-T5-Base ST Ours iter 0 iter 1 iter 2 iter 33032343638Accuracy (%) 30.832.935.135.6 30.834.135.637.4Flan-T5-Large ST OursFigure 5: The performance of the proposed method on GSM8K over three iterations. For “iter 0”, we report the performance of the SFT baselines, which are obtained after the warm-up stage. Effect of iterative training Figure 5 demon- strates the impact of iterative training on Flan-T5- Base and Flan-T5-Large models, comparing our method to the ST baseline. Initially, both meth- ods start with a warm-up stage and have similar accuracies at iteration 0. As training progresses, our method consistently outperforms ST across it- erations for both models. For Flan-T5-Base, the accuracy improvement plateaus by iteration 3, sug- gesting convergence. In contrast, Flan-T5-Large shows a clear and steady improvement, with our method achieving significantly higher accuracy by iteration 3. This underscores the effectiveness of our iterative training process, particularly in en- hancing performance of larger models. Method Base Model # Annotations Annotator Tools Acc. Supervised fine-tuning CoT (Shridhar et al., 2023) GPT-2-Large 007K Human % 14.1 Self-consistency (Khalifa et al., 2023) Flan-T5-Large 007K Human ! 33.3 GRACE (Khalifa et al., 2023) Flan-T5-Large 007K Human ! 36.3 Calcformer (Kadl ˇcík et al., 2023) T5-Large 030K Human ! 34.2 Knowledge Distillation Socratic CoT (Shridhar et al., 2023) GPT-2-Large 007K GPT-3 175B % 21.1 CoT from CodeX (Fu et al., 2023) Flan-T5-Large 100K CodeX % 20.2 CoT from PaLM (Magister et al., 2023) T5-Large 006K PaLM 540B ! 22.2 Ours DPO-aug Self-Training ( K=3) Flan-T5-Large 007K Human ! 37.4 DPO-aug Self-Training ( K=5) Flan-T5-Large 007K Human ! 39.1 DPO-aug Self-Training ( K=10) Flan-T5-Large 007K Human ! 40.0 Table 3: Detailed comparison among existing methods with comparable model sizes on the GSM8K test set. The “Annotator” column indicates how the rationales of the training data are generated. In this column, “Human” refers to the labels from the original GSM8K dataset (Cobbe et al., 2021) that are written by human annotators. The “Tools” column indicates whether external calculators are applied during inference. 4.4 Comparison with Existing Methods In this section, we compare our methods with ex- isting approaches. To enhance our method, we increase the number of sampled pseudo-labels per question to build a more diverse and robust pseudo- label dataset. We denote this hyperparameter as K following Yuan et al. (2023). Table 3 presents a detailed comparison be- tween our method and exisiting methods using a simialr base model size. The base models we considered include GPT-2-Large (Radford et al., 2019), T5-Large (Raffel et al., 2019), and Flan- T5-Large (Chung et al., 2024), each with approx- imately 770 million parameters. As shown in Ta- ble 3, our approach not only outperforms other methods on the GSM8K benchmark, but also demonstrates remarkable label efficiency by ex- clusively using the annotations from the original GSM8K dataset. In Table 4, we further evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed method with the Llama model fam- ily (Touvron et al., 2023a,b; Meta, 2024), compar- ing it with several state-of-the-art closed-source models as well as similarly sized open-source mod- els. We observe a substantial performance gap be- tween proprietary and open-source models. Among the open-source models, those utilizing knowledge distillation generally outperform their counterparts without such enhancement. Notably, our models using Llama-1-7b and Llama-2-7b base models surpass other open-source alternatives that do not employ knowledge distillation, achieving accura-cies of 44.7% and 54.7% respectively. Furthermore, our model employing the latest Llama-3-8b (Meta, 2024) matches or exceeds the performance of ear- lier models with knowledge distillation, demon- strating a significant accuracy of 68.8%. Method Base Model Acc. Closed-source models Claude-3-Opus (Anthropic, 2024) - 95.0 Claude-2 (Anthropic, 2023) - 88.0 GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) - 92.0 Flan-PaLM-2 (Anil et al., 2023) - 84.7 Open-source models w/ knowledge distillation MAmooTH (Yue et al., 2023)♡Llama-2-7b 53.6 LEMA (An et al., 2023) Llama-2-7b 54.1 WizardMath (Luo et al., 2023) Llama-2-7b 54.9 MetaMath (Yu et al., 2024) Llama-2-7b 66.5 MuggleMath (Li et al., 2023a) Llama-2-7b 68.4 ToRA (Gou et al., 2024)♡Llama-2-7b 68.8 Open-source models w/o knowledge distillation SFT (Yuan et al., 2023) Llama-1-7b 35.9 SFT w/ Calculator♡Llama-1-7b 40.0 RFT ( K=100) (Yuan et al., 2023) Llama-1-7b 41.7 SFT (Yuan et al., 2023) Llama-2-7b 41.6 SFT w/ Calculator♡Llama-2-7b 45.1 RFT ( K=100) (Yuan et al., 2023) Llama-2-7b 47.5 SFT w/ Calculator♡Llama-3-8b 61.0 Ours DPO-ST ( K=10)♡Llama-1-7b 44.7 DPO-ST ( K=10)♡Llama-2-7b 54.7 DPO-ST ( K=10)♡Llama-3-8b 68.8 Table 4: Comparison with the state-of-the-art pro- prietary models and Llama-based open-source mod- els (Touvron et al., 2023a,b; Meta, 2024).♡: models augmented with external tools. 30333639Dev accuracy (%)36.136.5Pass@1 60626466Dev accuracy (%)62.964.8Pass@10 240027003000 24952940# generated CoT pseudo-labels Before DPO step After DPO stepFigure 6: Effects of the DPO step. Left: we report the greedy decoding results for Pass@1. Middle: For Pass@10, the solutions are sampled with temperature 0.7.Right: We count the number of generated pseudo- labels after deduplication. 