Data Diversification Methods In Alignment Enhance Math Performance In LLMs

Ben Athiwaratkun; Berkan Dokmeci; Ce Zhang; James Zou; Qingyang Wu; Shuaiwen Leon Song

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Data Diversification Methods In Alignment Enhance Math Performance In LLMs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Structured diversity in preference data—first propose several solution approaches, then solve each one—raises an 8B model's GSM8K accuracy to 83.2% and MATH to 52.4%.

desk verdict The DTS pipeline is plausible and cheap, but the headline gains are not independently measured: the same test sets are used for reward-model selection, hyperparameter selection, and final reporting, so the claimed margins—especially the 0.2-point MATH gap—are not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02173 v1 pith:MAXJP5EV submitted 2025-07-02 cs.AI

Berkan Dokmeci , Qingyang Wu , Ben Athiwaratkun , Ce Zhang , Shuaiwen Leon Song , James Zou This is my paper

classification cs.AI

keywords preferenceoptimizationmathematicalreasoningdatadiversificationDiversified-ThinkSolvedirectSimPOGSM8KMATHbenchmark

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that how preference data is generated matters more for math alignment than which preference optimizer is used. It compares four ways of building preference pairs—temperature sampling, chain-of-thought prompting, Monte Carlo tree search, and its own Diversified-ThinkSolve (DTS)—and finds that DTS, which first proposes several distinct solution approaches and then writes a full solution for each, delivers the largest gains on both GSM8K and MATH. The best DTS configurations reach 83.2% on GSM8K and 52.4% on MATH-500, improvements of 7.1 and 4.2 percentage points over the base 8B model. These gains cost only 1.03 times the compute of plain sampling, whereas MCTS costs 4.85 times and performs worse. If the result holds, structured diversity of reasoning strategies is a cheaper and more effective source of alignment signal than expensive search.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the DTS preference-pair pipeline: a ThoughtGenerator produces five deliberately different high-level approaches for each problem, and a SolutionGenerator turns each approach into a full solution, giving five solutions per problem. Pairs are then filtered by a 'mixed correctness' rule—only problems where exactly two or three of the five solutions are correct are kept—and a reward model picks the highest-scoring correct solution as the preferred completion and the highest-scoring incorrect one as the rejected completion. This explicit separation of thought from execution is what creates strategic diversity: solutions that follow different mathematical routes rather than paraphrases of the same route. The paper argues this richer contrast in the preference data, rather than the particular optimizer, is what lifts reasoning performance.

What would settle it

Run the DTS pipeline again with the reward model and hyperparameters picked on a held-out validation set and report final scores on a GSM8K and MATH test split that was never touched during any selection step; if the DTS advantage over temperature sampling shrinks to within noise, the structured-diversity claim is falsified. A complementary control: replace the ThoughtGenerator's 'five approaches' prompt with a prompt that asks for five paraphrased versions of the same approach; if performance does not drop, diversity of method is not the active ingredient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that two-phase generation makes better preference data. In DTS, a ThoughtGenerator module is prompted to list five distinct approaches for a math problem, mentioning relevant concepts, formulas, or techniques; a SolutionGenerator then produces one complete worked solution for each approach. This decouples the choice of a reasoning strategy from its execution, so the resulting preferred and rejected pairs differ in method rather than only in wording. Trained on these pairs, an 8B instruction-tuned model reaches 83.2% on GSM8K (with SimPO) and 52.4% on MATH-500 (with DPO), while the same base model without alignment scores 76.1% and 48.2%. DTS outperforms temperature sampling, chain-of-thought prompting, and MCTS across nearly every optimizer, at a compute overhead of only 1.03x over baseline—strong evidence for the paper's claim that data diversity and quality, not the optimization algorithm, drive math improvements.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the final test numbers measure the methods fairly, which requires the reward model and the best training settings to be chosen without looking at the test benchmarks; in the paper, reward-model selection and the epoch and hyperparameter sweeps use the GSM8K test set and MATH-500, so the headline gains may be partly selected for rather than independently measured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

