REVIEW 10 cited by
Self-Improvement in Language Models: The Sharpening Mechanism
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
Self-Improvement in Language Models: The Sharpening Mechanism
read the original abstract
Recent work in language modeling has raised the possibility of self-improvement, where a language models evaluates and refines its own generations to achieve higher performance without external feedback. It is impossible for this self-improvement to create information that is not already in the model, so why should we expect that this will lead to improved capabilities? We offer a new perspective on the capabilities of self-improvement through a lens we refer to as sharpening. Motivated by the observation that language models are often better at verifying response quality than they are at generating correct responses, we formalize self-improvement as using the model itself as a verifier during post-training in order to ``sharpen'' the model to one placing large mass on high-quality sequences, thereby amortizing the expensive inference-time computation of generating good sequences. We begin by introducing a new statistical framework for sharpening in which the learner aims to sharpen a pre-trained base policy via sample access, and establish fundamental limits. Then we analyze two natural families of self-improvement algorithms based on SFT and RLHF. We find that (i) the SFT-based approach is minimax optimal whenever the initial model has sufficient coverage, but (ii) the RLHF-based approach can improve over SFT-based self-improvement by leveraging online exploration, bypassing the need for coverage. Finally, we empirically validate the sharpening mechanism via inference-time and amortization experiments. We view these findings as a starting point toward a foundational understanding that can guide the design and evaluation of self-improvement algorithms.
Forward citations
Cited by 10 Pith papers
-
Using Reward Uncertainty to Induce Diverse Behaviour in Reinforcement Learning
Replaces scalar reward with a distribution over reward functions and applies a non-linear objective over action sets to induce controllable diversity in contextual bandit RL, generalizing policy gradient methods.
-
From Prior to Pro: Efficient Skill Mastery via Distribution Contractive RL Finetuning
Residual off-policy RL with selective BC regularization and value-guided sampling contracts a pretrained generative robot policy around successful actions, reaching high success on hard long-horizon tasks from pixels ...
-
A Task-Centric Theory for Iterative Self-Improvement with Easy-to-Hard Curricula
Iterative self-improvement provably keeps improving only when initial performance lies in a moderate difficulty interval, and easy-to-hard curricula beat fixed mixtures under moderate difficulty separation and suffici...
-
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Entropy Minimization in LLM Reasoning
Entropy minimization on self-generated outputs elicits strong reasoning in pretrained LLMs, matching or exceeding supervised RL methods on benchmarks.
-
Select and Improve: Understanding the Mechanics of Post-Training for Reasoning
Controlled experiments on Qwen-2.5-1.5B identify strategy selection (enabled by diverse SFT data) and strategy improvement (enabled by harder RL data) as the core mechanisms through which RL post-training enhances reasoning.
-
Trust Region On-Policy Distillation
TrOPD stabilizes on-policy distillation for LLMs with trust-region learning, outlier estimation, and off-policy guidance, outperforming prior OPD methods on reasoning and code benchmarks.
-
On the Generalization Gap in Self-Evolving Language Model Reasoning
Closed-loop self-evolution on LLMs improves reasoning on Knights and Knaves tasks but plateaus short of oracle-supervised levels, with multi-turn revision nearly matching it for large models.
-
Beyond Distribution Sharpening: The Importance of Task Rewards
Task-reward reinforcement learning yields robust gains on math benchmarks for models like Llama-3.2-3B while distribution sharpening alone delivers only limited and unstable improvements.
-
The Role of Generator Access in Autoregressive Post-Training
Limited generator access in autoregressive post-training confines learners to root-start rollouts whose value is bounded by on-policy prefix probabilities, while weak prefix control unlocks richer observations and pro...
-
Reward Modeling for Reinforcement Learning-Based LLM Reasoning: Design, Challenges, and Evaluation
A taxonomy-driven survey arguing that reward design is the central mechanism shaping reliable LLM reasoning, with maps of reward paradigms, reward-hacking failure modes, and benchmark pitfalls.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.