4.5 Effects of the DPO Step As mentioned earlier, the main difference between the proposed method and the classic self-training is the DPO step in every iterative process. We now analyze how the DPO steps improve self-training. Figure 6 compares the performance of models be- fore and after the DPO step in the first iteration on the Pass@K metrics. Pass@K measures the proba- bility that at least one of the Kgenerated solutions for a problem is correct, which serves as a gauge for both the quality and the variety of the model- generated solutions. The models we investigate here are fine-tuned from the Flan-T5-Large. As shown in Figure 6, the DPO step yields only marginal improvements over the SFT model in the Pass@1 performance on the development set. How- ever, the performance significantly improves when multiple rationales, i.e., 10 solutions per question, are sampled with temperature 0.7 (measured with the Pass@10 metric). This indicates that the DPO training objective makes language models inclined to generate rationales of both high quality and di- versity. We also compare the number of generated rationales on the training set Lfor models with and without the DPO step. Figure 6 (right) clearly shows that the model after the DPO step can pro- duce more SFT data for the next iteration. 4.6 Effects of External Calculator Driven by the observation that small-scale LMs frequently make basic calculation errors, we de- velop a simple yet efficient method that integrates an external calculator into the models’ decoding process. To evaluate the impact of this integration, iter 0 iter 1 iter 2 iter 31020304050Dev accuracy (%)36.740.543.944.8 16.317.117.8 18.0w/ calculator w/o calculatorFigure 7: GSM8K development set accuracy of Flan- T5-Large with and without the use of an external calcu- lator during inference. we conduct an ablation study by omitting the cal- culator and present the findings in Figure 7. Our results indicate that decoding without the calcula- tor markedly reduces accuracy across all iterations. We believe that this is because models will generate large amount of false positive pseudo-labels with- out calculator, that is, the generated pseudo-labels may have correct final answers but make errors in the intermediate reasoning steps. 5 Related Work Learning from pseudo-labels Supervised fine- tuning (SFT) is prevalent technique employed to enhance the performance of pre-trained language models on specific downstream tasks (Ouyang et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2024). However, this method heavily depends on the availability of high- quality labeled data, which can be both expensive and labor-intensive to procure (Brown et al., 2020). To address this limitation, various strategies have been developed to generate high-quality pseudo- labels using either unlabeled or synthetic data for a wide range of applications, including text clas- sification (Xie et al., 2020), sentence representa- tion learning (Wang and Lu, 2022), instruction tuning (Honovich et al., 2022), and math reason- ing (Wang and Lu, 2023). Recent advancements in this area primarily focus on two directions: self- training and knowledge distillation. The key dif- ference between these methods lies in the source of the pseudo-labels: self-training uses the model’s own predictions on unlabeled data, while knowl- edge distillation utilizes the insights from larger, more powerful models. Self-training in language model Recently, we have witnessed a large number of works focus- ing on self-training algorithms for language mod- els (He et al., 2020; Zelikman et al., 2022; Yuan et al., 2023). Most of such methods are built upon the classic self-training framework (Scud- der, 1965). He et al. (2020) empirically studied the effectiveness of self-training in natural lan- guage generation tasks, e.g., summarization and translation. Zelikman et al. (2022) proposed self- taught reasoner (STaR), which demonstrated that language models can be iteratively improved from its own generation, even there are no gold ratio- nales provided. Yuan et al. (2023) proposed re- jection sampling fine-tuning to improve language models’ math reasoning abilities. This method can be interpreted as only executing one iteration of the self-training algorithm. Singh et al. (2023) pro- posed ReSTEM, a self-improving algorithm based on expectation-maximization framework. This method demonstrates significant improvements in problem-solving tasks, e.g., math reasoning and code generation. Knowledge distillation from LLMs Many of the recent research efforts demonstrated large lan- guage models (LLMs) are capable of performing math reasoning (Wei et al., 2022b; Gao et al., 2022; OpenAI, 2023; Anil et al., 2023). As a result, there is growing interest in enhancing the reasoning abil- ities of smaller language models by distilling chain- of-thought pseudo-labels from LLMs. (Ho et al., 2023; Magister et al., 2023; Fu et al., 2023). For example, Luo et al. (2023) proposed Reinforce- ment Learning from Evol-Instruct Feedback built upon the Evol-Instruct framework (Xu et al., 2023), which requires ChatGPT to provide the training sig- nals. An et al. (2023) demonstrated that language models can effectively learn from the mistakes that can be corrected by LLMs during supervised fine- tuning. Although these methods are shown to have promising