DTS preference data with SimPO reaches 83.2% on GSM8K, and DTS with DPO reaches 52.4% on MATH-500—gains of 7.1 and 4.2 points over the base model.
Structured diversity beats random diversity: DTS outperforms temperature sampling while using only 1.03x its compute, so the improvement is nearly free.
Expensive search is not the answer for this setting: MCTS consumes 4.85x baseline compute and still trails DTS on both benchmarks.
Data generation strategy matters more than optimizer: across SFT, DPO, ORPO, and SimPO, the spread in results is larger between data strategies than between optimizers.
Untamed diversity can destabilize training: CoT and MCTS preference data cause severe epoch-to-epoch drops with SimPO (CoT falls to 53.0% average GSM8K; MCTS collapses to single digits on MATH), so diverse data must also be coherent.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A fair holdout evaluation could shrink the reported DTS advantage, because the reward model and the best epochs were selected using the same GSM8K test and MATH-500 numbers that appear as final results; this is a testable prediction, not a claim the paper makes.
The think-then-solve recipe likely transfers to other decomposable reasoning domains—code generation, planning, proof search—where enumerating strategies before solving produces informative preference pairs; the paper only evaluates math benchmarks.
Varying the 'mixed correctness' filter (2-3 correct out of 5) and the reward model would test whether DTS's advantage comes from strategic diversity or from the particular quality filter; the paper does not ablate these choices.
Controlling for token count and output format across strategies would test whether DTS gains come from diversity or simply from longer, more structured generations; the paper reports compute cost but not this format control.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the headline numbers are selected, not measured. The GSM8K test set is used twice before the final results are reported—once to choose the reward model and once to pick hyperparameters and best epochs—so the reported DTS advantage is partly an artifact of test-set selection. The MATH gap over the best baseline is 0.2 points, which on a single seed and best-of-sweep selection is no signal at all. On MATH at epoch 5, DTS+DPO is actually below Baseline+DPO (51.6 vs 52.2).

That said, the paper is not empty. DTS as a two-stage 'generate five approaches, then solve each' pipeline is a simple, cheap, and plausible way to create preference data. The comparison across four data strategies and four alignment methods, with a careful reward-model evaluation and a transparent token-budget analysis, is a reasonable piece of empirical work. The writing is clear and the appendix gives enough detail to reproduce the pipeline.

The problems are real and load-bearing. Section 4.2 selects the reward model by minimizing incorrect_higher on the GSM8K test set. Section 5.2 and Figure 3 then select learning rates, beta/gamma, and best epochs from sweeps evaluated on the same GSM8K test set and MATH-500. The reported 83.2 and 52.4 are maxima over roughly 76 training runs and five epochs, with no repeated seeds and no significance tests. The abstract's 7.1%/4.2% gains are relative to the untuned base model, not to the best tuned baseline, which makes the effect look much larger than the data support. The limitations section notes the narrow benchmark scope and reward-model dependence, which is honest, but it never flags the selection problem, and that is the central issue.

Would I accept it as is? No. But it deserves a serious referee rather than a desk reject, because the question is meaningful and the flaw is fixable: rerun with a held-out validation split for reward-model and hyperparameter selection, report multiple seeds with variance, and compare against the tuned baseline. If the DTS margin survives that, the paper becomes a modest but useful contribution. As submitted, the ordering of strategies is not established.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies how the way preference data are generated affects math performance after preference optimization. It compares temperature sampling, chain-of-thought prompting, MCTS, and a new method, Diversified-ThinkSolve (DTS), which first generates five distinct solution approaches and then produces a solution for each approach. Using Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, preference data from MetaMathQA, Nemotron-70B as the reward model, and SFT/DPO/ORPO/SimPO trainers, it reports DTS as the best strategy (83.2% GSM8K, 52.4% MATH), with a claimed 1.03x compute overhead over baseline. The appendices provide hyperparameter sweeps, epoch curves, code listings, and qualitative solution examples.

Significance. The research question is timely: whether structured diversity in preference pairs can improve mathematical reasoning is practically important, and the DTS pipeline is simple and described in enough detail to reproduce. The paper also reports a large hyperparameter sweep, which is useful documentation. However, the central empirical claim is not supported by the current evaluation. The reward model, hyperparameters, and best epoch are all selected using the same GSM8K test set and MATH-500 that are later reported as final results, and all experiments use a single seed. The headline comparison to the base model also obscures that the margin over the best tuned baseline is only 0.2 percentage points on MATH. The compute-efficiency claim appears to rest on an inconsistent token accounting. These are load-bearing issues, not presentation problems.

major comments (3)

