Advancing LLM Reasoning Generalists with Preference Trees
We introduce EURUS, a suite of large language models (LLMs) optimized for reasoning. Finetuned from Mistral-7B and CodeLlama-70B, EURUS models achieve state-of-the-art results among open-source models on a diverse set of benchmarks covering mathematics, code generation, and logical reasoning problems. Notably, EURUS-70B beats GPT-3.5 Turbo in reasoning through a comprehensive benchmarking across 12 tests covering five tasks, and achieves a 33.3% pass@1 accuracy on LeetCode and 32.6% on TheoremQA, two challenging benchmarks, substantially outperforming existing open-source models by margins more than 13.3%. The strong performance of EURUS can be primarily attributed to ULTRAINTERACT, our newly-curated large-scale, high-quality alignment dataset specifically designed for complex reasoning tasks. ULTRAINTERACT can be used in both supervised fine-tuning and preference learning. For each instruction, it includes a preference tree consisting of (1) reasoning chains with diverse planning strategies in a unified format, (2) multi-turn interaction trajectories with the environment and the critique, and (3) pairwise data to facilitate preference learning. ULTRAINTERACT allows us to conduct an in-depth exploration of preference learning for reasoning tasks.
Introduction. Current alignment techniques have significantly advanced the development of open-source large language models (LLMs) that effectively meet user expectations and align with human values (Touvron et al., 2023; Tunstall et al., 2023). On complex reasoning, success has been achieved by specializing models for specific capabilities, such as coding (Wei et al., 2023; Guo et al., 2024a; Zheng et al., 2024) and solving math problems (Fu et al., 2023; Yue et al., 2023; Luo et al., 2023a; Toshniwal et al., 2024). However, these models still fall short, by large margins, of the most advanced proprietary models in their all-around capabilities to tackle a diverse range of challenging problems. We conjecture that this performance gap can be primarily attributed to (1) the lack of high-quality alignment data and (2) the underexploration of preference learning techniques for improving models’ complex reasoning capabilities. In this paper, we take strides towards bridging this gap by addressing both factors and developing EURUS.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
How can reward models better represent diverse individual human preferences?- How does preference learning differ from supervised finetuning for reasoning?
- What explicit concept annotations would improve cross-concept preference reasoning?
- Can alignment methods like DPO exploit or correct these surface feature biases?
- Can reward-guided decoding replace weight fine-tuning for personalized alignment?
- Why does open-ended search outperform direct curriculum building approaches?
- Does selecting examples from multiple complexity levels outperform selecting only high-quality examples?
- Can selecting the right data subset outperform training on everything?
- Can communication problems and optimization problems be addressed with the same alignment approaches?
- Can a single AI system optimize multiple alignment dimensions simultaneously?
- Why does even 0.1 percent poisoned training data persist through alignment?
- Why do small training data contaminations persist through alignment for most attack types?
- Does removing cognitive bias from training signals accidentally break what makes alignment work?
- Why does post-training suppress alignment faking in some models but amplify it in others?
- Does gradient-based influence estimation identify which alignment examples actually matter most?
- What specific behavioral patterns should alignment examples target for maximum effect?