Lovish Madaan

Rachit Bansal, Aston Zhang, Rishabh Tiwari et al. · harvard, microsoft-research

Progress on training and architecture strategies has enabled LLMs with millions of tokens in context length. However, empirical evidence suggests that such long-context LLMs can consume far more text than they can reliably use. On the other hand, it has been shown that inference-time compute can be used to scale performance of LLMs, often by generating thinking tokens, on challenging tasks involving multi-step reasoning. Through controlled experiments on sandbox long-context tasks, we find that such inference-time strategies show rapidly diminishing returns and fail at long context. We attribute these failures to score dilution, a phenomenon inherent to static self-attention. Further, we show that current inference-time strategies cannot retrieve relevant long-context signals under certain conditions. We propose a simple method that, through targeted gradient updates on the given context, provably overcomes limitations of static self-attention. We find that this shift in how inference-time compute is spent leads to consistently large performance improvements across models and long-context benchmarks. Our method leads to large 12.6 and 14.1 percentage point improvements for Qwen3-4B on average across subsets of LongBench-v2 and ZeroScrolls benchmarks. The takeaway is practical: for long context, a small amount of context-specific training is a better use of inference compute than current inference-time scaling strategies like producing more thinking tokens.

Deepak Nathani, Lovish Madaan, Nicholas Roberts et al.

We introduce Meta MLGym and MLGym-Bench, a new framework and benchmark for evaluating and developing LLM agents on AI research tasks. This is the first Gym environment for machine learning (ML) tasks, enabling research on reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms for training such agents. MLGym-bench consists of 13 diverse and open-ended AI research tasks from diverse domains such as computer vision, natural language processing, reinforcement learning, and game theory. Solving these tasks requires real-world AI research skills such as generating new ideas and hypotheses, creating and processing data, implementing ML methods, training models, running experiments, analyzing the results, and iterating through this process to improve on a given task. We evaluate a number of frontier large language models (LLMs) on our benchmarks such as Claude-3.5-Sonnet, Llama-3.1 405B, GPT-4o, o1-preview, and Gemini-1.5 Pro. Our MLGym framework makes it easy to add new tasks, integrate and evaluate models or agents, generate synthetic data at scale, as well as develop new learning algorithms for training agents on AI research tasks. We find that current frontier models can improve on the given baselines, usually by finding better hyperparameters, but do not generate novel hypotheses, algorithms, architectures, or substantial improvements. We open-source our framework and benchmark to facilitate future research in advancing the AI research capabilities of LLM agents.

Albert S. Yue, Lovish Madaan, Ted Moskovitz et al.

Math reasoning is becoming an ever increasing area of focus as we scale large language models. However, even the previously-toughest evals like MATH are now close to saturated by frontier models (90.0% for o1-mini and 86.5% for Gemini 1.5 Pro). We introduce HARP, Human Annotated Reasoning Problems (for Math), consisting of 5,409 problems from the US national math competitions (A(J)HSME, AMC, AIME, USA(J)MO). Of these, 4,780 have answers that are automatically check-able (with libraries such as SymPy). These problems range six difficulty levels, with frontier models performing relatively poorly on the hardest bracket of 197 problems (average accuracy 41.1% for o1-mini, and 9.6% for Gemini 1.5 Pro). Our dataset also features multiple choices (for 4,110 problems) and an average of two human-written, ground-truth solutions per problem, offering new avenues of research that we explore briefly. We report evaluations for many frontier models and share some interesting analyses, such as demonstrating that frontier models across families intrinsically scale their inference-time compute for more difficult problems. Finally, we open source all code used for dataset construction (including scraping) and all code for evaluation (including answer checking) to enable future research at: https://github.com/aadityasingh/HARP.

Yunhao Tang, Sid Wang, Lovish Madaan et al.

We propose to scale RL to unverifiable data with a novel algorithm JEPO (Jensen's Evidence lower bound Policy Optimization). While most prior efforts on scaling RL for LLMs focus on verifiable data where ground truth answers are typically short-form and can be matched easily; we investigate the case where such assumptions are less valid (e.g., when answers are long-form such as mathematical proofs). To scale RL training to unverifiable data with contemporary training constraints, we propose JEPO. JEPO applies Jensen's evidence lower bound, a pragmatic simplification of the evidence lower bound which views chain-of-thought as a latent variable in the generative process. We show that on verifiable data (math), JEPO is as effective as RL with verifiable rewards; on semi-verifiable data (numina), JEPO improves on soft-match based evaluations compared to RL with verifiable rewards which can only leverage a subset of the data source; finally, on unverifiable data (numina-proof), JEPO outperforms SFT and a few ablation baselines on likelihood evaluations.