experimental results, they are costly to implement as large models cost more FLOPs dur- ing inference. Our work demonstrates that small- scale language models can effectively learn from their own generations, offering a more resource- efficient alternative to knowledge distillation. Since our method is conceptually orthogonal to knowl- edge distillation techniques, an interesting avenue for future research would be to explore integrating knowledge distillation into our iterative training process to further enhance model performance.6 Conclusion We present an effective and resource-efficient method called DPO-augmented Self-Training (DPO-ST), which augments the original Self- Training algorithm with Direct Preference Opti- mization (Rafailov et al., 2023). Unlike previous studies that improve small-scale language models’ reasoning abilities by distilling a larger and more powerful model, we argue that small models that are trained merely on the limited human-labeled data can improve themselves significantly. We also empirically find that models trained with DPO loss can generate pseudo-labeled data with higher qual- ity and diversity. Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed method not only outperforms exist- ing methods with comparable model sizes on the GSM8K benchmark, but also achieves remarkable resource efficiency in terms of both computational cost and the requirements of human-labeled data. Limitations Use of unlabeled data Our method is built upon the classic self-training algorithm, which provides an effective semi-supervised learning framework capable of utilizing unlabeled data efficiently. How- ever, this work doesn’t explore the use of unla- beled data explicitly. Future research efforts can be made to explore how to collect high-quality unla- beled data for math word problem solving. In other words, we need to find an efficient method for col- lecting unlabeled data U={(xi, ai)}u i=1that for each math question xi, there is a corresponding ground-truth answer ai, ensuring the data’s rele- vance and utility for enhancing model training. Generalization to other tasks One of the lim- itations of this work is the narrow scope of our experiments, which were exclusively conducted on math reasoning tasks. The primary reason for this limitation is the lack of appropriate training data for other reasoning tasks. As our method requires a set of training data with chain-of-thought labels, many existing reasoning tasks lack such annota- tions, making it challenging to extend our experi- ments beyond the current scope. Future research may focus on identifying and developing suitable datasets for a wider range of reasoning tasks to fully evaluate the applicability and effectiveness of our method across different reasoning tasks. Acknowledgements This work was done when Shichen Li was a vis- iting student at the StatNLP Research Group of SUTD. We would like to thank the anonymous re- viewers, our meta-reviewer, and senior area chairs for their constructive comments and support on this work. This research/project is supported by Ministry of Education, Singapore, under its Aca- demic Research Fund (AcRF) Tier 2 Programme (MOE AcRF Tier 2 Award No: MOET2EP20122- 0011), the National Research Foundation Singa- pore and DSO National Laboratories under the AI Singapore Program (AISG Award No: AISG2- RP-2020-016), and Ministry of Education, Singa- pore, under its Tier 3 Programme (The Award No.: MOET320200004). Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the funding agencies. References Massih-Reza Amini, Vasilii Feofanov, Loïc Pauletto, Emilie Devijver, and Yury Maximov. 2022. Self-training: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12040 . Shengnan An, Zexiong Ma, Zeqi Lin, Nanning Zheng, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2023. Learn- ing from mistakes makes llm better reasoner. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20689 . Rohan Anil, Andrew M Dai, Orhan Firat, Melvin John- son, Dmitry Lepikhin, Alexandre Passos, Siamak Shakeri, Emanuel Taropa, Paige Bailey, Zhifeng Chen, et al. 2023. Palm 2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403 . Anthropic. 2023. Claude 2. https://www.anthropic. com/news/claude-2 . Accessed: 2024-05-06. Anthropic. 2024. The claude 3 model family: Opus, sonnet, haiku. Accessed: 2024-05-06. Zhangir Azerbayev, Hailey Schoelkopf, Keiran Paster, Marco Dos Santos, Stephen McAleer, Albert Q Jiang, Jia Deng, Stella Biderman, and Sean Welleck. 2024. Llemma: An open language model for mathematics. InProceedings of ICLR . Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, et al. 2022. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862 . Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, ArvindNeelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-V oss, Gretchen Krueger, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Proceedings of NeurIPS . Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Ka- plan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 . Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebas- tian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. Journal of Machine Learn- ing Research . Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, et al. 2024. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 25(70):1–53. Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168 . Stanley C. Fralick. 1967. Learning to recognize patterns without a teacher. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory . Yao Fu, Hao Peng, Litu Ou, Ashish Sabharwal, and Tushar Khot. 2023. Specializing smaller language models towards multi-step reasoning. In Proceedings of ICML . Luyu Gao, Aman Madaan, Shuyan Zhou, Uri Alon, Pengfei Liu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Gra- ham Neubig. 2022. Pal: Program-aided language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.10435 . Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yujiu Yang, Minlie Huang, Nan Duan, Weizhu Chen, et al. 2024. Tora: A tool-integrated reasoning agent for mathe- matical problem solving. In Proceedings of ACL . Caglar Gulcehre, Tom Le Paine, Srivatsan Srini- vasan, Ksenia Konyushkova, Lotte Weerts, Abhishek Sharma, Aditya Siddhant, Alex Ahern, Miaosen Wang, Chenjie Gu, et al. 2023. Reinforced self- training (rest) for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08998 . Junxian He, Jiatao Gu, Jiajun Shen, and Marc’Aurelio Ranzato. 2020. Revisiting self-training for neural sequence generation. In Proceedings of ICLR . Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2021. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. In Proceed- ings of NeurIPS . Namgyu Ho, Laura Schmid, and Se-Young Yun. 2023. Large language models are reasoning teachers. In Proceedings of ACL . Or Honovich, Thomas Scialom, Omer Levy, and Timo Schick. 2022. Unnatural instructions: Tuning lan- guage models with (almost) no human labor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09689 . Marek Kadl ˇcík, Michal Štefánik, Ond ˇrej Sotolá ˇr, and Vlastimil Martinek. 2023. Calc-x and calcformers: Empowering arithmetical chain-of-thought through interaction with symbolic systems. In Proceedings of EMNLP . Muhammad Khalifa, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Moon- tae Lee, Honglak Lee, and Lu Wang. 2023. Grace: Discriminator-guided chain-of-thought reasoning. In Findings of EMNLP . Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yu- taka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large lan- guage models are zero-shot reasoners. In Proceed- ings of NeurIPS . Chengpeng Li, Zheng Yuan, Guanting Dong, Keming Lu, Jiancan Wu, Chuanqi Tan, Xiang Wang, and Chang Zhou. 2023a. Query and response augmenta- tion cannot help out-of-domain math reasoning gen- eralization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05506 . Yifei Li, Zeqi Lin, Shizhuo Zhang, Qiang Fu, Bei Chen, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. 2023b. Making language models better reasoners with step-aware verifier. In Proceedings of ACL . Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In Proceedings of ICLR . Haipeng Luo, Qingfeng Sun, Can Xu, Pu Zhao, Jian- guang Lou, Chongyang Tao, Xiubo Geng, Qingwei Lin, Shifeng Chen, and Dongmei Zhang. 2023. Wiz- ardmath: Empowering mathematical reasoning for large language models via reinforced evol-instruct. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09583 . Lucie Charlotte Magister, Jonathan Mallinson, Jakub Adamek, Eric Malmi, and Aliaksei Severyn. 2023. Teaching small language models to reason. In Pro- ceedings of ACL . Meta. 2024. Llama 3. https://llama.meta.com/ llama3/ . Accessed: 2024-06-01. Shen-yun Miao, Chao-Chun Liang, and Keh-Yih Su. 2020. A diverse corpus for evaluating and developing english math word problem solvers. In Proceedings of ACL . OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 . Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Car- roll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke E.Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welin- der, Paul Francis Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan J. Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Proceedings of NeurIPS . Aaron Parisi, Yao Zhao, and Noah Fiedel. 2022. Talm: Tool augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12255 . Arkil Patel, Satwik Bhattamishra, and Navin Goyal. 2021. Are NLP models really able to solve simple math word problems? In Proceedings of NAACL . Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog. Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Stefano Ermon, Christopher D Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. In Proceedings of NeurIPS . Colin Raffel, Noam M. Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Kather- ine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research . Subhro Roy and Dan Roth. 2015. Solving general arith- metic word problems. In Proceedings of EMNLP . Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. InProceedings of NeurIPS . John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proxi- mal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 . H. J. Scudder. 1965. Probability of error of some adap- tive pattern-recognition machines. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory . Kumar Shridhar, Alessandro Stolfo, and Mrinmaya Sachan. 2023. Distilling reasoning capabilities into smaller language models. In Findings of ACL . Avi Singh, John D Co-Reyes, Rishabh Agarwal, Ankesh Anand, Piyush Patil, Peter J Liu, James Harri- son, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, Aaron Parisi, et al. 2023. Beyond human data: Scaling self-training for problem-solving with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06585 . Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023a. Llama: Open and effi- cient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 . Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Al- bert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. 2023b. Llama 2: Open founda- tion and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288 . Tu Vu, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc Le, Grady Simon, and Mohit Iyyer. 2021. STraTA: Self-training with task augmentation for better few-shot learning. In Proceedings of EMNLP . Ben Wang and Aran Komatsuzaki. 2021. GPT-J- 6B: A 6 Billion Parameter Autoregressive Lan- guage Model. https://github.com/kingoflolz/ mesh-transformer-jax . Tianduo Wang and Wei Lu. 2022. Differentiable data augmentation for contrastive sentence representation learning. In Proceedings of EMNLP . Tianduo Wang and Wei Lu. 2023. Learning multi-step reasoning by solving arithmetic tasks. In Proceed- ings of ACL . Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022a. Emergent abilities of large language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research . Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022b. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Proceedings of NeurIPS . Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pier- ric Cistac, Tim Rault, et al. 2020. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Pro- ceedings of EMNLP . Qizhe Xie, Zihang Dai, Eduard Hovy, Thang Luong, and Quoc Le. 2020. Unsupervised data augmentation for consistency training. In Proceedings of NeurIPS . Can Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Kai Zheng, Xiubo Geng, Pu Zhao, Jiazhan Feng, Chongyang Tao, and Daxin Jiang. 2023. Wizardlm: Empowering large lan- guage models to follow complex instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12244 . Longhui Yu, Weisen Jiang, Han Shi, Jincheng Yu, Zhengying Liu, Yu Zhang, James T Kwok, Zhenguo Li, Adrian Weller, and Weiyang Liu. 2024. Meta- math: Bootstrap your own mathematical questions for large language models. In Proceedings of ICLR . Zheng Yuan, Hongyi Yuan, Chengpeng Li, Guanting Dong, Chuanqi Tan, and Chang Zhou. 2023. Scal- ing relationship on learning mathematical reason- ing with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01825 .Xiang Yue, Xingwei Qu, Ge Zhang, Yao Fu, Wen- hao Huang, Huan Sun, Yu Su, and Wenhu Chen. 2023. Mammoth: Building math generalist models through hybrid instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05653 . Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah Good- man. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with rea- soning. In Proceedings of NeurIPS . A Additional Implementation Details Our models are trained using the AdamW opti- mizer (Loshchilov and Hutter, 2019) with a weight decay of 0.01 and gradient clipping of 1.0. We em- ploy a cosine learning rate schedule with warm-up. During training, the maximum sequence lengths are set to 500 for T5 models and 640 for Llama models. Both T5 and Llama models undergo DPO- ST for three iterations, using the same set of hyper- parameters for each iteration as detailed in Table 5. For each DPO step, we sample 5 pseudo-labels per question from the SFT model to build the DPO training data, and set β= 0.1during DPO training. In SFT steps, the number of model-generated so- lutions per question can be varied and controlled by the hyperparameter K. When sampling pseudo- labels, we limit the maximum generated tokens to 300 and use a temperature of 0.7. Flan-T5 LLaMA Hyperparameters SFT DPO SFT DPO Batch size 96 96 128 128 Epochs 8 - 2 - Max steps - 150 - 100 Learning rate 3e-4 7e-7 2e-5 3e-7 Warm-up ratio 0.1 0.1 0.03 0.03 Table 5: Training details of SFT and DPO steps for Flan-T5 and Llama models.

