Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

DART-Math: Difficulty-Aware Rejection Tuning for Mathematical Problem-Solving

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2407.13690 v2 pith:6LIGD7CZ submitted 2024-06-18 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords datasetsmathematicalmodelsqueriesdifficulttuningdart-mathprevious
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Solving mathematical problems requires advanced reasoning abilities and presents notable challenges for large language models. Previous works usually synthesize data from proprietary models to augment existing datasets, followed by instruction tuning to achieve top-tier results. However, our analysis of these datasets reveals severe biases towards easy queries, with frequent failures to generate any correct response for the most challenging queries. Hypothesizing that difficult queries are crucial to learn complex reasoning, we propose Difficulty-Aware Rejection Tuning (DART), a method that allocates difficult queries more trials during the synthesis phase, enabling more extensive training on difficult samples. Utilizing DART, we have created new datasets for mathematical problem-solving that focus more on difficult queries and are substantially smaller than previous ones. Remarkably, our synthesis process solely relies on a 7B-sized open-weight model, without reliance on the commonly used proprietary GPT-4. We fine-tune various base models on our datasets ranging from 7B to 70B in size, resulting in a series of strong models called DART-MATH. In comprehensive in-domain and out-of-domain evaluation on 6 mathematical benchmarks, DART-MATH outperforms vanilla rejection tuning significantly, being superior or comparable to previous arts, despite using much smaller datasets and no proprietary models. Furthermore, our results position our synthetic datasets as the most effective and cost-efficient publicly available resources for advancing mathematical problem-solving.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Are we Merging the Right Models? Impact of Expert Training Duration on Model Merging for LLMs

    cs.LG 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    The optimal training duration for expert models before merging depends on the merging method; sparsification-based merging benefits from overtrained experts.

  2. Multi-Turn On-Policy Distillation with Prefix Replay

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ReOPD offline-distills multi-turn agentic LLMs via teacher-prefix replay plus step-decay sampling, matching online OPD accuracy at ≥4× speed with zero tool calls.

  3. Does Learning Mathematical Problem-Solving Generalize to Broader Reasoning?

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Long chain-of-thought and RL training on math problems improves general reasoning benchmarks, while short chain-of-thought math fine-tuning often degrades performance.

  4. Skip a Layer or Loop it? Test-Time Depth Adaptation of Pretrained LLMs

    cs.LG 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Pretrained LLM layers can be skipped/repeated per input to build custom paths, but the search uses ground-truth answers, so the accuracy gains are fitted, not predicted.

  5. Progressive Mastery: Customized Curriculum Learning with Guided Prompting for Mathematical Reasoning

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    CCL orders LLM training data by the model's own measured accuracy and converts the hardest problems into hinted completion tasks, reporting higher average benchmark scores than uniform training.

Pith tools