Skip to content
Back to the collection

Let's Verify Step by Step

Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda

Show all 10 authors

Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, Karl Cobbe

2023 · arXiv

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
4
Readers
4
Months
3
What’s in a score?

From the abstract

In recent years, large language models have greatly improved in their ability to perform complex multi-step reasoning. However, even state-of-the-art models still regularly produce logical mistakes. To train more reliable models, we can turn either to outcome supervision, which provides feedback for a final result, or process supervision, which provides feedback for each intermediate reasoning step. Given the importance of training reliable models, and given the high cost of human feedback, it is important to carefully compare the both methods. Recent work has already begun this comparison, but many questions still remain. We conduct our own investigation, finding that process supervision significantly outperforms outcome supervision for training models to solve problems from the challenging MATH dataset. Our process-supervised model solves 78% of problems from a representative subset of the MATH test set. Additionally, we show that active learning significantly improves the efficacy of process supervision. To support related research, we also release PRM800K, the complete dataset of 800,000 step-level human feedback labels used to train our best reward model.

Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

4 selected excerpts · 4 total mentions

highfrequency
Neutral mention · rule
First graph tells the story - below a certain model size (500m params), reinforcement learning is close to useless. Above this (task-dependent) model size threshold, reinforcement learning basically works. I suspect this is what we saw play out with math/coding reasoning models - until recently, the base models were not good enough for ~random output search to hit on a correct path with any reasonable frequency. Below this threshold of base model intelligence, the only efficient way forward was to collect plain supervised data (either through human labeled math problem solutions [1] or meticulous filtering of web text [2]. But as soon the base model (in this case Deepseek…
Read the full comment
V3) breaks through and can actually solve a decent fraction of math problems, then reinforcement learning (plus other simple tricks like chain-of-thought prompting, simple ensemble voting, etc.) can easily juice the results through the following loop: 1) random search through different solution paths 2) identify the correct solution paths based on the final answer 3) train on the correct solution paths The exciting thing is that not only can RL bump up the performance of the current base model, but it can be used to generate new high-quality reasoning trace data, which was in painfully short-supply for training the initial models. This leads to a new wave of base models with better one-pass intuition, which leads to more efficient reinforcement learning search on harder problems, which leads to better training data... Note that this was basically impossible for non-LLM models in the past. You could always juice ImageNet classification performance with a simple ensemble of identically trained models, but that path didn't lead anywhere interesting because a juiced model didn't allow the creation of new synthetic data that was superior to the data it was trained on. The key difference is that LLMs not only output the solution but also output a solution path with all the intermediate steps - and these searched-and-filtered solution paths are much more valuable than the vast majority of the model's initial training data. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.20050 [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03300 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.14858
llmfan
Neutral mention · rule
"just a regular LLM except [trained on very different data]." I'm not saying there's some big moat, anyone can read https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.20050, but not all synthetic data is created equal. Strawberry I'm sure generates beautiful, valid chain-of-thought reasoning data. Wouldn't surprise me if OpenAI is just significantly ahead of the competition.
rvz
Neutral mention · rule
Great, a worthy competition which being first and correctness completely matter and may the best AI model win. Hopefully DeepMind doesn’t enter otherwise they would smoke everyone else other than OpenAI. Speaking of which, I’ll give you a 1% chance of winning with this paper from OpenAI: [0] with the MATH dataset: [1] [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.20050 [1] https://github.com/hendrycks/math

Keep following the thread.

More in Language models

More from the same topics.