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

2407.18227v1

http://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.18227v1

Automated Ensemble Multimodal Machine Learning for Healthcare

Fergus Imrie, Stefan Denner, Lucas S. Brunschwig, Klaus Maier-Hein, Mihaela van der Schaar

2024-07-25

"Abstract\nThe application of machine learning in medicine and healthcare has led\nto the creation o(...TRUNCATED)

"Introduction\nMedical and healthcare data is increasingly diverse in origin and nature,\nencompassi(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"Methods: AutoPrognosis-M\nAutoPrognosis-M enables clinicians and other users to develop diagnostic (...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"results across a range of medical areas, it is\nconstrained to only handling tabular features. Seve(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"Discussion\nPredictive modeling has the potential to support clinical decision-making and\nimprove (...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

"limitations of only considering a single\nfusion strategy.\nWhile in this paper, we demonstrated th(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"References\n[1] Abr` amoff, M. D., Lavin, P. T., Birch, M., Shah, N. & Folk, J. C. Pivotal\ntrial o(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"data availability. AutoPrognosis-M is available at https:\n//github.com/vanderschaarlab/AutoPrognos(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"model architectures and associated hyperparameters, which\nmust be set appropriately for the specif(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

2407.18181v1

http://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.18181v1

"Gene Regulatory Network Inference from Pre-trained Single-Cell Transcriptomics Transformer with Joi(...TRUNCATED)

Sindhura Kommu, Yizhi Wang, Yue Wang, Xuan Wang

2024-07-25

"Abstract\nInferring gene regulatory networks (GRNs) from\nsingle-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) da(...TRUNCATED)