[§4.2, §5.2, Table 2, Figure 3] The final numbers are selected, not measured. The reward model is chosen by minimizing incorrect_higher on the GSM8K test set (§4.2, Table 4), and that reward model labels every preference pair. The reported DTS results are the best over a sweep of 76 training runs and 5 epochs, with hyperparameters and the best epoch selected on the same GSM8K test set and MATH-500 (§5.2, Table 2; §5.3, Figure 3). Thus 83.2% and 52.4% are maxima of a selection procedure. The 0.2-point MATH gap between DTS+DPO (52.4) and Baseline+DPO (52.2) is within the noise of best-of-sweep selection; Table 6 even shows DTS+DPO at epoch 5 (51.6) below Baseline+DPO at epoch 5 (52.2). A held-out validation split (or repeated splits) and pre-specified configurations are needed before any strategy ranking can be claimed.
[§A.1, Table 1, Table 6] The experiments use a single random seed (42, §A.1) and no significance tests. On MATH-500, a 0.2 percentage point difference is one problem, so the reported DTS advantage over the best baseline on MATH is not statistically meaningful. Even the GSM8K margin (2.5 points over Baseline+SimPO) needs error bars across seeds, especially since the same test set was used to select the configuration. Reporting best-epoch accuracy in Table 1 and Table 6 compounds the selection problem; averages over epochs do not fix this because the hyperparameters were still chosen on the test set.
[§3.4, §A.5.1, Table 3] The claimed 1.03x compute overhead for DTS is inconsistent with the described pipeline. Section 3.4 says DTS generates N=5 approaches and then 'for each generated approach' produces a complete solution, which is 1 ThoughtGenerator call plus 5 SolutionGenerator calls per problem. Appendix A.5.1, however, counts only one SolutionGenerator call (495 tokens total vs 482 for baseline). Using the authors' own token estimates, DTS should be 147 + 5*348 = 1,887 tokens per problem. Meanwhile, the baseline generates 5 completions per problem (§3.1), so baseline should be 5*482 = 2,410 tokens per problem. In either consistent accounting, the ratio is not 1.03x: it is 0.78x if baseline is 5 completions, or 3.9x if the 482 baseline figure is treated as per-problem. The efficiency comparison in Table 3 and the abstract's 'marginal overhead' claim therefore need to be redone.

minor comments (5)

[§3.2] The phrase 'illicit chain of thought' should be 'elicit chain of thought'.
[§5.2] The word 'configratuions' should be 'configurations'.
[Table 1] The CoT+SimPO average GSM8K value (53.0%) is much lower than the best value; since Figure 3 shows a collapse after epoch 1, consider reporting the median or noting the collapse in the table caption to avoid confusion.
[References] The reference list contains several entries that do not appear to be cited in the text (e.g., Chen et al. 2024a, Guo et al. 2024a, Gururangan et al. 2024, Khattab et al. 2024, Khot et al. 2022); please either cite them or remove them.
[§4.2, Table 4] The main text says the reward model has an 'average inaccuracy rate of 3.11% on the GSM8K test set', but Table 4 reports different error rates for different generator models; clarify that 3.11% corresponds to Llama-3.2-3B-IT outputs.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity; the only circularity-adjacent issue is that the reward model and all hyperparameters/epochs are selected on the same GSM8K test set and MATH-500 used to report the headline gains, making the best DTS numbers partly selected rather than independently measured.

fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2 (Reward Model Selection); Section 5.2 and Table 2 caption; Table 1 caption]
"We evaluated several candidate reward models from the top models on RewardBench ... by having them score both model-generated completions and ground truth solutions on the GSM8K test set. ... For every hyperparameter setting we report the best–epoch accuracy (%) on GSM8K and MATH. ... We report both the best and average performance across 5 epochs for the optimal hyperparameter setting for each fine-tuning method and data generation strategy."