Lovish Madaan, David Esiobu, Pontus Stenetorp et al.

In the recent past, a popular way of evaluating natural language understanding (NLU), was to consider a model's ability to perform natural language inference (NLI) tasks. In this paper, we investigate if NLI tasks, that are rarely used for LLM evaluation, can still be informative for evaluating LLMs. Focusing on five different NLI benchmarks across six models of different scales, we investigate if they are able to discriminate models of different size and quality and how their accuracies develop during training. Furthermore, we investigate the extent to which the softmax distributions of models align with human distributions in cases where statements are ambiguous or vague. Overall, our results paint a positive picture for the NLI tasks: we find that they are able to discriminate well between models at various stages of training, yet are not (all) saturated. Furthermore, we find that while the similarity of model distributions with human label distributions increases with scale, it is still much higher than the similarity between two populations of humans, making it a potentially interesting statistic to consider.

Devvrit Khatri, Lovish Madaan, Rishabh Tiwari et al. · berkeley

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become central to training large language models (LLMs), yet the field lacks predictive scaling methodologies comparable to those established for pre-training. Despite rapidly rising compute budgets, there is no principled understanding of how to evaluate algorithmic improvements for scaling RL compute. We present the first large-scale systematic study, amounting to more than 400,000 GPU-hours, that defines a principled framework for analyzing and predicting RL scaling in LLMs. We fit sigmoidal compute-performance curves for RL training and ablate a wide range of common design choices to analyze their effects on asymptotic performance and compute efficiency. We observe: (1) Not all recipes yield similar asymptotic performance, (2) Details such as loss aggregation, normalization, curriculum, and off-policy algorithm primarily modulate compute efficiency without materially shifting the asymptote, and (3) Stable, scalable recipes follow predictable scaling trajectories, enabling extrapolation from smaller-scale runs. Combining these insights, we propose a best-practice recipe, ScaleRL, and demonstrate its effectiveness by successfully scaling and predicting validation performance on a single RL run scaled up to 100,000 GPU-hours. Our work provides both a scientific framework for analyzing scaling in RL and a practical recipe that brings RL training closer to the predictability long achieved in pre-training.

Rylan Schaeffer, Punit Singh Koura, Binh Tang et al.

The explosion of high-performing conversational language models (LMs) has spurred a shift from classic natural language processing (NLP) benchmarks to expensive, time-consuming and noisy human evaluations - yet the relationship between these two evaluation strategies remains hazy. In this paper, we conduct a large-scale study of four Chat Llama 2 models, comparing their performance on 160 standard NLP benchmarks (e.g., MMLU, ARC, BIG-Bench Hard) against extensive human preferences on more than 11k single-turn and 2k multi-turn dialogues from over 2k human annotators. Our findings are striking: most NLP benchmarks strongly correlate with human evaluations, suggesting that cheaper, automated metrics can serve as surprisingly reliable predictors of human preferences. Three human evaluations, such as adversarial dishonesty and safety, are anticorrelated with NLP benchmarks, while two are uncorrelated. Moreover, through overparameterized linear regressions, we show that NLP scores can accurately predict human evaluations across different model scales, offering a path to reduce costly human annotation without sacrificing rigor. Overall, our results affirm the continued value of classic benchmarks and illuminate how to harness them to anticipate real-world user satisfaction - pointing to how NLP benchmarks can be leveraged to meet evaluation needs of our new era of conversational AI.

Lovish Madaan, Aaditya K. Singh, Rylan Schaeffer et al.

Evaluation benchmarks are the cornerstone of measuring capabilities of large language models (LLMs), as well as driving progress in said capabilities. Originally designed to make claims about capabilities (or lack thereof) in fully pretrained models, evaluation benchmarks are now also extensively used to decide between various training choices. Despite this widespread usage, we rarely quantify the variance in our evaluation benchmarks, which dictates whether differences in performance are meaningful. Here, we define and measure a range of metrics geared towards measuring variance in evaluation benchmarks, including seed variance across initialisations, and monotonicity during training. By studying a large number of models -- both openly available and pretrained from scratch -- we provide empirical estimates for a variety of variance metrics, with considerations and recommendations for practitioners. We also evaluate the utility and tradeoffs of continuous versus discrete performance measures and explore options for better understanding and reducing this variance. We find that simple changes, such as framing choice tasks (like MMLU) as completion tasks, can often reduce variance for smaller scale ($\sim$7B) models, while more involved methods inspired from human testing literature (such as item analysis and item response theory) struggle to meaningfully reduce variance. Overall, our work provides insights into variance in evaluation benchmarks, suggests LM-specific techniques to reduce variance, and more generally encourages practitioners to carefully factor in variance when comparing models.