"Introduction\nSingle-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) has transformed\nthe exploration of gene expre(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Related Work Several

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"methodology offers deeper in-\nsights into cellular regulatory mechanisms, advancing our\nunderstan(...TRUNCATED)

"methods are also proposed for GRN reconstruction\n(Zhao et al., 2022; Shu et al., 2022; KC et al., (...TRUNCATED)

"Experimental Setup\n4.1. Benchmark scRNA-seq datasets\nThe performance of scTransNet is evaluated o(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"data analysis (Yang et al., 2022; Cui et al.,\n2024; Chen et al., 2023; Theodoris et al., 2023). Th(...TRUNCATED)

"results\ndemonstrate superior performance over current\nstate-of-the-art baselines, offering a deep(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"Discussion and Ablations\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of jointly learning from pre-\ntrained scRN(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

"limitations of the current methods, we effectively leverage\none of these large-scale pre-trained t(...TRUNCATED)

"Future Work\nIn this work, we propose scTransNet, a joint graph learn-\ning inference framework tha(...TRUNCATED)

"Conclusion and Future Work\nIn this work, we propose scTransNet, a joint graph learn-\ning inferenc(...TRUNCATED)

"Summary of the GRN prediction performance of scTransNet in the (A) AUROC metric (top) (B) and the A(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"References\nAibar, S., Gonz ´alez-Blas, C. B., Moerman, T., Huynh-Thu,\nV . A., Imrichova, H., Hul(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

2407.18213v1

http://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.18213v1

Exploring Scaling Trends in LLM Robustness

"Nikolhaus Howe, Michał Zajac, Ian McKenzie, Oskar Hollinsworth, Tom Tseng, Pierre-Luc Bacon, Adam (...TRUNCATED)

2024-07-25

"Abstract.\nhtml .\nMoustafa Alzantot, Bharathan Balaji, and Mani Sri-\nvastava. Did you hear that? (...TRUNCATED)

"Introduction\nLanguage models have demonstrated a range of im-\npressive capabilities in tasks such(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"Related Work\nAdversarial examples were first identified in image clas-\nsifiers (Szegedy et al., 2(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"Methodology\nWe test models in the binary classification setting,\nas it is the simplest context in(...TRUNCATED)

"methods such as\nindirect prompt injections (Abdelnabi et al., 2023) to\nexploit LLM-driven applica(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"results. Ganguli et al.\n(2022) show that LLMs become harder to attack with\nscale—but Anil et al(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"future work is to validate this\ntrend holds in a broader variety of settings. In particu-\nlar, we(...TRUNCATED)

"Conclusion\nOur results demonstrate that larger Pythia models ben-\nefit more from adversarial trai(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

"References\nSahar Abdelnabi, Kai Greshake, Shailesh Mishra,\nChristoph Endres, Thorsten Holz, and M(...TRUNCATED)

"Appendix B.\nModels We test the Pythia model family (Biderman\net al., 2023). These models range in(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

2407.18219v1

http://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.18219v1

Recursive Introspection: Teaching Language Model Agents How to Self-Improve

Yuxiao Qu, Tianjun Zhang, Naman Garg, Aviral Kumar

2024-07-25

"abstract terms, this requires\nmastering two qualities: (a)producing responses that explicitly seek(...TRUNCATED)

"Introduction\nA promising approach to utilizing and deploying foundation models, and in particular,(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"Related Work\nSeveral prior works build techniques to improve reasoning and thinking capabilities o(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"objectives. This is orthogonal from the choice of training approach (RL or not).\nThe most related (...TRUNCATED)

"hypothesis is akin to the difference between diffusion\nmodels [ 42] and variational autoencoders ((...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

"methods in online imitation learning [ 36] and\nreinforcement learning (RL) [ 45]. This supervision(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"data collection and training so as to imbue an LLM with the capability to\nrecursively detect and c(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"results show that LLMs trained via RISE can produce\ncorrect responses on more prompts, improving o(...TRUNCATED)

"findings\nprovide nuanced insights into the stability and self-improvement capabilities of RISE and(...TRUNCATED)

Discussion, Future Directions, and

Section not found

Section not found

"Limitations\nWe presented RISE, an approach for fine-tuning LLMs to be able to improve their own re(...TRUNCATED)

"future work. In this self-distillation setting, we could also divide the\ncomputation between seque(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"summary, although the final answer is still incorrect, we observe that through RISE, the model is a(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"References\n[1]Rishabh Agarwal, Nino Vieillard, Piotr Stanczyk, Sabela Ramos, Matthieu Geist, and O(...TRUNCATED)

"Appendix D.4). The reward function is a sparse binary indicator of answer\ncorrectness at a given s(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"Implementation Details\nA complete algorithmic pseudocode for each approach is shown in Appendix C.(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