The reported 'best' column is, by construction, the maximum of the hyperparameter/epoch sweep evaluated on the same GSM8K test set and MATH-500 that are then used as the headline results: Section 4.2 selects the reward model on the GSM8K test set, and Table 2's caption defines each entry as 'best–epoch accuracy (%) on GSM8K and MATH', which Table 1 then reports as the strategy's 'best' performance. The headline DTS figures (83.2 GSM8K, 52.4 MATH) are therefore selected maxima over that test-set sweep, not independent held-out estimates, and the reward model chosen on the same test set also labels every preference pair. This is mild fitted-input-called-prediction / selection bias rather than equation-level circularity.

full rationale

The paper contains no first-principles derivation chain: DTS is an empirically compared data-generation strategy, and no load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-via-citation is used. The DTS definition (ThoughtGenerator plus SolutionGenerator) does not encode the reported accuracies. The only concern is the evaluation protocol: reward-model choice (Section 4.2) and hyperparameter/epoch choice (Section 5.2, Table 2, Figure 3) are both made on the same GSM8K test set and MATH-500 that produce the headline numbers (Table 1). That is a correctness risk for the claimed margins, especially the 0.2-point MATH advantage, but it does not make the central claim equivalent to its inputs by definition. I therefore assign a low score of 2 rather than a higher circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison rests on a set of hand-chosen data-generation hyperparameters (temperatures, filter rules, DTS N=5) and per-strategy training hyperparameters tuned on the test benchmarks. The reward model is a domain assumption. These parameters, especially the test-set-selected hyperparameters, are what make the central claim depend on choices rather than an independent, parameter-free measurement.

free parameters (8)

DTS number of approaches (N) = 5
Set by hand and used for all DTS runs; no sweep over N is reported (Section 3.4, Figure 5).
Baseline sampling temperature = 2.0
Chosen for temperature-sampling diversity in Section 3.1; affects which completions are correct and thus which preference pairs are filtered.
Baseline top_p and top_k = 0.75 and 50
Sampling parameters for baseline completions (Section 3.1); not swept.
CoT/MCTS generation temperature = 0.7
Used for CoT and MCTS data generation (Sections 3.2, 3.3); not swept.
MCTS exploration_weight, num_simulations, simulation_depth = 0.2, 2, 1
Default OptiLLM settings (Section 3.3); affect the diversity and quality of MCTS solutions.
Mixed-correctness filter threshold = 2-3 correct out of 5
Hand-chosen criterion for keeping problems in the preference dataset (Section 4.3); no comparison to other thresholds.
Per-strategy training hyperparameters (lr, beta, gamma) = e.g., SimPO lr=5e-7, beta=10, gamma=0.3 for DTS GSM8K best
Tuned by grid search for each data strategy; optimal values differ by strategy and benchmark (Section 5.2, Table 2).
Best epoch selection = 1 to 5 depending on method
Final scores are the best epoch over training; Figure 3 and Table 6 show large epoch-to-epoch variability, especially on MATH.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Preference optimization on deduplicated MetaMathQA transfers to GSM8K test and MATH-500
The paper trains on MetaMathQA and evaluates on GSM8K/MATH; no evidence of distribution mismatch is discussed (Section 4.1).
domain assumption The Nemotron-70B reward model scores correlate with mathematical correctness
All preference pairs use this reward model; validation is limited to a 3% error rate on the same GSM8K test set used later (Section 4.2, A.2).
ad hoc to paper Using 2-3 correct out of 5 generations yields useful preference pairs
The mixed-correctness filter is not compared to other filtering strategies (Section 4.3).
ad hoc to paper Single-seed best-epoch test-set evaluation is a fair comparison
The paper reports best-epoch/best-hyperparameter scores without variance or holdout (Sections 4.1, 5.2).
domain assumption Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct is representative of LLMs for this comparison
Only one base model is used; limitations section acknowledges scale concern (Section 7.3).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data Diversification Methods In Alignment Enhance Math Performance In LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MAXJP5EV

@misc{pith2026250702173,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data Diversification Methods In Alignment Enhance Math Performance In LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MAXJP5EV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02173}
}