2407.18175v1

http://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.18175v1

Quasar-ViT: Hardware-Oriented Quantization-Aware Architecture Search for Vision Transformers

"Zhengang Li, Alec Lu, Yanyue Xie, Zhenglun Kong, Mengshu Sun, Hao Tang, Zhong Jia Xue, Peiyan Dong,(...TRUNCATED)

2024-07-25

"ABSTRACT\nVision transformers (ViTs) have demonstrated their superior accu-\nracy for computer visi(...TRUNCATED)

"INTRODUCTION\nViTs [ 10,35,42,62] incorporate the attention mechanism [ 46] to\nfulfill various com(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"RELATED WORK\n2.1 Vision Transformers\nFirst proposed in [ 10], the vision transformer (ViT) is a g(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"methods mainly focus on reduc-\ning the practical inference latency of matrix multiplication opera-(...TRUNCATED)

"Experimental Setup\nOur supernet training process takes 700 epochs with a batch size of\n2048. The (...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

"results for different targeting FPS. We use a\nmodel with layers of 6 channels as a toy example.\ns(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"discussion, we use the row-wise flexible\nmixed-precision quantization scheme for ViTs, as shown in(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"CONCLUSION\nIn this work, we propose Quasar-ViT, a hardware-oriented quantization-\naware network a(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"ACKNOWLEDGMENTS\nThis work was supported in part by NSERC Discovery Grant RGPIN-\n2019-04613, DGECR(...TRUNCATED)

"REFERENCES\n[1]Haoli Bai, Wei Zhang, Lu Hou, Lifeng Shang, Jing Jin, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, Michael\nL(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"funding support to CD and MS for this project.\nREFERENCES\n[1]Haoli Bai, Wei Zhang, Lu Hou, Lifeng(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"model architecture is transformer\nencoder blocks with multi-headed self-attention (MSA) and multi-(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"comparative analysis, presented in Table 9, utilizes the\nrenowned LLM model, LLaMA, as the foundat(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

"EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS\n5.1 Experimental Setup\nOur supernet training process takes 700 epochs with a(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

2407.18184v1

http://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.18184v1

AsEP: Benchmarking Deep Learning Methods for Antibody-specific Epitope Prediction

Chunan Liu, Lilian Denzler, Yihong Chen, Andrew Martin, Brooks Paige

2024-07-25

"Abstract\nEpitope identification is vital for antibody design yet challenging due to the in-\nheren(...TRUNCATED)

"Introduction\nAntibodies are specialized proteins produced by our immune system to combat foreign s(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"Related work\nComparison of Previous Datasets We would like to highlight our dataset, AsEP, is the (...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"Methods for\nAntibody-specific Epitope Prediction\nChu’nan Liu∗\nStructural Molecular Biology\n(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

"Data Analysis We performed exploratory data analysis on the training dataset to\nunderstand the dis(...TRUNCATED)

"results We evaluated each method for both dataset split settings on the test set using\nthe metrics(...TRUNCATED)

"findings evidence that epitope prediction benefits from combining se-\nquential embeddings provided(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"limitations of existing datasets and methods. Several computational\napproaches have been developed(...TRUNCATED)

"future work, more\nedge features can be incorporated to enrich the graph representation, in additio(...TRUNCATED)

"Conclusion\nIn this work, we proposed a novel benchmarking dataset for the epitope prediction task (...TRUNCATED)

"Summary of Features Used in Benchmarking Methods.\nAntibody Structure PLM Graph\nWALLE ✓ ✓ ✓ (...TRUNCATED)

"Acknowledgments\nCL was part-funded by a UCL Centre for Digital Innovation Amazon Web Services (AWS(...TRUNCATED)

"References\nAkbar, R., Bashour, H., Rawat, P., Robert, P. A., Smorodina, E., Cotet, T.-S., Flem-Kar(...TRUNCATED)

"Appendix A.1.\n2\nTwo Complementary Surveys are notable:\nZhao et al. (2024) benchmarked docking me(...TRUNCATED)

"Supplementary Materials\nDataset Documentation and Intended Uses\nWe provide a data card for this d(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"model architecture of WALLE.\nThe use of separate GCN modules for the antibody and antigen allows f(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

"ablation studies (Appendix C) to investigate the impact of different components of\nWALLE. When we (...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"Implementation details\nExploratory Data Analysis We performed exploratory data analysis on the tra(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

2407.18158v1

http://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.18158v1

Unlocking Tokens as Data Points for Generalization Bounds on Larger Language Models

Sanae Lotfi, Yilun Kuang, Brandon Amos, Micah Goldblum, Marc Finzi, Andrew Gordon Wilson

2024-07-25

"Abstract\nLarge language models (LLMs) with billions of parameters excel at predicting the next\nto(...TRUNCATED)

"Introduction\nDespite the impressive empirical performance of large language models (LLMs), our the(...TRUNCATED)

"Background\nIn this section, we review the different components of compression-based generalization(...TRUNCATED)

"Related Work\nGeneralization bounds for neural networks. Deep neural networks are challenging to\nu(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"hypothesis\ngeneralization bounds [ 5,13,17] offer a compelling framework for understanding this go(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"methodology\nof compression [ 53,31]. Lotfi et al. [32]extend compression-based generalization boun(...TRUNCATED)

"methods [53, 14, 18, 38, 31].\nRecent work presented the first non-vacuous generalization bounds fo(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"results extend and generalize many existing bounds. We view our contribution as orthogonal\nto thes(...TRUNCATED)

"findings of Jin et al.\n[21]who show that smaller models can retain\nin-context learning capabiliti(...TRUNCATED)

"discussions and anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback.\nThis work is supported by NSF CAREER IIS(...TRUNCATED)

"interpretation of our bounds and demonstrate their ability to\npredict generalization on downstream(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"limitations and use our bounds to derive insights about the\ngeneralization properties and limitati(...TRUNCATED)

"future work, one could envision constructing new bounds that make use of the independence\nstructur(...TRUNCATED)

"conclusion, the empirical risk for our generative model hand a sequence x≤msampled from\nthe stoc(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

"References\n[1]V. Akinwande, Y. Jiang, D. Sam, and J. Z. Kolter. Understanding prompt engineering m(...TRUNCATED)

"Appendix A.1.\nOn the right-hand side of the bound is the conventional empirical risk: −1\nmlog2p(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"model architectures that are based on the Mistral 7B architecture [ 20]. We scale\ndown the Mistral(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

2407.18178v1

http://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.18178v1

PianoMime: Learning a Generalist, Dexterous Piano Player from Internet Demonstrations

Cheng Qian, Julen Urain, Kevin Zakka, Jan Peters

2024-07-25

"Abstract: In this work, we introduce PianoMime, a framework for training a\npiano-playing agent usi(...TRUNCATED)

"Introduction\nThe Internet is a promising source of large-scale data for training generalist robot (...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"Related Work\nRobotic Piano Playing Several studies have investigated the development of robots cap(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"objectives jointly might be impossible. Tracking perfectly the fingertip trajectory τxmight not\nn(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"methods for 10 chosen clips; Right: The F1 score achieved by excluding different elements in RL.\na(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"Results\nWe split the experimental evaluation into three parts. In the first part, we explore the p(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"Limitations\nInference Speed One of the limitations is the inference speed. The models operate with(...TRUNCATED)

"future works.\n7\nFigure 5: Precision and Recall for three different policy architectures trained w(...TRUNCATED)

"Conclusion\nIn this work, we present PianoMime, a framework for training a generalist robotic piani(...TRUNCATED)

"summary, the main contribution of this work is a framework for training a generalist piano-\nplayin(...TRUNCATED)

"Acknowledgments\nIf a paper is accepted, the final camera-ready version will (and probably should) (...TRUNCATED)

"References\n[1] M. V ¨olske, M. Potthast, S. Syed, and B. Stein. Tl; dr: Mining reddit to learn au(...TRUNCATED)

"Appendix A.\n3.2 Policy learning: generating robot actions from observations\nThrough the data prep(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

"funding agencies and corporate\nsponsors that provided financial support.\nReferences\n[1] M. V ¨o(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"ablation studies on policy designs for learning a generalist piano-playing agent by distilling the (...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"Experimental Results\nWe split the experimental evaluation into three parts. In the first part, we (...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

2407.18078v1

http://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.18078v1

PEFT-U: Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning for User Personalization

Christopher Clarke, Yuzhao Heng, Lingjia Tang, Jason Mars

2024-07-25

"Abstract\nThe recent emergence of Large Language Mod-\nels (LLMs) has heralded a new era of human-A(...TRUNCATED)

"Introduction\nLarge Language Models (LLMs) have shown\ntremendous capability in performing complex (...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"Related Works\nPrior works have highlighted the need for user per-\nspective particularly when deal(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"methods typically\nintroduce a small number of additional parame-\nters and update these parameters(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"Data Collection To generate high-quality data\nsamples representative of differing user perspec-\nt(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"results representative of their actual per-\nspectives. We publicly release our code, models,\nand (...TRUNCATED)

"Findings of the Asso-\nciation for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022 ,\npages 3258–3267, Dublin(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

"Limitations\nThe PEFT-U Benchmark while designed to capture\ndiverse user perspectives, may not ful(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

"Conclusion\nThis work addresses a critical gap in NLP concern-\ning the personalization of LLMs. Wh(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

"references of users can potentially differ for\nthe same input. Using PEFT-U, we explore the\nchall(...TRUNCATED)

"Appendix A.\nUser Disagreement As shown in table 1, we\nenforce that all personalized tasks must ob(...TRUNCATED)

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found

Section not found