read the original abstract

While recent advances in preference learning have enhanced alignment in human feedback, mathematical reasoning remains a persistent challenge. We investigate how data diversification strategies in preference optimization can improve the mathematical reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs). We evaluate three common data generation methods: temperature sampling, Chain-of-Thought prompting, and Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS), and introduce Diversified-ThinkSolve (DTS), a novel structured approach that systematically decomposes problems into diverse reasoning paths. Our results show that with strategically diversified preference data, models can substantially improve mathematical reasoning performance, with the best approach yielding gains of 7.1% on GSM8K and 4.2% on MATH over the base model. Despite its strong performance, DTS incurs only a marginal computational overhead (1.03x) compared to the baseline, while MCTS is nearly five times more costly with lower returns. These findings demonstrate that structured exploration of diverse problem-solving methods creates more effective preference data for mathematical alignment than traditional approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02173 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Reward Model Accuracy Comparison. Bars represent average counts of prediction outcomes for different reward models. filtering approach, selecting only cases where 2-3 out of 5 model generations were correct, ensuring the model learns to distinguish between correct and incorrect reasoning patterns. We then used our reward model to select the highest-scored correct completion as yw and the highest-scored incorrect com… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Performance progression across training epochs for different data generation strategies using optimal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Representative DPO training configuration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: ThoughtGenerator module implementation responsible for generating diverse mathematical reasoning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: SolutionGenerator module implementation that produces complete solutions based on specific reasoning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, Nicholas Joseph, Saurav Kadavath, John Kernion, Tom Conerly, Sheer El-Showk, Nelson Elhage, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Tristan Hume, Scott Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Liane Lovitt, Neel Nanda, Catherine Olsson, Dar...

arXiv 2022
[2]

Bowman, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Ben Mann, Dario Amodei, Nicholas Joseph, Sam McCandlish, Tom Brown, and Jared Kaplan

Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, Amanda Askell, John Kernion, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Cameron McKinnon, Carol Chen, Catherine Olsson, Christopher Olah, Danny Hernandez, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Dustin Li, Eli Tran-Johnson, Ethan Perez, Jamie Kerr, Jamie Mueller, Jared Ladish, Joshua Landau, Kamal Ndousse, Kamile...

arXiv 2022
[3]

Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E. Terry. 1952. https://doi.org/10.2307/2334029 Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons . Biometrika, 39(3/4):324--345

doi:10.2307/2334029 1952
[4]

Howard Chen, Zexuan Rong, Kwan Li, Percy Liang, and Omar Khattab. 2024 a . Assisting in writing wikipedia-like articles from scratch with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14207

arXiv 2024
[5]

Lichang Chen, Shiyang Li, Jun Yan, Hai Wang, Kalpa Gunaratna, Vikas Yadav, Zheng Tang, Vijay Srinivasan, Tianyi Zhou, Heng Huang, and Hongxia Jin. 2024 b . Alpagasus: Training a better alpaca with fewer data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08701

arXiv 2024
[6]

Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30

work page 2017
[7]

codelion. 2024. Optillm: A framework for optimizing llm generations. https://github.com/codelion/optillm

work page 2024
[8]

Tri Dao. 2024. Flash A ttention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

2024

Show all 52 references

[9]

Shunyu Feng, Lisa Yuan, Aditya Sharma, Xiang Li, Antonio Torralba, Leslie Kaelbling, Joshua Tenenbaum, and Lerrel Pinto. 2023. Alphazero-like tree-search can guide large language model decoding and training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17179

2023 arXiv
[10]

Luca Gallo and Sandiway Karmakar. 2024. A comparative study of dspy teleprompter algorithms for aligning large language models evaluation metrics to human evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10345

2024 arXiv
[11]

Saujas Guo, Karan Gupta, Sanjeev Arora, Angela Fan, and Danqi Chen. 2024 a . Optimizing instructions and demonstrations for multi-stage language model programs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00330

2024 arXiv
[12]

Shangmin Guo, Biao Zhang, Tianlin Liu, Tianqi Liu, Misha Khalman, Felipe Llinares, Alexandre Rame, Thomas Mesnard, Yao Zhao, Bilal Piot, Johan Ferret, and Mathieu Blondel. 2024 b . http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.04792 Direct language model alignment from online ai feedback

2024 arXiv
[13]

Suchin Gururangan, Xiaoxuan Wang, Percy Liang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Nanyun Peng. 2024. In-context learning for extreme multi-label classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12178

2024 arXiv
[14]

Alex Havrilla, Sharath Raparthy, Christoforus Nalmpantis, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Maksym Zhuravinskyi, Eric Hambro, and Roberta Railneau. 2024. Glore: When, where, and how to improve llm reasoning via global and local refinements. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10963

2024 arXiv
[15]

Jiwoo Hong, Noah Lee, and James Thorne. 2024. Orpo: Monolithic preference optimization without reference model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07691

2024 arXiv
[16]

Natasha Jaques, Shixiang Gu, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Jos \'e Miguel Hern \'a ndez-Lobato, Richard E Turner, and Douglas Eck. 2017. Sequence tutor: Conservative fine-tuning of sequence generation models with kl-control. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1645--1654. PMLR

2017
[17]

Natasha Jaques, Judy Hanwen Shen, Asma Ghandeharioun, Craig Ferguson, Agata Lapedriza, Noah Jones, Shixiang Shane Gu, and Rosalind Picard. 2020. Human-centric dialog training via offline reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.05848

2020 arXiv
[18]

Omar Khattab, Amereen Alagesan, Ziqiao Zhuang, Cameron Harris, Percy Liang, and Matei Zaharia. 2024. Fine-tuning and prompt optimization: Two great steps that work better together. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.00183

2024 arXiv
[19]

Omar Khattab, Christopher Potts, Percy Liang, and Matei Zaharia. 2023 a . Dspy assertions: Computational constraints for self-refining language model pipelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.13382

2023 arXiv
[20]

Omar Khattab, Keshav Santhanam, Xiang Lisa Li, David Hall, Percy Liang, Christopher Potts, and Matei Zaharia. 2023 b . Dspy: Compiling declarative language model calls into self-improving pipelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15298

2023 arXiv
[21]

Tushar Khot, Harsh Trivedi, Matthew Finlayson, Yao Fu, Kyle Richardson, Peter Clark, and Ashish Sabharwal. 2022. Demonstrate-search-predict: Composing retrieval and language models for knowledge-intensive nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14024

2022 arXiv
[22]

Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. 2022. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:22199--22213

2022
[23]

Smith, and Hanna Hajishirzi

Nathan Lambert, Valentina Pyatkin, Jacob Daniel Morrison, Lester James Validad Miranda, Bill Yuchen Lin, Khyathi Raghavi Chandu, Nouha Dziri, Sachin Kumar, Tom Zick, Yejin Choi, Noah A. Smith, and Hanna Hajishirzi. 2024. Rewardbench: Evaluating reward models for language model...

2024 arXiv
[24]

Jan Leike, David Krueger, Tom Everitt, Miljan Martic, Vishal Maini, and Shane Legg. 2018. Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: a research direction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.07871

2018 arXiv
[25]

Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. 2023. Let's verify step by step. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050

2023 arXiv
[26]

Chen Liu, Kun Zhang, Shuai Sun, Kehan Chen, Qingxing Ye, Yingjun Wu, Chin-Yew Lin, and Ming Zhou. 2024 a . Monte carlo tree search boosts reasoning via iterative preference learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00676

2024 arXiv
[27]

Wei Liu, Weihao Zeng, Keqing He, Yong Jiang, and Junxian He. 2024 b . What makes good data for alignment? a comprehensive study of automatic data selection in instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.15685

2024 arXiv
[28]

Haipeng Luo, Qingfeng Sun, Can Xu, Pu Zhao, Jianguang Lou, Chongyang Tao, Xiubo Geng, Qingwei Lin, Shifeng Chen, and Dongmei Zhang. 2023. Wizardmath: Empowering mathematical reasoning for large language models via reinforced evol-instruct. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09583

2023 arXiv
[29]

Yu Meng, Mengzhou Xia, and Danqi Chen. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.14734 Simpo: Simple preference optimization with a reference-free reward

2024 arXiv
[30]

Meta AI . 2024. Llama 3.1 8b instruct. https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Meta-Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct. Accessed: June 2024

2024
[31]

NVIDIA NeMo Team . 2024. Llama-3.1-nemotron-70b-reward-hf. https://huggingface.co/nvidia/Llama-3.1-Nemotron-70B-Reward-HF. Accessed: June 2024

2024
[32]

Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke E

Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll 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 Welinder, Paul Francis Christiano, Jan...

2022
[33]

Plackett

Robin L. Plackett. 1975. https://doi.org/10.2307/2346567 The analysis of permutations . Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics), 24(2):193--202

1975 doi
[34]

Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=HPuSIXJaa9 Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model . In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Infor...

2023
[35]

Jeff Rasley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Olatunji Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. 2020. Deepspeed: System optimizations enable training deep learning models with over 100 billion parameters. Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining

2020
[36]

John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347

2017 arXiv
[37]

Yue Shen, Junxian He, Yuhuai Wu, Tsung-Hsien Kuo, and Xiang Lisa Li. 2024. Unveiling the secret recipe: A guide for supervised fine-tuning small llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09778

2024 arXiv
[38]

David Silver, Aja Huang, Chris J Maddison, Arthur Guez, Laurent Sifre, George Van Den Driessche, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Veda Panneershelvam, Marc Lanctot, et al. 2016. Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature, 529(7587):484--489

2016
[39]

Nisan Stiennon, Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Daniel Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul F Christiano. 2020. Learning to summarize with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:3008--3021

2020
[40]

Yao, Shi-Xiong Zhang, and Sambit Sahu

Wenpin Tang, David D. Yao, Shi-Xiong Zhang, and Sambit Sahu. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11191 A survey on human preference learning for large language models . arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11191

2024 arXiv
[41]

Together AI . 2024. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct API . https://www.together.ai/models/llama-3-1. Accessed: May 19, 2025

2024
[42]

Rush, and Thomas Wolf

Lewis Tunstall, Edward Beeching, Nathan Lambert, Nazneen Rajani, Shengyi Huang, Kashif Rasul, Alexander M. Rush, and Thomas Wolf. 2023. The alignment handbook. https://github.com/huggingface/alignment-handbook

2023
[43]

Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:24824--24837

2022
[44]

Mengzhou Xia, Sadhika Malladi, Suchin Gururangan, Sanjeev Arora, and Danqi Chen. 2024. Less: Selecting influential data for targeted instruction tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04333

2024 arXiv
[45]

Shusheng Xu, Wei Fu, Jiaxuan Gao, Wenjie Ye, Weilin Liu, Zhiyu Mei, Guangju Wang, Chao Yu, and Yi Wu. 2024. Is dpo superior to ppo for llm alignment? a comprehensive study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.10719

2024 arXiv
[46]

Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Thomas L Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2023. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10601

2023 arXiv
[47]

Longhui Yu, Weisen Jiang, Han Shi, Jincheng Yu, Zhengying Liu, Yu Zhang, James T Kwok, Zhenguo Li, Adrian Weller, and Weiyang Liu. 2023. Metamath: Bootstrap your own mathematical questions for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12284

2023 arXiv
[48]

Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E

Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric P. Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.05685 Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena

2023 arXiv
[49]

Chunting Zhou, Pengfei Liu, Puxin Xu, Srini Iyer, Jiao Sun, Yuning Mao, Xuezhe Ma, Avia Efrat, Ping Yu, Lili Yu, Susan Zhang, Gargi Ghosh, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. 2023. Lima: Less is more for alignment. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

2023
[50]

Jeffrey Zhou, Ki Ren Cheong, Alison Wang, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2024. Prompt-based monte carlo tree search for mitigating hallucinations in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11315

2024 arXiv
[51]

URL: " 'urlintro :=

ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before...
[52]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, Nicholas Joseph, Saurav Kadavath, John Kernion, Tom Conerly, Sheer El-Showk, Nelson Elhage, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Tristan Hume, Scott Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Liane Lovitt, Neel Nanda, Catherine Olsson, Dar...

arXiv 2022

[2] [2]

Bowman, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Ben Mann, Dario Amodei, Nicholas Joseph, Sam McCandlish, Tom Brown, and Jared Kaplan

Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, Amanda Askell, John Kernion, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Cameron McKinnon, Carol Chen, Catherine Olsson, Christopher Olah, Danny Hernandez, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Dustin Li, Eli Tran-Johnson, Ethan Perez, Jamie Kerr, Jamie Mueller, Jared Ladish, Joshua Landau, Kamal Ndousse, Kamile...

arXiv 2022

[3] [3]

Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E. Terry. 1952. https://doi.org/10.2307/2334029 Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons . Biometrika, 39(3/4):324--345

doi:10.2307/2334029 1952

[4] [4]

Howard Chen, Zexuan Rong, Kwan Li, Percy Liang, and Omar Khattab. 2024 a . Assisting in writing wikipedia-like articles from scratch with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14207

arXiv 2024

[5] [5]

Lichang Chen, Shiyang Li, Jun Yan, Hai Wang, Kalpa Gunaratna, Vikas Yadav, Zheng Tang, Vijay Srinivasan, Tianyi Zhou, Heng Huang, and Hongxia Jin. 2024 b . Alpagasus: Training a better alpaca with fewer data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08701

arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. 2017. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30

work page 2017

[7] [7]

codelion. 2024. Optillm: A framework for optimizing llm generations. https://github.com/codelion/optillm

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Tri Dao. 2024. Flash A ttention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

2024